The Dark Forest, by Liu Cixin

Last year I was on a Chinese novel kick and read Liu Cixin's (or Cixin Liu, depending on how you want to Anglicize his name) The Three-Body Problem. Whilst not exactly the greatest work of literature, it was very enjoyable. I'm honestly not a science-fiction guy, and I didn't really expect to like it, but it was good. The story barreled along, and I very much enjoyed the fact that Liu really knows physics, making the ideas unique and plausible.


This year, while travelling around Africa (see my other blog for info about the trip), I read the second book in what was Liu's trilogy. The Dark Forest leaves off more or less from where the first book ended, with the Earth stunned by the news that it will be invaded by an alien power in 400 years.

"Four hundred years?!" you may well ask. "That's not exactly moving along at a riveting pace!"

The book covers some of those years, jumping about a bit through the same characters as they engage in hibernation to brace against the passage of time. Primarily we follow Luo Ji, a Wallfacer. Wallfacers are the humans chosen to engage in planning the Earth's defense. Due to the presence of "sophons" on Earth, Trisolaris - the enemy power on its way to the Solar System - is able to monitor human activity but not thought. A few humans are chosen as Wallfacers and granted certain power to secretly plan Earth's resistance.

What's interesting to me is that these books view humanity's future from a very Chinese perspective. Yes, it's a global fight, but when you read books in English, usually the future concern a plucky band of white men... In this case, most - but not all - of the characters are Chinese, and the world's language is a hybrid of Chinese and English.

I also like that Liu is very well-versed in science and makes very detailed and plausible guesses about technology in the future. These are all pretty believable and make it easy to engage with the book as it passes through time.

However, as with the first book, Liu's new one falls down in regards characterization. The characters are all pretty flat and predictable. Some of them seem to be carbon copies of cliches from old movies. His dialogue is dull, too. The women in the book largely exist to be beautiful, while the men go out and solve problems. It makes the book rather frustrating. Some of this might be down to translation - and not just translation of language, but the culture wrapped up in it.

Altogether, the first book in this series was, despite some flaws, a very good book that I highly recommended. The second not so much. I'll give the third a shot when it comes out this summer, but I'm not hugely enthusiastic. 

The Men Who Stare at Goats, by Jon Ronson

Readers of this blog will know that I've been working my way through the works of Jon Ronson, pretty much going backwards from his most recent book, and now I have ended up with his most famous, 2004's now-classic The Men Who Stare at Goats.



Jon Ronson is a journalist who likes to document the weird, and he seems to come across as trustworthy enough that he can get close to the real weirdos in life. Yet this is probably his most bizarre book in a career of dealing with bizarre people. It is, as the title suggests, about men who believe they can kill goats by staring at them.

The story goes back to 1979, the US government established a team of commandos who would be tasked with developing super-human abilities like invisibility and psychic investigation. They would also be able to walk through walls and stare goats to death.

He traces the history of this movement through painstaking research. Most people would have given up, but Ronson followed the story to its weirdest extents, and details it in his own Gonzo fashion. He brings it right up into the present day (for 2004, at least) and the War on Terror.

This book is a modern classic - hilarious, informative, and unputdownable. 

I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That, by Ben Goldacre

I read this book while on holiday in South Africa and Swaziland, among some of the most amazing landscapes on earth... and sadly, surprisingly, the book really bored me. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with much that Dr. Goldacre says. He's obviously an intelligent man doing important work. I just don't think this book needed to be a book.

The book is a collection of Ben Goldacre's articles, which mostly appeared in The Guardian. Individually, these are well-written and really very fascinating bits of writing. After the first few, I was very impressed. However, it goes on and on and on... Eventually you just become rather tired of Goldacre's voice, even thought you agree with him.

In his blog, Goldacre liked to tear apart bad science. He'd attack journalists for reporting bullshit "science" stories, as well as scientists and organizations for releasing them. His methods were interesting, but they only really function as a blog. Looking back over the years, it loses its value. They were important artifacts of their time, for sure, but who cares about what appeared in the Daily Mail fifteen years ago?

