<i>QED</i> by Richard Feynman

Feynman gave me some more tools than I previously had for understanding quantum mechanics. While I knew that electrons bumped around energy levels emitting and absorbing photons, I never really understood why that is significant or what phenomena it produces. What Feynman does is use common examples based on light to give meaning to the quantum behavior---give the why, when before all we could say is "defraction".

Though I will have to refer to this book again to understand these principles in further detail, Feynman did a great job presenting a rather difficult topic. I was confused at some points when he referred to a mathematical principle I am familiar with, such as referring to vectors as "arrows", or when I was trying to understand his description based on the quantum mechanics I already understand. I now, though, really want to read the physics book he wrote so I can better understand everything else I already think I know.

8/10

<i>War and Peace</i>: Volumes III, IV and Epilogue

Volume III

In Volume III, we see the war making its way more into domestic life: the division that Tolstoy has previously kept between them starts to fade. Pierre, in particular, becomes more involved in historical event than he is in earlier Volumes. He rides out to visit the troops and experience the war. Unlike Andrey and Nikolay, he is not fighting and makes an almost comic figure on the field, getting in the way of the soldiers. He quickly realizes the horror, which shocks him greatly: he is amazed that people can actually do this to each other and will come to their senses once they realize it is so bad. Tolstoy uses Pierre to show that the fashionableness of war only exists in the salons. Once out on the field there is little more than chaos and horror.

One of the most interested portions of Volume III is the abandonment and occupation of Moscow. Tolstoy shows this event in a few different ways. Kutuzov (the Russian commander)quickly recognizes there is no hope, based on the current state of the army in defending Moscow. They are weak after the moral victory at Borodino and must recuperate at their stores before engaging the enemy again.

Tolstoy agrees strongly with Kutuzov, citing him as the only man in the Russian army who, through extensive experience understands that the army will do what it will do and there is little effect that commanders can have on the outcome of the day---it comes down to the individual decisions of the soldiers. Really due to the esprit de corps. As a result, Kutuzov sees there is little hope in getting a tired army to defend the city: it is better to move on and regain strength.

In following the Rostov household, Tolstoy shows the domestic aspects of fleeing the city. There is the incredible organization required to pack up the rugs, dishes and other trappings of a high-class live in Moscow. The sequence highlights Count Rostov's inability in organization events that are life and death, versus organizing a dinner party. Natasha is the only one who can bring order and put both her mother and father in their places so work can be done, also pulling her out of her funk.

Of course, in Tolstoy's Russia, even the aristocrats feel for the soldiers---especially Natasha---and the Rostov's quickly unpack their cars to pack them back up with with wounded soldiers. This includes Princes Andrey, who up until this point was assumed to be dead. His presence leads to an emotional scene with Natasha, Mayra and Andrey later and his final perfect enlightenment (which he was unable to reach in his lifetime) at his death. (To comment briefly on this scene: Tolstoy had made clear Andrey's struggle with accepting love and enlightenment from god, which is embodied in Natasha in Volume II and is otherwise only reached in near death experiences. He reaches it the final time at his death. He never lives a happy and content life due to this lack of enlightenment. In contrast Pierre is able to find happiness through love and accept god. Tolstoy has it in for those who think critically of their faith.)

Pierre stays in Moscow during the evacuation, giving Tolstoy the opportunity to describe and more vividly show the state of Moscow beyond his beehive metaphor, which though very good, does not give the human sense of the city with so few in it. Pierre's wandering through the city (in search of Napoleon) gives a more stark view of the fires (previously seen only from a distance and in a rather romantic manner) and the lives lost due to them. Also we see a contrast in how the French troops treat the Russians when there are many of them versus how Pierre is treated by the single officer who takes up rooms with him: one-on-one, they can be nice, congenial and understanding; in a group-to-group setting, it is more violent, resulting in Pierre's arrest for protecting a woman.

We additionally see Napoleon's perspective on the empty city. Tolstoy revels in the idea the Napoleon waits and waits for the "welcoming" party to hand the city over to him (as other capitol cities have done) and no one very shows. The French then disappear into the city, with Napoleon losing control quickly. Tolstoy calls this loss of control inevitable---a result of moving soldiers into an empty city. The fire has a similar cause---a lack of normal inhabitants to prevent it.

