Reviews

Julian Barnes wrote my favorite book of 2020 (The History of the World in 10 and 1/2 Chapters) so I was looking forward to reading a newer book from him. This one was published in 2016 and is not quite a historical fiction and not a true autobiography but more like a story that follows the life of a Russian composer (Dmitri Shostakovich) under Stalin shortly after WWII. Barnes then fills in some missing pieces, drawing out a psychological portrait of a neurotic and somewhat spineless composer under the iron fist of the USSR. All in all, this book had some really good moments but came nowhere near the mastery (IMO) of what I was expecting from Barnes. Where Solzhenitsyn approaches the USSR regime as a prisoner in a gulag this is from the perspective of Russia’s most popular composer who was also in constant fear of the gulag. This helps to paint a picture of what life was like to those who were “lucky” enough to be outside the gulag. I really like Barnes’ writing style, but I would not put this is on a must-read list.

Summary This book (as the title implies) is interested in the emergence of species, and now that we are talking about it, what are species to begin with? At the time, there were many very experienced naturalists who would disagree on whether a certain plant or animal belonged in species A as a variety or actually should be considered a distinct species. These disagreements arose due to the fact that no one had a clear theory as to how these differences arose and up to then we used internal and external structure to define species. If these structures diverged enough, we would separate them into species. They also used the concept of whether entity A could potentially breed with entity B. If not, then the two entities must not be in the same species. There were other methods used, but these two should suffice to show how difficulties in definition might arise. For example, the internal and external structure of sexed organisms may very greatly as in humans, but we obviously must be the same species, right?….. Actually, that might explain some things. As for mating, this brings its own difficulties (I’m on a roll), but strictly speaking, you can have two different species reproduce, like a grizzly bear and polar bear, and this happens quite often in the plant kingdom. On the other hand, you have many instances of creatures in the same species category that can’t reproduce inside their own species. Think Mastiff and Chihuahua. So these principles are by no means black and white. The prevalent view at the time was the belief that each species was created individually, with this view the categorization of species should be much more straight-forward than it is, but Darwin had other ideas. Using pigeons, due to their availability and the long history they have of human selection, he built an argument. He stated that if we had found the various varieties of pigeons in the wild, we would without a doubt classify them as different species. We only refrain from doing so because we happen to know in this case that all the varieties descended from rock pigeons. What if this same concept applied to the whole animal kingdom? What if instead of individually created species there was a single progenitor which has given rise to the magnificent variety we observe today? How far might these accumulated minute changes take us? ...

I try to review every book I read or listen to, but I have a hard time with these types of books because they are summary style. How would you rate a Wikipedia article? You may be able to, but odds are the rating would have more to do with the facticity of the article versus its writing. I have no knowledge on the topic, so I cannot review that aspect. What I can say is that this did a decent job introducing the Ottomans to a Western reader, although you would do well to get a mental picture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia as there are so many places mentioned. Your eyes will probably glaze over unless you can picture their locations in your head. The reader for this audiobook was not fantastic. I will definitely want to dig more into the Ottomans, but probably after getting a better picture of early European history.

Summary This book follows nine main characters whose lives are deeply impacted by trees in one way or another. The story unfolds in four parts that mirror the sections of a tree: roots, trunk, crown, and seeds. Thoughts Writing a review for this book leaves me conflicted. The ‘Roots’ section sets the stage for the rest of the novel, yet I find myself wishing the book had concluded there. With its numerous main characters, the narrative functions almost as an anthology of stories about individuals, and often, several generations of their ancestors. This part of the book is outstanding—moving, thought-provoking, and, I believe, achieves what Powers intended: to view lives through the perspective of trees, or in “tree time”. You are presented with a series of images, events, tragedies, and triumphs, all the while knowing that these would be encapsulated within several inches of growth in a tree’s trunk. The subsequent sections strive to intertwine these characters in various ways as they seek to elevate awareness of industrialization’s impact on the planet. Although convincing, these sections lose the originality of the first, often veering into more predictable plot lines reminiscent of a classic Greenpeace-type narrative, akin to “Avatar”. Here, you have industrialists looking to exploit the planet’s natural resources and protagonists fighting to thwart this exploitation. In conclusion, I highly recommend the first section, and if you’re like me, you’ll complete the book out of a sense of obligation. You won’t consider it time wasted, but it won’t be a transcendent experience either. Reading this book will change the way you look at trees.

The Perennial Philosophy was Aldous Huxley’s attempt to unify the major world religions. The premise of the book is that they are all talking about the same thing and the differences are illusory. He relies heavily on mystics from some of the main traditions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Zen). It is clear that Huxley has done an immense amount of research into all these traditions and is able to pull out some fascinating quotes from each. Here are some interesting thoughts: ...