The book is also poorly edited and put together. It is repetitive in places, and jumps from subject to subject. Why this book needed to be made, I don't know... I'd much rather read something by the author that is altogether more coherent. 

The Corrections, by Jonathon Franzen

I got this book for free from Amazon last month as some sort of promotion. I never take the free books because I imagine I'll never read them, but this book was something I'd meant for a while to try. Actually, I'd wanted to read it, perversely, because I expected to join the crowd of Franzen haters.
Alas, while I'm not a Franzen fan, I didn't hate the book. My friend had told me I would, but I didn't. It's not a bad book.
The Corrections is the story of a family. It jumps about in place and time but examines their lives in a complex way. It's not the sort of thing I'd usually read but it was pretty wells written, contrary to what I'd been told.
What interested me was that in places it took the point of view of different characters, yet through their eyes we see their flaws, and the good in others. This is the opposite of what one would expected. We seen characters look at others and feel contempt, but the other character's positive attributes, instead emerge.
Yet every character is deeply, irrevocably flawed in this book. They are in need of, as the title tells us, corrections.


*
Please excuse typos etc in this and posts in the near future. I'm on holiday and using my iPad to post.

The Man Who Cycled The World, by Mark Beaumont

Being back in Scotland for a week, I decided to read some paperback books that my family had on the shelves as a bit of a change of pace from my usual digital diet of reading material. First up was Mark Beaumont's The Man Who Cycled The World.



I was attracted to this book because one of my New Year resolutions is to start cycling again and I'd like to do some sort of long-distance trip one day. In fact, to be entirely honest, I'd love to cycle right the way around the world, as the author did. By coincidence, Beaumont is also a Scot like me.

The book is interesting for someone like me, with an interest in travel and mildly interested in bikes, and overall it's a pretty good read. However, the author also seems a little hard to relate to. He's obviously rather well-off and although people might say that about me, too, I nonetheless felt disengaged from his "struggle." For me, if you can raise almost $50,000 to cycle around the world, it's not really easy to comprehend your mindset. I'm the sort of person who hitch-hikes and backpacks and I wouldn't even know what to do if I had $50,000 in the bank.

Beaumont does travel cheap up to a point, like me, but he also meets up with masseuses and team members around the world and is always in the phone to his mum. It's not really the sort of rugged adventure that one might have hoped for.

As a writer, too, he is lacking. Not that it's awful, but with his position of privilege, his background, his somewhat arrogant nature, and then his unnatural storytelling method, it left me cold. 

The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science

"Intelligence is no inoculation against bias." 

Perhaps to some, the above quote is blindingly obvious, but I suspect that most of us, myself included, like to think that with acquired knowledge comes freedom from all forms of ignorance - biases included. Alas, that's only true up until a point. Intelligent people are far from perfect, and we all have our own biases in life - some more damaging than others. 

I think that we all, more or less, over-estimate our own intelligence, too, and that probably contributes to our idea of intelligence as precluding us from the trap of bias. We assume that bias and ignorance go hand in hand because we see these in the people around us, and yet that's not very likely, is it? We're all biased in some way, regardless of intelligence. 

This a key theme of Will Storr's book, The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science, which I bought after reading a few Jon Ronson books and being promised by the algorithms at Amazon that Storr was popular among Ronson fans. And I was not disappointed. 

I admit that I bought the book because I like books about science and psychology. The title made me think that Storr would simply berate religious types throughout the book. So there's my bias: I'm an atheist, and whilst I believe in a live-and-let-live world, I enjoy reading books that tell me I'm right about the world, and then educate me with lots of stuff I didn't know, too. 

The book begins with Storr out in the Aussie outback, talking with a famous creationist. I was excited. This was the beginning of some creationist-bashing. I love evolution and books about the history of our world. 

