I'm a fan of John Irving,and I think I've read all his works to date.
Not a huge fan of "In One Person". The topic material certainly had some potential - coming to grips with being gay/bisexual/transexual in a small town and private school setting. But the story never really went anywhere. The main character never really seemed to have any issues/problems or complications dealing with his bisexuality, the main "intriguing other", a student in the school lusted after by the main character and his close female friend was never either likable, nor particularly dislikable - it was hard to really care about him, even though his backstory had lots of interesting tidbits (odd mother, mainly), I never really cared enough about he character to be surprised/shocked/enlightened by any of the revelations.
The sadness of living through the first AIDS wave, when it was just being understood was touching, but as only marginally significant characters were involved, it lacked the "bite" that might have made the story more interesting.
Like all Irving books, there were quirks that made things interesting, but overall, not one of his best works.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Started (E-Reader): "In One Person" - John Irving
As a John Irving fan, and on the recommendation of my friend Gillian McLeod, I started Irving's latest novel "In One Person".
Finished (Audiobook) - "Events that Changed History" - The Great Courses
I liked "Events that changed history" to a point - what point? Mid-20th century. What lost me there? The author's admission that he considers the U.S. the greatest country ever, that he is a patriot, and that the U.S. only does good works.
Immediately, I smell bias. I think all "world powers", particularly at the height of their influence, feel exactly the same way - they want to share their culture, knowledge and world view, and for only the most altruistic of reasons. However, as a historian, the author needs to step beyond that perspective.
I'm not a U.S. hater, I grew up on the Canadian side of the border, but as close as you can get. However, I fail to see how the Cold War was always positive, even if the ultimate goals were considered required and honourable (some of the games were harmful to the countries where they were played out - Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, South America Cuba, border regions in Europe where the Iron Curtain was laid out...). You don't have to be a communist to see that capitalism is not a force for pure good (slavery in the older days, sub-subsistence wages in the current environment).
It is hard to understand the role of the U.S. in world history, and to understand what will be seen as positive and negative in the view of future historians because we are still in the U.S.-era - we don't have the luxury of perspective from the post-U.S. era. However, that doesn't allow historians to be flag wavers - they, more than most, need to keep their perspective and throw away the rose-coloured glasses. Kennedy's assassination was a key point in recent history - I would have loved some understanding of what might have changed in the next election (or the 2nd Kennedy term) had he lived. What further outcome to the Bay of Pigs/October Crisis might have arisen in a longer Kennedy presidency? Might detente have come 20 years earlier? Might Vietnam ended earlier or lasted longer, or spread more widely? This would have provided the impetus for making the list.
9-11 ends the events - but is there enough perspective to do this justice? What is the difference between the wars in Afghanistan (widely supported in the world) vs. Iraq (very little support) and how will that effect the U.S. international status in the longer term? Changes to U.S. privacy laws, and pre-emptive arrest, Guantanamo - how are these changes expected to alter the basis the U.S. was founded on? How do they influence world opinion of the U.S.? Even with the stated goal of reducing terrorism - does it makes sense - is in inflaming rather than resolving?
I think the author might have been wiser to stop sometime around the Wright Brothers, where there is a key linkage between their experiments and subsequent world events (shrinking of the world through air travel, increases arsenals for wartime use, eventual moon landings...) and leave more recent history for historical fiction, or for a more nuanced and independent analysis.
Immediately, I smell bias. I think all "world powers", particularly at the height of their influence, feel exactly the same way - they want to share their culture, knowledge and world view, and for only the most altruistic of reasons. However, as a historian, the author needs to step beyond that perspective.
I'm not a U.S. hater, I grew up on the Canadian side of the border, but as close as you can get. However, I fail to see how the Cold War was always positive, even if the ultimate goals were considered required and honourable (some of the games were harmful to the countries where they were played out - Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, South America Cuba, border regions in Europe where the Iron Curtain was laid out...). You don't have to be a communist to see that capitalism is not a force for pure good (slavery in the older days, sub-subsistence wages in the current environment).
It is hard to understand the role of the U.S. in world history, and to understand what will be seen as positive and negative in the view of future historians because we are still in the U.S.-era - we don't have the luxury of perspective from the post-U.S. era. However, that doesn't allow historians to be flag wavers - they, more than most, need to keep their perspective and throw away the rose-coloured glasses. Kennedy's assassination was a key point in recent history - I would have loved some understanding of what might have changed in the next election (or the 2nd Kennedy term) had he lived. What further outcome to the Bay of Pigs/October Crisis might have arisen in a longer Kennedy presidency? Might detente have come 20 years earlier? Might Vietnam ended earlier or lasted longer, or spread more widely? This would have provided the impetus for making the list.