I was fascinated by the empty city. As Tolstoy describes tens of thousands of people empty out, leaving the shell behind. The idea of wandering through an empty city with homes left as is or hastily packed up, then occupied (and looted) by soldiers is very cool.

I was a little put off by Andrey's death. I thought the use of it to bring together Mayra and Natasha was good. Their relationship was starting to become critical after Nikolay and Mayra's meeting. And Andrey's death allows further development of Nikolay and Mayra's relationship. Though it was a rather conspicuous plot point, it was a nice development.

Volume IV

Volume IV is a race to the end. Napoleon is bleeding as Tolstoy describes, comparing his ill-fated march back across Russia as a dying animal. The comparison is apt: Napoleon retreats down the toughest roads, carrying spoils from Moscow they can no longer bare and desperate for food and warmth. Tolstoy is able to capture this terror well in describing the cold and hunger. We see it not only from the more historical point of view, but also up-close-and-personal by following Pierre's detainment as a prisoner---which he finds almost pleasant and at very least freeing and enlightening due to interactions with Tolstoy's favorite class (the peasants)---and forced march with the retreating French soldiers.

It seems to me, and Tolstoy probably intends it that way, to be a rather bizarre proposition: marching your prisoners back across thousands of mile, when you don't have enough food or fuel for your own men and have ultimately lost the war you are fighting. But Tolstoy presses the idea that no rational decisions are being made (neither on the French nor Russian side) and the men involved in the retreat can hardly be controlled. If orders are given, they mean nothing---as every soldier knows exactly what they are doing: heading back home as quickly as possible.

On the home front, we see an equal rush to the end: final matches bing made and families being completely passed to the next generation---clearest with the death of Count Rostov and the return of Nikolay to take charge of the family. I was happy to see the decision of Nikolay to marry Mayra, though, Sonya, really troubled me, as her only selfish act backfired with the death of Andrey, leaving her pushed aside in this race to the end.

Pierre has yet another renaissance following his release and the death of his wife. Though I was not surprised by his joining with Natasha---I believe it was well telegraphed throughout the book---I was still a bit put off by the results. Natasha is portrayed as so pured---despite her brief dalliance with Anton---that even Pierre, with his rather regular redemptions, seems too rough for her. He seems like a poor alternative to Andrey who may have not been pure in soul, but was pure in deed, something Pierre, even with his redemptions was never. I suppose Natasha's influence was what he was missing to be pure in both ways It seems though, that to Tolstoy it is not the deeds that make the man, but some measure of his soul, which redeems him. (As a side note, I was surprised that Pierre did not give the Mason's white gloves to Natasha, as they were to represent just the type of love that Pierre found with her.)

Epilogue

The Epilogue looks seven years in the future to see hove the lives are for the couples formed in the final volume. Everyone is now contented with family lives. The most interesting, though, is Sonya. She is not given any sort of life and is hated by everyone for her constant acts of selflessness. It is almost a punishment that Tolstoy gives her, though I am unsure if it is due to her one act of selfishness or more a commentary on how a poor person raised with the rich is caught into a horrible position: no money for a dowry, yet too genteel to marry below her adoptive family's station.

The story with the family ends rather abruptly, with just the sense that life will go on as it has been described. The commentary in the back notes that it was rather unorthodox for the time, which I agree with---there was no closed cadence. Instead we are led into Tolstoy's argument about history for one final time.

I have come to agree at least partially with Tolstoy. History cannot be described exclusively through heroes. A command of a single man is not the whole story and despite everyone's best efforts events never go off just as planned because there are far too many individual decision makers (variables) involved in every event. Based on the decisions made up to a given point in history and the individuals involved there are no options (or very few). History is a constant contest between fate and free will, with neither winning out entirely.

It seems that the modern interpretation of history takes this more into account---the will of heroes is rarely put up as the reason; cause and effect is more closely examined. While it may not completely be the historical calculus Tolstoy is looking for, we are doing better at looking at the integral as opposed to the individual points.

Great book. A long read, but worth it.

8/10

<i>War and Peace: Volume II</i> by Leo Tolstoy

Volume II is a volume of peace. There is little mention of Napoleon. All of our soldiers are on leave, hunting down wives. The biggest transformations are in definitions of character within Pierre and Andrey.