Indeed, Storr is also an atheist and a man of science (well, an interest in science). He makes no secret of the fact that the creationist is undeniably wrong in his beliefs, and yet he makes another interesting point: the creationist is a highly intelligent man. 

In our modern social media world we like to engage in tribalism just like the days of yore. Liberals and conservatives, religious and non-religious alike, we are evolved but nonetheless ruled by our tribal mentality, and we forget sometimes that people on the other side - the "them" that Ronson wrote about, are often just as intelligent, if not more, than "we" are. Yes, they can be wrong and still smart. So can we. 

That should be obvious but it's not. Or at least it's something that we need to remind ourselves of. As the quote I began this article with observes, our adversaries aren't necessarily stupid because they're wrong, and we aren't necessarily right because we're smart. 

Storr goes on from the anti-evolutionist to speak with holocaust deniers, past life regressionists, homeopaths, Illuminati-believers, and other people who are absolutely, 100% wrong in their beliefs. He doesn't mock them, but instead explains through science how they came to be this way. How could intelligent people believe such unintelligent things? 

I've not read a horror book in a long time but this one gave me the chills. Reading it, I realized just how unreliable the human mind is. We cannot trust our memories, nor can we rely upon our perceptions. Our brains make stories to justify gut feelings. No matter how scientific we try to be, we are only human and we make mistakes. 

Storr also takes on skeptics and the defenders of science to show that it is not just the religious people who are wrong, or the ones with non-mainstream beliefs. The title, in fact, is a tad misleading in that regard. At the end of this book I felt I couldn't trust my own mind. I worried I'd start seeing ghosts because maybe they were real and I'd deluded myself, or maybe they wouldn't be real but my brain would see them anyway.... 

The conclusion to this fantastic book is that humans are natural story-tellers and we don't even realize that we're telling stories. Liars don't usually know that they're lying. The heretics don't mean to be wrong and they're not idiots; they're just flawed humans like all of us. We all think of ourselves as the hero of a story, but:

"Heretics are often betrayed by the spotless coherence of their plots. They tell the clearest tales with the most perfect separation of good guy and bad. It is why they should be trusted." 

Read this book. It will change you. 

I Celebrate Myself: The Somewhat Private Life of Allen Ginsberg

Recently I have begun a new writing project. I won't say exactly what it is, for a number of reasons, but I will say that it's about Allen Ginsberg - the Beat Generation poet. In order to begin my research, I wanted to read a biography, and perhaps the best one available is I Celebrate Myself: The Somewhat Private Life of Allen Ginsberg, by Bill Morgan. There are a ton of books about Ginsberg, but this one is a good entry point.

For a start, the biography covers Ginsberg's whole life, and does so pretty thoroughly. Allen's was a long and interesting story, and during his time on this earth he covered every continent except Antarctica, so the story takes us many places. He meets many of the most important figures of the mid- and late-twentieth century, and experiences numerous incredible adventures.

All through the book Morgan's narrative makes the story informative but yet also quite entertaining. There are times when the narrative isn't quite so engaging but these are few and far between. Mostly we find ourselves following the flawed protagonist as though he were a character in a novel. We see him battling depression, constantly finding and losing loved ones, and always flitting between despair and ecstasy.

In terms of being scholarly, there is a lot of detail there to use... however, this is where my main (and perhaps only) criticism of the book comes in: The Kindle version is absolutely bloody useless. The publishers obviously didn't see the value in formatting the book properly for reading on a Kindle, nor did they take a cursory glance through to check that there are no glaring errors. As a result, in some places words are smashed together and it is impossible to follow citations or keep track of any kind of reference.

The result is then that one can read this book and enjoy it for the fascinating story that it is... but using it for reference is rather difficult. I would mind less if the book wasn't so damned expensive. As a person with writing, editing, and publishing experience myself I loathe seeing Kindle books priced at $20 or more, and I thoroughly believe that, if they are so expensive, the publisher should at least have a version specifically intended for Kindle readers.

My advice to my readers would then be: Buy the paperback or hardcover version! Don't waste your money on the Kindle one.