<i>Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them</i> by David Anderegg, PhD.

Jason and I read this book together. Anderegg's argument is that our cultural understanding of nerds---as obsessed with science, focused on things other than human relationships, wearing glasses, being bad dressers and having no sex---while less harmful on an adult level---as adults understand irony and sarcasm---is extremely dangerous to children since they take what adults say as the truth (no developed sense of irony). This, as a result, turns kids away from science, math and intense curiosity at a young age as nerds are seen as bad (since adults make fun of them) and therefore undesirable to be. While some kids overcome this in high school, some do not and as these kids become adults, it only deepens the anti-intellectualism in the US.

Anderegg makes a compelling argument for this based on a few studies, his own experiences as a child psychologist and the development of the idea of a nerd in American culture (all the way back to Bram Bones and Ichabod Crane). I definitely agree the cultural idea of a nerd is damaging to America, in that it stigmatizes knowledge, thereby affecting the competitive of our country in science, technology and economic areas. It also brings about a general science and math illiteracy, causing the general public to not understand the intricacies of the debates on global warming, IVF and stem cell research, thereby making the public more susceptible to positions based on slogans (drill, baby, drill) and knee-jerk ideology.

Anderegg finishes by offering some prescriptions to parents on how to get their young kids to understand that being a nerd is not bad or that nerd is not a real idea. I was sorry to see that he did not offer ideas for those of us currently in science and engineering fields on how to improve the perception in American culture.

Overall, an interesting read with insightful assessments of American culture.

7/10

<i>Immortality</i> by Milan Kundera

I have a lot to say about this book, but have had trouble putting it all together in an entry. Here's a try.

Kundera uses a number of techniques in this book, which he claims are "precisely what can only be expressed in a novel, so that every adaptation contains nothing but the non-essential" and is written "in such a way that [it] cannot be retold." He does this by interweaving multiple stories, putting the writer in the story, bringing a character in to serve a single purpose and telling the story out of sequence, among other things.

While some of this may be difficult in film, I've seen movies that do many of these things: Pulp Fiction and Memento tell stories out of sequence; Stranger than Fiction and Adaptation involve the writers in their stories; Crash and Pulp Fiction (again) interweave multiple story lines and there are numerous films where characters are introduced merely to play a single line ro scene. It may be a different experience than reading a book, but it can be done and it can be done well.

One particular scent in the book that i enjoyed was the interaction between Brigitte and her German tutor:

"It isn't logical, I know, but through the centuries this became the common usage," he said as if begging the young Frenchwoman to take pity on a language cursed by history.

"I'm glad that you admit it. It isn't logical. But a language must be logical," Brigitte said.

The young German agreed. "Unfortunately, we lack a Decartes. That's an unforgivable gap in our history. German lacks a tradition of reason and clarity, it's full of metaphysical mist and Wagnerian music, and we all know who was the greatest admirer of Wagner: Hitler!"

Of course, as soon as I read that, I laughed out loud, as I was instantly reminded of the similar internet meme. I am not sure is this is the source material (after a quick search via Google, I can't find any earlier references), or if it was rederived or if Kundera took it from somewhere else.

The introduction of this tutor is interesting for another reason, as aside from Göethe, he was the only German in the book (Agnes was Swiss). The tutor and his embarrassment of his own language stands in sharp contrast to Göethe, who, as a poet, knew the virtues of German and how to make it do what he wanted. The tutor, instead, was embarrassed by Hitler on behalf of his entire country, expecting little from a language used by such a universally understood evil man.

This brings me to the last scene---or set of scenes---that I want to address here: Göethe and Hemingway in heaven. I always enjoy when these sorts of thought experiments are done well, as it is here. When you enable cross-time-line people to interact, you allow not only a judgment backwards, but also one forwards. It is easy for a modern musician to give his opinion of Mozart, but it is far more interesting to ask what Mozart would think of Yo-yo Ma.

While Kundera didn't show us this initial interaction, he implies that it went well as Hemingway and Göethe end up being good friends. As Kundera mentions, it is silly to assume that in heaven, with all of time to choose from, one would only be friends with one's contemporaries. But, I am left to wonder if Göethe remained friendless up to that point when Hemingway arrived.

I really enjoyed this book. I had some trouble with the bits about Göethe since I had little-to-no knowledge about him. I liked how the story lines lapped over the other and intertwined in the head of the author. A great read.

8/10

<i>A Private Hotel for Gentle Landies</i> by Ellen Cooney

I took a class from Ellen Cooney at MIT on writing short stories. It was a good class, though it happened during a rather tumultuous term. She talked about what she wrote in class , but never had us read anything of hers. That is probably a sign of a secure writer---that you don't have to get validation from the class of students you are teaching.

About the book. I enjoyed it---it was a nice diversion. I instantly thought of my mother as I read the detailed passages about the horses. There was much to-do about the bells, which really set off the entire story.

AS I read, I was reminded of the stories I would hear at school about male students who worked at gay strip clubs to make money for school. I am sure Cooney was exposed to similar stories in teaching at MIT and Harvard and wonder if those served as inspiration for the men at the hotel.

The writing was tight, though rather romantic. There was definitely a theme of women's empowerment---women taking thier lives and sexuality into their own hands. Woman holding non-domestic jobs and a brief appearance of Fannie Farmer. The sex scenes were done well---not too much focus on them, but enough to portray some sensuality and, again, the opportunity for empowerment.

I liked the New England scenes, which were well done and believable for the time period. The characterizations of the people were equally believable though, again, rather romantic.

7/10

<i>Neuromancer</i> by William Gibson

I often have trouble following these "cyberpunk" novels. It is sort of like reading one's first Russian novel---you can't, for the life the life of you, keep the characters straight and, after making it through 2 or 300 pages, you are lucky if you have even a basic idea of the plot. This was definitely the case for me when reading The Golden Age series and The Diamond Age.

I, though, after this book am getting a better feel for the genre---what is the basic play between good and evil and what are the character types I can expect. I was more prepared for the battle inside the computer and how it interacted with what was going on outside---both The Golden Age and The Diamond Age use the interplay between cyberspace and the real world as a major theme of the stories.

There were some really great images in the book. I really liked the images of cyberspace that Case was hacking through. Of course, it is very attractive to think of coding and hacking in that way---visual---despite the fact it is rather like writing (if I am to believe my coding friends). Though, I guess when I write---and get things right---it is not a pleasurable sound I have in my head, but more like fitting puzzle pieces together to have a perfect picture. So, maybe for coders it is a similar imagery in the brain, and since Case has a neural link to the system, and we are looking through his POV, it could be that we are seeing his brain interpretation of the code.

Another great image was of the sacks of poison hanging inside of Case to keep him in-line. I imagined the dynamics of these sacs as Case moved along and they swung like so many shopping bags gently hitting his internal organs. There are few things as frightening as the poison inside you.

The ending wasn't bad. It left enough unsaid to not make it feel like Gibson as wrapping everything up with a bow. It was short, to the point and uncomplicated, as Case's life quickly became the same. So, overall a good read. Gibson is great at describing a cyberspace in 1983. It didn't read like dated sci-fi. My 21st century brain still felt this was in the future not the present or the past. That's pretty good for a book from 25 years ago: before the web and cell phones.

8/10

<i>"Fire in the Hole"</i> by MJ Boss

A coworker of mine wrote this book. I believe it was self-published through an online publishing house. When I had read and returned it, I told him he needs an editor, which he does.

He was going for a modern terrorist thriller and had a rather interesting compound story. Unfortunately, though, the book read little better than my journal entries---a series of events and interactions merely listed off. The characters were hardly developed, causing them to be easily confused as I read. It was little more than 120 pages (in 14 pt font, 1.5 spaced), though the plot could have easily filled the 400 pages generally given to a Clancy or Crichton novel.

The worst, though, was the distractions caused by the non-existent editing, which allowed the poor word choice, poor grammar and improper punctuation to reach the page. My advice is, still, to get an editor, then spend some time expanding the plot. It was a nice try, but a complete miss.

2/10

<i>Deadeye Dick</i> by Kurt Vonnegut

I swear I read somewhere that this was Vonnegut's favorite of his own works. I can't though, put a source to it---and a Time obituary says it was Slaughterhouse Five. Despite the internal mis-attribution, I enjoyed the book.

This is a self contained novel compared to other Vonnegut works where characters, words and phrases are shared. Like Player Piano in that sense: it almost seems like a different author. We become wrapped up with one character and his personal story and it is not outside events that shape his life (like Billy Pilgrim w/WWII), but his own actions (shooting into the night, writing a play).

Even with the main character (Rudy) acting without pressure from an exterior crisis, the book covers the regular Vonnegut theme of the inevitableness of life (there is little one can do but go with the flow). With no war or similar, Rudy shows this by doing nothing based on his own ambition. He writes and submits his play to a contest based a comment from a teacher. He becomes a pharmacist based on a comment from his father. The only act that he does on his own is the shot into the night. From there on, he is swept along by everyone else.

I like how Vonnegut set Rudy's most upsetting scenes as mini plays. It gave them more action---more interactions between people than the retelling of those interactions. It made them strong and more fun. Sometimes more can be done with brief stage directions than with a paragraph of dialog.

This was a good one. I enjoyed it.

9/10

<i>The Great Santini</i> by Pat Conroy

This is a book I should have read in high school.

A ticket taker on the train saw it and said that when he read it, he made it about 2/3rds of the way through when he got so mad at the story that he had to put it down for a few days. Based on that, I expected there to be a huge blow out between Ben and his father. Though there are a number of incidents, there was nothing obscene enough to make me put the book down.

I appreciated the complexity that Conroy gave Ben's father. Though the Marine attitude was getting on my nerves quite a bit, there was more dimension to Bull's character. He had fun with his kids and gave up his post to make sure his son was safe. It was easy to hate him, but it was hard to say that he had no redeeming qualities---something that Ben realized by the end.

I generally liked Ben. I was pissed---just as he was---that he listened to his father in the basketball game. The better strategy is to take it and just play tougher---get revenge in regular play. One of the things, though, that Ben was learning was when he should and when he shouldn't listen to his father. Mary Ann was generally his conscience on such matters, but she couldn't be with him on the court, and, indeed, was nowhere to be found in the stands.

Overall, a good book. Conroy was tight with his prose and portrayed the characters motives and ideals clearly. I would like to know what happened to Ben. I assume he became a pilot to honor his father. But it would have been poetic justice to see him become an English professor.

8/10