(no subject)
Apr. 6th, 2008 05:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furyofvissarionThe End of Mr. Y - Scarlett Thomas. Another brilliant book from Thomas. In this one, grad student Ariel Manto is studying the work of nineteenth-century author Thomas Lumas, whose most famous work, also called The End of Mr. Y, is practically impossible to find. So are its readers--everyone who reads it disappears. When Ariel does manage to get a hold of the book, of course she reads it, & using information from it, enters the Troposphere, an alternate dimension where thought shapes reality, you can enter other minds, & people can time-travel using the ancestors of other people. As you might imagine, such a world is rather addictive, & access to it is highly coveted. Ariel discovers that some other people in the Troposphere are trying to eliminate the competition. There's also a lot of pondering the nature of existence, of course, as well as lots of science-y stuff that is appealing w/o being overwhelming, even to the uninitiated. It's kind of like what Thomas does w/math in Popco. There are other parallels to be drawn; both books talk about homeopathy, & both feature slightly awkward, loner geek girls as protagonists. There were other moments where things felt similar, not in a redundant way though. Just in a way that I felt pleased that I recognized the references.
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights - Bob Torres. At times a bit stuffy, this is nevertheless a really important, if slender, book. Torres demonstrates how capitalism rests on the abuse of animals, & also argues that those advocating for animals must also resist other forms of domination & hierarchy (ie. PETA giving an award to Pat Buchanan? Not cool), & that consumerist-oriented "activism," & the form of activism in which people just write checks to large & incompetent organizations, are not going to win any battles. Of course the flip side of his critique is that leftist activists, too, need to become involved in animal right work. Torres neatly demolishes the protests of those who insist that humans come first. Here's one nice quote:
Now, we all know that yes, often feminism has, & continues to be, not very fair to women of color. But I think we all also know feminists like the hypothetical one above. It's just daft to insinuate that someone who devotes the majority of their activist work to one cause is incapable of caring about, or working for, other causes. The book also addresses the charge that activists have more important things to do than change their diets. One thing that irked me (aside from the many typos--is no one fucking proofing books before they get published anymore???) is where Torres talks about Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed as "the best kind of science fiction, because it uses the expanded possibilities of the genre to deal with human problems and issues, rather than just a backdrop for spaceships and violent action plots... This is the brand of sci-fi that can teach us something." I personally agree that science fiction/fantasy can be used to explore social issues in a really good way, but I object to the insinuation that reading "just" for fun, especially if it's "fluff," isn't worthy reading. This is an objection that transcends genre, too. Must everything we read be for our own good? I don't think so.
Super Brain: 101 Easy Ways to a More Agile Mind - Carol Vorderman. Someone suggested to me that I check out exercises & techniques to improve my memory, after I mentioned I was having medication-related issues w/it. After seeing this title in the bookstore, I got it from the library. One thing that it did almost immediately was make me feel less guilty about any time I spend playing word games like Bookworm online, b/c she recommends word games as one way to keep your mind working. The book is divided into chapters based on skill sets (concentration, memory, problem solving, etc.), each with their own exercises. A lot of them were fun, & made me remember the joy of doing a mind game, or memorizing something, for no reason. Some of the exercises seemed really obvious--for example, taking the time to look up something you're interested in online (I realize the obviousness is a function of my socioeconomic position, but it seems like it'd be obvious to a lot of folks likely to pick up the book). Some seemed a bit stupid: "encourage your curiosity" by pondering a list of factoids including: "Cows and horses sleep standing up" and "There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world." The second part of the book talks about other issues in keeping your brain running well, such as diet, sleep, & exercise. I liked this book, & had fun w/the exercises I bothered to do. I wish it didn't have to go back to the library already so I could play around w/it more.
Refuse to Choose! A Revolutionary Program for Doing Everything That You Love - Barbara Sher. A few years ago I read The Renaissance Soul: Life Design for People with Too Many Passions to Pick Just One (by Margaret Lobenstine) & felt really validated, & relieved. Who knew it was okay to not forge relentlessly towards one career, or to not even want to? Or that I wasn't fickle, I was just differently oriented than most other people? So I picked up this book b/c it sounded v. similar (it looks like they were published at about the same time, too... hm...). Most of the book, however, made me feel doubtful & anxious: am I really talented enough to be a Scanner? (Sher's word for people w/Renaissance Souls) Am I really good enough at a whole variety of different things, or am I just interested in them? ie. is any of this advice going to apply to me? Lobenstine's book didn't make me feel that way at all, so probably I will stick to that one. Sher did have a lot of fun ideas for taking notes & organizing the millions of ideas most folks like this have, & those techniques I'll try to use.
Raising the Peaceable Kingdom: What Animals Can Teach Us About the Social Origins of Tolerance & Friendship - Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. What an annoying book. Masson decides to raise various animals, including those traditionally enemies in nature (cat, dog, rabbit, chicken, rat), together from babyhood, in hopes of getting them to like each other. And from this, he hopes to extrapolate something that will help humans stop warring w/each other. Yeah, uh-huh.
Also, although apparently he's a vegan, he felt fine about doing this sort of experimentation (even though he says on his website he's opposed to animal experiments of any kind), which he tried to justify to himself by referring to as a project. He also sought to get animals from rescue groups instead of buying from a pet store or breeder--good--except that went out the window when obtaining a kitten. He & his wife are disturbed by having animals in the house that hunt other animals--like their other 2 cats. Their neighbors also don't like the cats hunting the local wild birds. So they buy a ragdoll from a breeder, b/c they've heard that ragdolls don't want to hunt. First of all, it's really creepy how he & his wife seem fixated on changing the v. nature of cats--they are overjoyed when, later on in the experiment, their two older cats stop hunting, & chalk this up to them having baby chickens & rats & rabbits around. And second of all, since they aren't the type of misguided vegans who force their cats to be vegan, they're still feeding their cats meat. What makes this different from the cats hunting? It's still them following their instinct (& their biology, which requires meat), just sanitized to the point where Masson can open up a can of processed flesh for them instead. If you don't want a companion animal that might hunt, then get a rabbit! Don't get a cat, don't get a snake. Jeez.
He talks about being uncomfortable w/clicker training for the puppy, & also mentions that they would never try that w/their kitten. Ho ho, no one can train a cat! This is silly given that he cites Karen Pryor, someone who's done a lot of work on clicker training, & who even has a book on clicker training cats. And Phredd & I can testify that yes, you can clicker-train a cat.
Other annoyances: Masson is also kind of excited about the idea of their two chickens possibly producing baby chicks one day--which seems out of line w/his philosophy on breeding vs. rescuing (already out the window w/his kitten, natch). All the animals are given Maori names (they live in New Zealand). I would've liked to hear why he did this--does he have any connection to Maori culture? B/c otherwise, w/o context he just looks like someone culturally appropriating for fun. Masson has written a lot of books about animals, some of which sound interesting to me, but from comments in this book, it sounds like he may actually acquire animals expressly for the purpose of churning out his (many) books, & then re-homes them! Which sounds totally crap to me.
Oh, & he also says that there are "feral cat rehabilitators" who have "techniques that will turn a feral cat into a house cat in mere weeks." This is totally contrary to anything that the people I know who work w/rescues & feral cats have said, & contrary to anything I've ever read about feral cats. I am v. suspicious.
Anyway--the results of the experiment? Some of the animals really liked each other, in the end--the kitten & the rabbit end up being best friends, for one. I don't find Masson's attempt to extrapolate from these results to humankind persuasive @ all, though. Yerrgh.
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights - Bob Torres. At times a bit stuffy, this is nevertheless a really important, if slender, book. Torres demonstrates how capitalism rests on the abuse of animals, & also argues that those advocating for animals must also resist other forms of domination & hierarchy (ie. PETA giving an award to Pat Buchanan? Not cool), & that consumerist-oriented "activism," & the form of activism in which people just write checks to large & incompetent organizations, are not going to win any battles. Of course the flip side of his critique is that leftist activists, too, need to become involved in animal right work. Torres neatly demolishes the protests of those who insist that humans come first. Here's one nice quote:
Take for example a committed anti-sexist who decides that sexism is... her chosen battle. [She] may devote all of her free time, money, and energy to doing feminist actions, outreach, and education, and at the end of the day, exhausted, she has nothing left for activism of any kind.... [H]owever, do you think she would tolerate racist jokes around the table? My guess is that for most feminists, racist jokes are seen for what they are: a form of injustice and dominance that seeks to marginalize an other, and which continues a problematic form of exploitation. Thus, the feminist may object to racist jokes and refuse to take part in behavior that maintains racial dominance, despite the fact that struggling against racism is not her "chosen battle."
Now, we all know that yes, often feminism has, & continues to be, not very fair to women of color. But I think we all also know feminists like the hypothetical one above. It's just daft to insinuate that someone who devotes the majority of their activist work to one cause is incapable of caring about, or working for, other causes. The book also addresses the charge that activists have more important things to do than change their diets. One thing that irked me (aside from the many typos--is no one fucking proofing books before they get published anymore???) is where Torres talks about Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed as "the best kind of science fiction, because it uses the expanded possibilities of the genre to deal with human problems and issues, rather than just a backdrop for spaceships and violent action plots... This is the brand of sci-fi that can teach us something." I personally agree that science fiction/fantasy can be used to explore social issues in a really good way, but I object to the insinuation that reading "just" for fun, especially if it's "fluff," isn't worthy reading. This is an objection that transcends genre, too. Must everything we read be for our own good? I don't think so.
Super Brain: 101 Easy Ways to a More Agile Mind - Carol Vorderman. Someone suggested to me that I check out exercises & techniques to improve my memory, after I mentioned I was having medication-related issues w/it. After seeing this title in the bookstore, I got it from the library. One thing that it did almost immediately was make me feel less guilty about any time I spend playing word games like Bookworm online, b/c she recommends word games as one way to keep your mind working. The book is divided into chapters based on skill sets (concentration, memory, problem solving, etc.), each with their own exercises. A lot of them were fun, & made me remember the joy of doing a mind game, or memorizing something, for no reason. Some of the exercises seemed really obvious--for example, taking the time to look up something you're interested in online (I realize the obviousness is a function of my socioeconomic position, but it seems like it'd be obvious to a lot of folks likely to pick up the book). Some seemed a bit stupid: "encourage your curiosity" by pondering a list of factoids including: "Cows and horses sleep standing up" and "There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world." The second part of the book talks about other issues in keeping your brain running well, such as diet, sleep, & exercise. I liked this book, & had fun w/the exercises I bothered to do. I wish it didn't have to go back to the library already so I could play around w/it more.
Refuse to Choose! A Revolutionary Program for Doing Everything That You Love - Barbara Sher. A few years ago I read The Renaissance Soul: Life Design for People with Too Many Passions to Pick Just One (by Margaret Lobenstine) & felt really validated, & relieved. Who knew it was okay to not forge relentlessly towards one career, or to not even want to? Or that I wasn't fickle, I was just differently oriented than most other people? So I picked up this book b/c it sounded v. similar (it looks like they were published at about the same time, too... hm...). Most of the book, however, made me feel doubtful & anxious: am I really talented enough to be a Scanner? (Sher's word for people w/Renaissance Souls) Am I really good enough at a whole variety of different things, or am I just interested in them? ie. is any of this advice going to apply to me? Lobenstine's book didn't make me feel that way at all, so probably I will stick to that one. Sher did have a lot of fun ideas for taking notes & organizing the millions of ideas most folks like this have, & those techniques I'll try to use.
Raising the Peaceable Kingdom: What Animals Can Teach Us About the Social Origins of Tolerance & Friendship - Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. What an annoying book. Masson decides to raise various animals, including those traditionally enemies in nature (cat, dog, rabbit, chicken, rat), together from babyhood, in hopes of getting them to like each other. And from this, he hopes to extrapolate something that will help humans stop warring w/each other. Yeah, uh-huh.
Also, although apparently he's a vegan, he felt fine about doing this sort of experimentation (even though he says on his website he's opposed to animal experiments of any kind), which he tried to justify to himself by referring to as a project. He also sought to get animals from rescue groups instead of buying from a pet store or breeder--good--except that went out the window when obtaining a kitten. He & his wife are disturbed by having animals in the house that hunt other animals--like their other 2 cats. Their neighbors also don't like the cats hunting the local wild birds. So they buy a ragdoll from a breeder, b/c they've heard that ragdolls don't want to hunt. First of all, it's really creepy how he & his wife seem fixated on changing the v. nature of cats--they are overjoyed when, later on in the experiment, their two older cats stop hunting, & chalk this up to them having baby chickens & rats & rabbits around. And second of all, since they aren't the type of misguided vegans who force their cats to be vegan, they're still feeding their cats meat. What makes this different from the cats hunting? It's still them following their instinct (& their biology, which requires meat), just sanitized to the point where Masson can open up a can of processed flesh for them instead. If you don't want a companion animal that might hunt, then get a rabbit! Don't get a cat, don't get a snake. Jeez.
He talks about being uncomfortable w/clicker training for the puppy, & also mentions that they would never try that w/their kitten. Ho ho, no one can train a cat! This is silly given that he cites Karen Pryor, someone who's done a lot of work on clicker training, & who even has a book on clicker training cats. And Phredd & I can testify that yes, you can clicker-train a cat.
Other annoyances: Masson is also kind of excited about the idea of their two chickens possibly producing baby chicks one day--which seems out of line w/his philosophy on breeding vs. rescuing (already out the window w/his kitten, natch). All the animals are given Maori names (they live in New Zealand). I would've liked to hear why he did this--does he have any connection to Maori culture? B/c otherwise, w/o context he just looks like someone culturally appropriating for fun. Masson has written a lot of books about animals, some of which sound interesting to me, but from comments in this book, it sounds like he may actually acquire animals expressly for the purpose of churning out his (many) books, & then re-homes them! Which sounds totally crap to me.
Oh, & he also says that there are "feral cat rehabilitators" who have "techniques that will turn a feral cat into a house cat in mere weeks." This is totally contrary to anything that the people I know who work w/rescues & feral cats have said, & contrary to anything I've ever read about feral cats. I am v. suspicious.
Anyway--the results of the experiment? Some of the animals really liked each other, in the end--the kitten & the rabbit end up being best friends, for one. I don't find Masson's attempt to extrapolate from these results to humankind persuasive @ all, though. Yerrgh.