9-11 ends the events - but is there enough perspective to do this justice? What is the difference between the wars in Afghanistan (widely supported in the world) vs. Iraq (very little support) and how will that effect the U.S. international status in the longer term? Changes to U.S. privacy laws, and pre-emptive arrest, Guantanamo - how are these changes expected to alter the basis the U.S. was founded on? How do they influence world opinion of the U.S.? Even with the stated goal of reducing terrorism - does it makes sense - is in inflaming rather than resolving?
I think the author might have been wiser to stop sometime around the Wright Brothers, where there is a key linkage between their experiments and subsequent world events (shrinking of the world through air travel, increases arsenals for wartime use, eventual moon landings...) and leave more recent history for historical fiction, or for a more nuanced and independent analysis.
Finished (E-Reader) - "What Doesn't Kill You" - Iris Johansen
I wanted a little escapist reading, some Ken Follett spy novel, or a Clancy Jack Ryan story.
I was quite disappointed in "What Doesn't Kill You" by Iris Johansen. I don't like stories that have a "magic man" who has mysterious powers that just seem to be exactly appropriate to the situation at hand. The Hu Chang character was just such a magic man - he seemed to be able to whip up any concoction with is magic herbs to fix any calamity. Need to find out info - no problem, here's a truth serum - shot? - just take this. Oh, for some reason we don't know how to follow you without a bugging device (even though we have drones), here's some magic fingernail polish that can be tracked with heat sensors.
The story of a girl growing up on the wrong side of the tracks in Hong Kong and meeting up with a pharmacist has some potential, as does the story that many years later her son is kidnapped for an extended period of time, and that she becomes an informant and later an agent for intelligence service(s). I like all of that, but might have like the story better if it relied more on her skills, learned from living in the streets, and training with the CIA than being reliant on the "magic man".
Wouldn't recommend this book.
I was quite disappointed in "What Doesn't Kill You" by Iris Johansen. I don't like stories that have a "magic man" who has mysterious powers that just seem to be exactly appropriate to the situation at hand. The Hu Chang character was just such a magic man - he seemed to be able to whip up any concoction with is magic herbs to fix any calamity. Need to find out info - no problem, here's a truth serum - shot? - just take this. Oh, for some reason we don't know how to follow you without a bugging device (even though we have drones), here's some magic fingernail polish that can be tracked with heat sensors.
The story of a girl growing up on the wrong side of the tracks in Hong Kong and meeting up with a pharmacist has some potential, as does the story that many years later her son is kidnapped for an extended period of time, and that she becomes an informant and later an agent for intelligence service(s). I like all of that, but might have like the story better if it relied more on her skills, learned from living in the streets, and training with the CIA than being reliant on the "magic man".
Wouldn't recommend this book.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Finished (E-Reader) - A Beautiful Mind
I had seen the movie adaptation of "A Beautiful Mind" a number of years ago, which would have been my first experience with the John Nash story.
The book simultaneously goes into more and less depth than the movie. The movie made is very unclear when John Nash was hallucinating, which made the story complex and a great movie. The book dealt much more completely with what was lost when John Nash was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - his relationships, his fortune, his possessions...
I don't accurately remember the movie ending, but the book ends on a pretty positive note, with recovery (to a large degree), awarding of a Nobel in Economics to Nash and others for game theory work in the 1950s.
The difficulty that Nash's family had, given his genius, determining a course of action was well documented - should they consider shock treatment, at the risk of losing whatever it was that made him a genius? One course of treatment I was unaware of was insulin therapy, where a patient was put into an insulin coma every day for several months - an injection of insulin in the morning, induced coma, then IV or gastric-introduced glucose to recover from the coma. Sounds hellish, but considered more humane than electro-shock. The judgement from Nash's peers was mixed, with many blaming John Nash's wife for hospitalization, and considering the entire episode a misunderstanding of his genius.
It took time for John Nash to recover, which was gradual over decades. It was astounding to those who ran into Nash on campus, where he was a legendary figure "haunting" the library and computer labs, that he was considered unfit - many saw him as "fit/unfit" as other mathematicians, particularly as his balance and stability became more apparent.
I think this is a good read for anyone in academics, as my experience has been that there are many straddling the line between "eccentric" and "needing assistance" - the extremes of Nash's life illustrate both. At his "healthiest", he was egotistical and occasionally mean/cruel, with social difficulties, particularly related to close relationships with other men, and odd/abusive behaviour towards his significant females (girlfriends, wife, "common-law wife"). At his lowest points, he was unable to carry on non-paranoid conversations - though his fantasies did have a large degree of cohesiveness, indicating that some aspects of his underlying intelligence were working to make as much sense as possible out the bizzare visions.
The other primary audience should be those dealing with mental illness, either their own, or in the family or with close friends (this means pretty much everyone). Understanding how difficult the decisions to medicate, hospitalize and even decide whether treatment is necessary are well laid out, and show a true anxiety about each level of decision. The general misunderstanding of mental illness in society has not changed that much - there might be better treatments, but there is still a basic misunderstanding of where and if the line is between eccentricity, unique personality and illness, and there is no shortage of those who will judge the actions and inactions of those dealing with the issue, regardless of the road taken. "Beautiful Mind" expresses these conundrums well - particularly as the patient and the co-workers were the most educated folks around, and presumably in the best position to understand.
As an aside, I found the discussions regarding the Nobel Prize interesting. Economics was not an initial Nobel, and was funded separately, though administered in conjunction with the Nobel committee. There are some who don't consider this prize a "real" Nobel Prize, as it wasn't identified by Alfred Nobel, and isn't funded by his trust (and it came about much later). The reporting on the debates and processes of deciding and awarding the Nobel were worth reading (particularly the position that John Nash isn't really the "Same guy" who did the Nobel-work in an earlier decade), and worries that there might be embarrassment should he be granted an award.
The book simultaneously goes into more and less depth than the movie. The movie made is very unclear when John Nash was hallucinating, which made the story complex and a great movie. The book dealt much more completely with what was lost when John Nash was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - his relationships, his fortune, his possessions...
I don't accurately remember the movie ending, but the book ends on a pretty positive note, with recovery (to a large degree), awarding of a Nobel in Economics to Nash and others for game theory work in the 1950s.
The difficulty that Nash's family had, given his genius, determining a course of action was well documented - should they consider shock treatment, at the risk of losing whatever it was that made him a genius? One course of treatment I was unaware of was insulin therapy, where a patient was put into an insulin coma every day for several months - an injection of insulin in the morning, induced coma, then IV or gastric-introduced glucose to recover from the coma. Sounds hellish, but considered more humane than electro-shock. The judgement from Nash's peers was mixed, with many blaming John Nash's wife for hospitalization, and considering the entire episode a misunderstanding of his genius.
It took time for John Nash to recover, which was gradual over decades. It was astounding to those who ran into Nash on campus, where he was a legendary figure "haunting" the library and computer labs, that he was considered unfit - many saw him as "fit/unfit" as other mathematicians, particularly as his balance and stability became more apparent.
I think this is a good read for anyone in academics, as my experience has been that there are many straddling the line between "eccentric" and "needing assistance" - the extremes of Nash's life illustrate both. At his "healthiest", he was egotistical and occasionally mean/cruel, with social difficulties, particularly related to close relationships with other men, and odd/abusive behaviour towards his significant females (girlfriends, wife, "common-law wife"). At his lowest points, he was unable to carry on non-paranoid conversations - though his fantasies did have a large degree of cohesiveness, indicating that some aspects of his underlying intelligence were working to make as much sense as possible out the bizzare visions.
The other primary audience should be those dealing with mental illness, either their own, or in the family or with close friends (this means pretty much everyone). Understanding how difficult the decisions to medicate, hospitalize and even decide whether treatment is necessary are well laid out, and show a true anxiety about each level of decision. The general misunderstanding of mental illness in society has not changed that much - there might be better treatments, but there is still a basic misunderstanding of where and if the line is between eccentricity, unique personality and illness, and there is no shortage of those who will judge the actions and inactions of those dealing with the issue, regardless of the road taken. "Beautiful Mind" expresses these conundrums well - particularly as the patient and the co-workers were the most educated folks around, and presumably in the best position to understand.
As an aside, I found the discussions regarding the Nobel Prize interesting. Economics was not an initial Nobel, and was funded separately, though administered in conjunction with the Nobel committee. There are some who don't consider this prize a "real" Nobel Prize, as it wasn't identified by Alfred Nobel, and isn't funded by his trust (and it came about much later). The reporting on the debates and processes of deciding and awarding the Nobel were worth reading (particularly the position that John Nash isn't really the "Same guy" who did the Nobel-work in an earlier decade), and worries that there might be embarrassment should he be granted an award.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)