Pierre frustrates me for most of this volume. He becomes enraptured with the Freemasons and attempts to follow their ideals. He has a very easy conversion from being an atheist: "longing to believe with all his soul" and feeling a "joyful sense of calm, renewal and return to life" the moment he is introduced to Freemasonry. This conversion reminds me of Levin's conversion in Anna Karenina, where he was convinced to believe based on the existence of an absolute goodness that is given to man through revelation. In both cases, the men are convinced not by some divine occurrence, but through a reasoned approach. The difference, though, is that Pierre is readily convinced---making his conversion quickly, almost rashly---where Levin is more measured, taking time (at least more than the ten minutes Pierre seemed to take) to think things through.

Anna Karenina ends before we see the longer term effects of Levin's conversion. Here, though, we follow Pierre as he seizes the opportunity to convert, participate and apply what he has learned. He is quickly frustrated by the lack of action of his fellow members and the fact that they have not fully abandoned themselves and their fortunes as masonry demands. Though, when Pierre attempts to apply his goodness on his estates, he fails---though he never knows it---due to his lack of understanding of the real world and his own lack of conviction in (or tendency to be subordinate with) his own beliefs.

Pierre's attempts at freeing his serfs and improving their lives is soon put into contrast with Andrey's quick and effective institution of such things on his own estate after a brief conversation with Pierre. Tolstoy dwelt on Pierre's failure while only briefly mentioning Andrey's success to perhaps imply that it is unsurprising to see Andrey succeed where Pierre had failed. I also think Tolstoy is showing some disdain for Pierre with this comparison.

As the volume progresses, we see Pierre torn more and more into one of those individuals he had criticized early in his Masonry. He returns to some of his heodonistic ways. He reduces (or at least Tolstoy doesn't mention) his attempts to be charitable to his serfs. Though he does stay active and travels to visit other Freemasons, it no longer appears to be an obvious part of his life.

Andrey's transformation from depressed---following the death of his wife---to joyful; from absent to revengeful; is as quick. Tolstoy uses a tree to mirror Andrey's transformation: from feeling he had no one to live for but himself before the bloom of spring, to stating his "life must be lived for [him] but also for other people." This feeling is carried through his relationship with Natasha, but falls away quickly when he learns of her impulsive actions. I would imagine that he would see the tree at the end of Volume II in a much gloomier light.

I am a bit peeved at Andrey for so quickly denying Natasha. She did act rashly and impulsively, but she is young and he had more-or-less abandoned her, despite his statement upon seeing the aged tree in a new light: "My life must be reflected in them [Natasha and Pierre] and they must live along with me, all of us together!" Though he most certainly did not mean physically together, he did little to bring Natasha with him in any other way: he did not stay in the area, have her visit him on his travels, or better give direction to Pierre to look out for Natasha. Really, this exercise seemed doomed to fail from the start, with Andrey's father's disapproval standing as a rather clear omen.

One particular scene that was great fun in this volume was that of Natasha, Nickolay, Petya and the rest of the hunting party having dinner at "uncle's" house. following the hunt. While the explanation of the hunt was in many ways tedious (Tolstoy staged it much like a battle, but the geography and movements were difficult to follow without a map on hand), the celebration after was really great and exposed the Russian culture runs deep. Despite the refined education in French language and culture, Natasha danced with a spirit, which was "truly Russian, imitable [and] unteachable."

With that and the desire to release the serfs, we see some exposure of a belief from Tolstoy in the innate value of individuals, despite the class they are born into. Sonya reflects this well. She is an orphan---a cousin---brought up with the Rostovs who is able to transcend her lack of a dowry. She is regularly noted as the kindest and gentlest person willing to wait indefinitely on Nickolay. Tolstoy also shows this belief through the kindness Marya shows the "Servants of God": she sees goodness in their suffering and wants to live as they do, understanding life by experiencing it more fundamentally.

And now, to move on to the next volume: war?

<i>War and Peace</i>: Volume #1 by Leo Tolstoy

Since this is a rather long book and Tolstoy conveniently divided it into volumes, I've decided to comment on the individual volumes as I go. I can thereby keep some sort of continuum of understanding on the text.

First, though, some notes on the version I am reading---a recent translation by Anthony Briggs. Included in the appendices are three sections that have so far been invaluable to me as I read: a list and brief description of the characters, maps of the major battle areas and one to two sentence summaries of the chapters. As with most Russian novels, it is virtually impossible to keep track of the characters with the patronyms, honorifics, given names and nicknames. The list of characters is broken down by family, which is very helpful in comparison to the basic lists I've usually run across.

Any time I'm reading a book describing battles---especially 19th-century battles with detailed troop movements---the maps are essential. Finally, since so many stories are interwoven, the chapter summaries are useful in recalling earlier plot points.

Tolstoy spends the first parts of the volume introducing all of the characters in their civilian social lives. We start to understand the relations between the families---which son is planned to marry which daughter---and the current international situation: the movement of Napoleon and where the political affinities of each character lie (it is surprisingly fashionable to have sympathies for Napoleon in Russian 'society').

From the social layout, two plot lines appear to be of particular import for later in the story. The first is the legitimization of Pierre from the status of a bastard son. Through the events surrounding his father's death, he moves from being scorned to celebrated (from a bastard to a Count). Pierre goes with the flow, seeing the changes in his life and the maneuvering of Prince Vasily to get Pierre to marry his daughter. He sees this all as inevitable---despite his misgivings, he feels there is no way he can resist.

While Pierre sees destiny, Rostov and Prince Andrey instead see opportunity to distinguish themselves and change history. It seems, though, that Tolstoy does not agree with their beliefs, as both are swept in directions beyond their control. And, despite their intentions, are unable to act as they had initially planned.

The other plot line that looks like it will be a centerpiece is that of Princess Marya. The oppressiveness of her life is outlined completely---her horrible looks (except those of her eyes) and the way her father frightens her and forces her lessons. But, despite, or maybe due to, this oppressive atmosphere, she is able to resist the tide of events and decide that her marriage to Prince Anatole is not best in the grand scheme: it is better to find a way for her friend to marry Anatole.

Two battles are also completed in this volume. We see quickly that the Russians are no match for the French in the second battle---the French are better organized, more prepared and have a plan, unlike the allies (Russian and Austrian) whose plan is extremely complicated and has little support from those carrying it out. Tolstoy notes his thoughts on the plan for the battle of Austrerlitz by describing the "disposition [of troops] was very complicated and hard to understand" and "went on and on." With that description and Kutuzov sleeping through its announcement, there was no hope for the Russians.

One aspect that Tolstoy is very keen to communicate is the reverence and adoration of the Tsar, shown most clearly through Rostov. Tolstoy describes how Rostov "longed for some means of expressing his love for the Tsar." And that Rostov contemplates that if the Tsar ever spoke to him, he would "die of happiness." Tolstoy later mentions how "nine-tenths of all the men in the Russian army were in love...with their Tsar and Russian military honor." A very hard thing to consistently live up to in a time a war. I sense we are soon to see further disillusionment of soldiers as the war continues.

<i>Ender's Game</i> by Orson Scott Card

This was a really great read. I would have, I think enjoyed it even more reading it as a 13 or 14 year old. Card mentions in the introduction that many gifted kids use the book as their Bible---identifying strongly with Ender. I had trouble seeing that for myself---though maybe the 13 year-old me would have easily made that identification. Now, though, Ender seems too perfect, too young and the one story too well worn (though I really liked this retelling) for me to identify completely with Ender's point of view.

With that said, really liked the sci-fi aspects of this book. Card mentions in the introduction how he was trying to figure out how fighting would be different in space. I think Ender demonstrated that most perfectly in the idea that there is no "down" when there isn't any gravity. "Down" is toward the goal. The orientation of the entry point's ceiling and floor means nothing once you are in a weightless environment: orientation is relative to your task.

I liked how Card visualized the internet. Granted his last revision for the copy I had was in 1991, but even then, few people had any vision of how the online world would emerge and dominate. He saw it as the primary location for human discourse, with entire symposiums held online. We haven't quite reached that point yet, but we are getting there.

The battle school appears to be a necessary outcome of the time the plot is set. With 2 invasions of aliens fought off, it is expected that militarization would be required to keep them at bay---a normal human response to an external threat that we are unable to understand.

