"That you may ruminate"

  • July 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan    
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Books’ Category

…On the Appendix to Brave New World.

Posted by Steve on August 24, 2009

So, Yahoo has posted a news article about appendices. Frankly, calling it “news” is a bit inaccurate, I think, as the hypothesis that the appendix is a gut flora reservoir is a couple of years old. Anyway, the quote at page bottom, about artificially stimulating the immune system to keep it from getting sullen and cranky and causing appendicitis or autoimmune disease… reminds me of Brave New World’s “pregnancy substitutes”. And you know, speaking of Brave New World… I recall reading it and not thinking it was so terrible, since it seems to me it’s a utopia-and-dystopia swirl, not the straight uncut dystopia it’s so often labeled. Without a doubt, the creation of the gammas, deltas, and epsilons is an atrocity – hands down, unequivocally evil and an atrocity. Also, the profligate waste of the materialism-for-the-sake-of-consuming-resources is really damned stupid, and I can’t say soma’s an appealing idea. On the other hand, take those elements out and you have… the alphas living lives of uninterrupted hedonistic pleasure. Perfect people living perfect lives – isn’t that what utopia is? And I don’t think the book makes a compelling case for the argument that the good can only be obtained by the bad – the whole point of the book, after all, was that everything’s predestined through conditioned behavior and mechanistic control over the world. So, given such an ability to craft reality (yeah, an utter impossibility, but work with me here), what reason is there for producing the horrendous along with the wondrous? Seems to me the smart thing to do is only produce the wondrous.

Anyway, seems the 5-second-rule isn’t unhygienic unhygenic, it’s prophylactic!

Posted in Books, From the News | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

…On On Killing

Posted by Steve on November 22, 2008

Over the past week, in addition to fucking up severely and repeatedly at work, I read the book On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dave Grossman. It’s an interesting book that I picked up at Barnes & Noble while trying unsuccessfully to find a copy of Hobbes’s Leviathan.

In this book (which was written in the mid-90s), Grossman appears to have… well, I can’t exactly say how many main points. That’s one of the problems with the book, from a “sit-down-and-read-this” perspective: it verges on the meandering in its breadth. I think this may have been intentional, though, as early on in it Grossman states that his intent is to write a seminal work to get the ball rolling in the field of “killology” (he parallels his work to Kinsey and Masters & Johnson in establishing the field of sexology). As a result, what the book contains includes hypotheses and attempts to entheorize that:

  1. Normal humans have an inherent reluctance to kill each other, and historically this has included the majority of soldiers in combat
  2. Factors for overcoming this reluctance to kill include distance (physical and social/moral/mental) between killer and killed; group activity; rationalization and denial mechanisms; desensitization; an authority to shift responsibility to; and behavioral modification through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning
  3. Following World War II, the U.S. and similar militaries altered their training methods to incorporate more of these factors (particularly desensitization and conditioning) in order to overcome soldier’s unwillingness to kill in combat
  4. The act of killing (or being psychologically prepared and committed to killing) is a uniquely traumatic detriment to a person’s mental health
  5. During the Vietnam War, U.S. military training achieved unprecedented success in overcoming the vast majority of soldiers’ unwillingness to kill at the same time there was an unprecedented failure of the support structures and methods needed to prevent the trauma of being able to kill from causing lasting psychological injury, hence the unprecedented epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam War veterans
  6. American civilian society is replicating the desensitizing and behavioral-modification aspects of military training that create the willingness to kill but not replicating the “obedience to command authority”-inculcating behavioral modification of military training that controls the when and why of actual killing, and the result is a constant increase in violent crime.

Like I said, he touches on a lot, and I’m leaving out some of his points. Unfortunately, I think that in his quest for breadth he sacrificed too much of depth, and I also think some of his points are given in too conclusory a manner, with the evidence just sort of gestured at. Still, I think the book’s interesting, and Sections I-VI provide an interesting, if at times annoyingly freshman intro-course sort of not-in-depth, survey of the psychology of killing (in combat). Section VII is entitled “Killing in Vietnam: What Have We Done to Our Soldiers?”. And while Section VIII (the 5-chapter section on Point 6) does, in my opinion, reflect a little too much of moral panic directed towards Violently Anarchic Breakdown of Society and blaming that Catastrophic Problem on Film, Television, and Video Games, for the most part Grossman tries to steer well clear of Jack Thompson/Tipper Gore territory (though Wikipedia indicates he may have gone there in later years), clearly stating that the difference in degrees of violent content between different works does matter, and even going so far as to extol various virtues of video games in general.

Also, Section VIII includes the truly wonderful Endnote 3:

But the situation is more complex. Correlation does not prove causation. To prove that TV causes violence you must conduct a controlled, double-blind experiment in which, if you are successful, you will cause people to commit murder. Clearly to perform such an experiment with human beings is unethical and largely impossible. This same situation is the foundation for the tobacco industry’s continued argument that no one has ever “proven” that cigarettes “cause” cancer.

There comes a point when, in spite of this type of reasoning, we must accept that cigarettes do cause cancer. Similarly, there comes a point at which we must accept the verdict of 217 correlation studies.

Correct reasoning or not, I love that endnote. I’d love it more if it were a footnote, though – endnotes are a pain in the ass, what with having to flip to the back of the book. Also, the endnotes are sparse, and I’m thinking if he’d used footnotes there’d have been more of them and I wouldn’t have felt so much like the Wikipedian Protestor.

My understanding is that Grossman wrote a sequel, On Combat: [Subtitle I can’t be bothered to look up] back in 2004. I’m curious about that, to see if it contains any analysis of the current war in Iraq, in light of the Vietnam War analysis in Section VII.