A witty read that follows a gullible but beneficent aristocrat (Samuel Pickwick) and his friends that form the Pickwick Club around as they galivant around the English countryside. Eating, drinking and getting into trouble. A brilliant writer, Dickens manages to convey the frivolity of life with an irresistible charm that makes you want to join in, even though it is all very silly. Filled with adventures as well as short stories told by various characters the plot is only loosely attended to, allowing the reader to hear many stories in one. is one of my favorite short stories. I will say that there are many stories where the characters get in trouble in somewhat stressful ways. Not sure what the name of this troupe is, but for example the main character gets lost in a hotel in the middle of the night. Returns to a room that looks just like his and starts to settle down but as the reader you are pretty sure that it isn’t his room. He is nearly asleep when a woman walks in, but due to the lighting he only sees the shape of a person and hides behind some drapes thinking it was a thief before realizing it was a woman, and that he must be in her room. This puts him in a very awkward position of course and as the reader you also happen to know that he was just hanging out with a guy who had come to that hotel to propose to a woman and naturally the woman in the room ends up being the same woman who was to be proposed to the next day and on and on. So if you don’t find that stuff entertaining than this isn’t for you, but I much enjoy. I guess a little similar to Naked Gun or something, but the protagonist isn’t quite so bumbling. All in all, good

The Plague is a fictional story about a cousin of the Bubonic plague reappearing in the town of Oran in Algeria on the North coast of Africa. As an aside the stranger also took place mostly in Algeria but in a different city. Really well written but quite dark, reading the plague was maybe a little too soon after COVID, but it was a great reminder that we are incredibly lucky that things weren’t as bad as they could have been. The story follows the doomed efforts of a doctor to treat the untreatable or in the doctor’s words “an endless defeat”. Yet with dogged persistence and help of a friend they organize a small crew inside the cutoff city to do what they can to stem the tide of the disease. As Camus was also a part of the French resistance in WW2 there are obvious parallels to the feelings of hopelessness but rebellion in the face of it ...

I love myths, so this book was really interesting in that regard. It goes well beyond the common ones that you’ve heard. Definitely made me want to read more about myths from North America. Campbell and Peterson seem like two peas in a pod although it seems like one pea (Peterson) has spent more time looking into the abyss than the other, for better or worse. This book is very staccato, an idea broached, a story told and then moved past to the next. What was at first a conversation between Campbell and Moyers was transcribed into the power of myth. In this sense it made for a poor book seeing as a book is the best medium we have for long form thought, but a conversation unless purely one sided can never truly be long form. The silver lining was that you were able to witness a huge breadth of Campbell’s beliefs instead of a narrow but deep vein. It made for a good overview of his position so that if you ever were to read one of his books in the future you won’t be starting from scratch. The connections made in this book were very interesting and food for more research. I am especially interested in the connection of the rise and fall of goddesses and the beginning of agriculture. Simone de Beauvoir pointed out essentially the same thing and for the similar reasons. Campbell seems places the chain of causality to be: ...

This is the book that I think the idea of Freudian slips comes from. It is an investigation into brain farts basically. He investigates various mental mistakes like not being able to remember a person’s name and the circumstances that cause these mistakes. This book was surprisingly practical for the most part, especially when compared to the psychology of dreams. I found that a lot of his explanations for things made sense in a logical way and didn’t seem to be too much of a reach. The format of this book is he would basically dedicate a chapter to a particular mistake, take misplacing things for example. He would then explain what he thought the reason for this was and then he would offer between 10 and 20 anecdotal stories that helped to solidify his point. Overall, a pretty interesting read that will make you stop and ask yourself next time you stub your toe: “was this just an accident? Or did I secretly not want to have kids and gave expression to this wish by kicking that wall” ...

Summary Matt Ridley sets out to explain why, despite how it may feel, we live in the brightest point in history and the future is likely to be even brighter. Homo Sapiens are an incredible species, which always raises the question of how we got to be this way. What set us on this path that allowed us to specialize in ways unique in our known universe. Ridley wants to argue that the distinguishing feature was trade. Trade allows for specialization, and we should think of specialization as skill storage. You learn how to make an axe, I’ll learn how to grow corn etc. etc. In this way the amount of knowledge available continues to grow the more trading connections we enter into. For a few ears of corn, I can make use of years of R&D that you’ve committed to making the axe. From a game theory point of view this is a win win. As you can make axes better than me, and I can grow corn better than you. The result is a net increase in material wealth. As the community grows and more nodes in the form of human brains join the network, the amount of specialized knowledge grows combinatorically because although the skills are siloed the results are not. For example, if you make a better axe, I can clear forests easier to make more corn than before and so on. This is a fundamental argument for free and global trade, as there seems to be no upper limit to idea storage in the universe. ...