Card concludes the story with redemption---absolution given by the enemy to the humans through Ender. Ender is the one---with enough empathy, survival instincts and smarts to save the world as a tween (a young Paul Atrides, Luke Skywalker or Neo) and later redeem human kind to bring back the enemy in the name of empathy.

A well written and engaging book.

8/10

<i>Laughter in the Dark</i> by Vladamir Nabokov

Throughout the majority of the book, I thought the title referred to the start of the story, where Albinus meets Margot in the cinema. After completeing the book, though, it more obviously refers to Albinus's cuckold position later in the novel and his blindness. Though, beyond the more obvious poetic justice of a man being cukolded by his lover after leave his wife, it may also reference how the relationship began in the dark and tended to stay that way for Albinus.

There were two parts to this story that I particularly liked: the first few and the last few sentences. The first few reminded me of How to Read a Book (in which I checked and found no reference to it), in that it gives us the whole story in two sentence, but concludes by noting:

This is the whole of the story and we might have left it at that had there not been profit and pleasure in the telling; and although there is plenty of space on a gravestone to contain, bound in moss, the abridged version of a man's life, detail is always welcome.

The last few sentences describe the last scene in terms of stage directions, which is very effective since the beginning of the chapter was told from Albinus's blind point of view. since we are seeing with him, we have a limited understanding of the room and the actions within it. With the stage directions, we get to see the results of the last actions, giving us a better understanding of how Albinus, Margot and the room interacted.

The story, overall, was very good, though I am generally frustrated by stories where people seemingly effortlessly remove themselves from long held relationships. I find the section where Albinus was blind and the conclusion of the story to be a bit rushed after the long set up between Rex and Margot.

Rex was a despicable character---pretty much a conman who can draw. His amiability for life, seen most easily in how he teases Albinus, was very amusing to watch, but painful to think about in reference to Albinus.

The sympathies of this story are reverse to those in Lolieta. To HH, one is more sympathetic at the start, but less sympathetic later in the book. Here, as Albinus is planning his infidelity, I was must less sympathetic as his actions were rather pathetic. But, as Rex and Margot start conning him and he becomes blind, my sympathies for him increased greatly.

A very good read.

8/10

<i>Men, Machines and Modern Times</i> by Elting E. Morison

Dave gave me this one.

Come to find out, Elting Morison started th STS (Science, Technology and Society) program at MIT. You can see that interest in his writing. There are 8 essays in this book, which address some questions on innovation.

My favorite essays focused on the mechanical. Morison includes two essays on computers, but like many thoughts on computers they don't age well. It may be due to thoughts that are generally had regarding any new technology are very optimistic at the outset---"none of the processes involved in human creativity appear to lie beyond the reach of computers" (I'm not an AI person, but I think that we don't say that with certainty now)---then it is slowly determined that the problem is much more complicated than originally thought.

But, back to the mechanical. These essays are about men (all the examples were of men) who were able to create---as Clayton Christenson would say---disruptive innovation in their respective fields. Morison puts this down to a type of personality more than anything else. In the case of the naval gun site, the man (Sims) who faced the change

was moved...in part by rebellion against tedium, against inefficiency from on high, and against the artificial limitations placed on his actions by the social structure

He gives other similar examples related to the expansion of the use of the Bessemer process in the use.

Morison aims, though, not to say that we should all fight our hierarchies (despite the fact I really want someone to give me permission to do so), but

that in a world such as ours, new ways to do things [are] standard operating procedure and that we had all better realize it and become an adaptive society before we [are] shaken apart or disintegrated under the strain produced by our blind resistances.

But within this we have to beware of our

mechanical triumph...produc[ing] a mechanical atmosphere we can't stand...the design of our technology must take into greater account our interior needs."

One note on an essay included here, but does no easily fall into either of the two categories above. This one was on bureaucracy and described it quite wall as a state reached due to years and years of refinements put into place with the best intentions, but never reconsidered---"it is easy to make a regulation than to abolish it." As a result, organizations are "highly dependent upon outside stimuli to force changes...Everyone inside is too committed to the special world." All due to the order we try to apply to the chaos we see around us.

A very good read---minus the essays on computers.

7/10