Actually, I want to quote a paragraph from Section VII. On page 283/284, if you want to be specific:

During the Vietnam era millions of American adolescents were conditioned to engage in an act against which they had a powerful resistance. This conditioning is a necessary part of allowing a soldier to succeed and survive in the environment where society has placed him. Success in war and national survival may necessitate killing enemy soldiers in battle. If we accept that we need an army, then we must accept that it has to be as capable of surviving as we can make it. But if society prepares a soldier to overcome his resistance to killing and places him in an environment in which he will kill, then that society has an obligation to deal forthrightly, intelligently, and morally with the psychological event and its repercussions upon the soldier and society. Largely through an ignorance of the processes and implications involved, this has not happened with the Vietnam veteran.

I tend to think largely in physical, concrete terms. You know, “If you can’t poke it, it ain’t real.” As a result, I’ve had difficulty with the concept of “support the troops” in a non-materiel context. Grossman explained it well for me, right there.

Posted in Books | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

…On Fledgling.

Posted by Steve on November 16, 2008

This past week, in the downtime in Richmond after finishing the day’s work and before going to sleep, I read a book. Well, I also dealt with still being sick, but reading a book is far more interesting than a combination of flu symptoms and stomach virus.

The book I read wasn’t the book I’d been planning to read. Instead, the book I read was Fledgling, Octavia Butler’s last novel. I was of course familiar with her name – how could I not be, she’d won a Hugo and a Nebula – but I’d never read one of her books or stories before.

I’ve got to say, I’m glad I did. While Fledgling suffers from an advanced case of “Abysmal Blurb On The Back”, I’d gotten it on someone’s recommendation rather than as an arbitrary choice at the bookstore, so that didn’t really dissuade me any. Which I’m glad, because the back cover would lead you to believe that this is a ponderous screed on race relations that clumsily uses the vampire motif as an allegory for framing a panegyric against the spirit behind the old anti-miscegenation statutes. At least, that was the impression I got from the blurb, which ends with the sentence: “And in the final apocalyptic battle, her survival will depend on whether all humans are bigots – or all bigots are human…”. Let me just say, the dipshit who wrote that blurb (not to mention whoever picked the reviewer quotes for the back cover and front page – and those reviewers) did a major disservice to Ms. Butler and to her work, and they should be ashamed of their ineptitude. But as they say, you can’t judge a book by its cover, and that’s true here. (You want more evidence supporting that adage’s literal truth, look at the incredibly gaudy cover art of Pamela Sargent’s The Shore of Women, then read that epic, astounding, successful synthesis of post-apocalyptic adventure novel, romance novel, dystopian novel, and feminist theory. Seriously, I endorse that novel, and I highly recommend reading it.)

Look, race and race-relations-related-topics do show up as themes, and I’m told they were themes in all of Butler’s work, but saying that’s what this novel’s about is like saying The Once and Future King was about critiquing the theory of the divine right of kings. Sure, White did that, but he did much, much more. Ditto Butler here. Sure, the book does serve an allegorical function, but for any reader who’s reading for the right reasons that’s an irrelevancy compared to the primacy of Story and Storytelling.

And at those, Butler did a wonderful job here. The book’s tightly-written and I think well-paced, and the story itself is one of constant revelation: over three hundred pages, the narrating protagonist progresses from “I don’t know who or what I am” to “I know who I am, and I know who I will become.” Also, Butler did some wonderful playing in the sandbox of vampire lore. I don’t want to give anything away, but as an example mutualist symbiosis is highly (and explicitly) relevant in the story’s world, which isn’t something I’m aware of from other vampire novels. Also, while there’s a clear sexual element to the relationship between vampires and humans in the book, it isn’t predatory or exploitative – again, a bit of a twist on the vampire lore, I think. Then again, a large chunk of the SF/F section of any bookstore is now devoted to the works of writers such as Kelly Armstrong and Laurell Hamilton and other writers of what I’ve heard derisively labeled as the “vampire porn” subgenre. Which as I don’t read it, I’m not sure if benevolent vampire sex is all the rage in contemporary vampire literature. And actually, it’d make sense if it were. After all, who hasn’t wished succubi and incubi were real so would would visit them? Exactly.

Anyway. Fledgling. I liked it.

Posted in Books | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

…On The Godfather

Posted by Steve on August 3, 2008

Yesterday, I bought two books: John Scalzi’s The Last Colony, which I’ve been waiting for the paperback of ever since it came out, and Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, which I decided to read after having watched The Godfather and The Godfather Part II. As an aside, I met Scalzi at a book signing at Uncle Hugo’s in Minneapolis where he and an author/friend of his were signing their books and sharing sci-fi-writer gossip with a local author from the Twin Cities. So since I stood there listening to them gossip for a good long while, my copy of The Ghost Brigades is autographed “To Steve, who listens to all the authors’ stories.” I just wish I’d had the good sense to print off a copy of Being Poor and bring that for him to sign.

Anyway. I started reading The Godfather last night (yes, that’s evidence of deplorable things about the state of my social life). I read through Book I and Book II. And, the thing is, I can’t remember any of Book II showing up in the movie, though it’s a very interesting section. Only peripherally related to the Don, true, but then it does show the extent of Don Vito’s influence – as much in the spread of his philosophy and influence over a man’s heart & mind as in the spread over his money and buttonmen over the country. Which, when you think about it, was the foundation of his power: respect and the exchange of favors. What’s it cost Johnny Fontane to get a few million in financial backing and a strategic whacking? He has to choose to live more as Don Vito would want. Now that’s some power.

Posted in Books | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »