Reviews

Summary Frankenstein wants to create life, he does, and the results may surprise you. Thoughts A really great read with exceptional prose. Ironically the most articulate character is the monster himself, his description of coming to consciousness is one of the most touching moments of the book. Heavily inspired by Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’, Shelley tells one of the most memorable stories of the 19th century. As with all great works of art, after they are created, they in some sense no longer belong to their creator but become part of the collective consciousness. I would be interested to see what she would think of its place in culture now. The story itself of course is provocative in that there are so many different ways of reading it. There are of course the social critiques of the time in it, such as the treatment of servants, mob mentality etc. There is also the commonly understood moral that Dr. Frankenstein’s creation should remind us that we should be careful when playing God. This moral is interesting in itself, but subversive when reversed, that is God should be careful when playing us. The monster kills people, and therefore Dr. Frankenstein feels that he is in some way culpable, in some ways more so than the Monster, so much so that all he wants to do is kill the monster and die himself. Of course, this makes sense in line with the usual moral, but what does it mean for the inverse? Another fascinating layer to this whole quandary is that the Monster himself has a virtuous heart but is driven to violence by his complete and absolute isolation. ...

Sigmund Freud A great primer that doesn’t throw the baby out with the repressed infantile sexual instincts.

I listened to this whole book, then went back and listened to the first half again, to try and cement an understanding of his argument which could be fairly complicated. The goal of the book was to give a convincing explanation of Scientific Materialism. So instead of “A Case for Christ” this would be “A Case for Darwin”. It was pretty nice to hear the best arguments for materialism from a guy who has spent much of his life studying the problem, but it took extra concentration to keep up as the reasoning was so different from the usual hippy pan psychic stuff I’ve been reading of late. Here are some thoughts, ...

I did this so you wouldn’t have to, and now you can at least take one book off your list. Gargantua and Pantagruel was written by François Rabelais in the 1500s. While the term “renaissance man” is often over-used it really applies to Rabelais. He was a genius walking contradiction. A Frenchman, a Greek scholar, a learned physician, a monk, a humanist, and is best known for his risqué satirical songs and writing. Whatever box you try to put him in, he seems to pop out of it. His characters have a love for life that flies in the face of the reserved stoicism that we generally associate with the 1500s. Whether it is taking a piss or reading Apollodorus each is treated equally in this book. Appearing in 5 books, the reader follows the adventures of Gargantua who is a giant, and his son Pantagruel who is also a giant. The book is filled to the brim with sex jokes and bathroom humor. Here is my favorite of each, for bathroom humor Gargantua is talking to his father about all the different objects he has used for toilet paper in his search for the perfect wiping sensation. The list includes but is not limited to old hats, slippers and velvet gloves. But his favorite is… ...

As a note I am combining my reviews of this book and Buddhist’s Ethic - A Very Short Introduction. Summary Buddhism is gaining in popularity, but it has so many varying practitioners that it is hard to put a finger down on what it is exactly. I wanted to find out what it was from the horse’s mouth, and nowhere produces horses better than London’s universities, so that is where I decided to get my information. I’ve read quite a few books from the “Very Short Introduction” series and have yet to be disappointed; this was no exception. Since I am from the west most of my understanding will be filtered from that worldview. ...

Summary The year is 1979, and Brezhnev authorizes a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR had been watching developments there uneasily for years. In 1973, Mohammed Daoud Khan ended the Afghan monarchy. Five years later, on April 27–28, 1978, the Marxist PDPA seized power in the Saur Revolution, launching radical reforms and internal purges that fractured Afghan politics. Moscow was unsettled by the PDPA’s sudden rise, but quickly threw its support behind the new regime. The PDPA’s rule proved unstable, dominated by a radical faction that tried to secularize society and overturn centuries of tradition—sparking a conservative Islamic backlash. This had broader implications for the USSR, which contained its own Muslim-majority regions. Moscow was unwilling to stand by and risk a conservative revolution spreading across its southern flank. ...

Consistently rated as American’s favorite book second only to the Bible, Gone with the Wind has undeniably shaped America’s culture and helped serialize the romantic ethos of ‘The South’. Written in 1936 it was an instant hit, selling more than a million copies before being turned into arguably the first blockbuster film three years later. Gone with the Wind follows the life of Scarlett O’Hara for around 15 years observing the start of the civil war and the tumultuous reconstruction that followed. This book has often courted controversy and how could it not? This is a story of the south, by someone who loved the south. —-Main Characters—- Scarlett The epitome of a southern belle, except that her charms are only skin deep. A beautiful headstrong girl who has always been the center of attention, surrounded by suitors and always pampered. As a main character I have never liked anyone less. The whole book is from her point of view which in the early part of the book is the same as being stuck inside a ditzy 17-year-old girl’s head. Scarlett isn’t stupid per se, but nothing abstract interests her, as such, much of the philosophy of the South is omitted from the book and instead is presented through motifs. Honestly this might be for the best, as because of this the book seldom gets bogged down in preaching for a way of life that we as a society have decidedly rejected. Scarlett may not be stupid in a classical sense, but she is clueless how to live life and to know what she really wants. In many ways she is the most believable of the main characters and while it is often not pleasant to be stuck in her head, I feel the same way about being stuck in my head sometimes. ...

I inherently don’t trust people who are named Dr. ‘X’, but they always seem to become popular. In a single sentence I would say that the book is full of BS that probably works. There were things in the book that triggered the Hank Hill “now that’s just asinine” response, but then she would follow it up with an explanation that would end up making a lot of sense. The foundation of this book is the idea that everyone is “Good inside”. She puts an emphasis on the idea that we are not our actions. A what she calls “two things are true” attitude. You did something that you aren’t proud of, but you are good inside. She takes this approach because she believes that people can’t change their behaviors until they believe they are good inside. She is anti-shame, so anything that promotes shame (like thinking you are bad inside) must go. So basically, a childhood completely opposite from the one I had. She promotes viewing everyone, but especially your kids through a “most generous interpretation” lens. The main role of the parent is to create an environment that is safe for the child to learn how to self-regulate emotions. So instead of shutting down kids’ feelings you are supposed to acknowledge them and let the kid feel them, so they know how to deal with their emotions instead of repressing them……sounds demonic. So, an example would be if your child is afraid of the dark, instead of trying to convince them they are not, you should approach things from a “trying to understand” way and ask why questions. Then you would tell your child, that you believe they are afraid, and that it isn’t bad or wrong to feel that way. You could then work together on trying to find solutions to mitigate the fear, instead of just telling your kid to not be “so dramatic”. That’s pretty much it, any feeling your kid has, you tell them that it is okay to feel that way, while holding boundaries. Overall, this book made me realize that I had been thinking through parenting through too much of a “me-centric” viewpoint. Focusing on what I can do instead of thinking through things from the child’s point of view. What is it like to be told what to do all the time? What is it like to have no control over your activities? How can we promote autonomy in such a structured environment? How can we learn to regulate feelings we aren’t allowed to have? So just take a moment, put your hand on your heart, deep breath in, close your eyes and say “I’m good inside”

I’ve been reading this a lot recently, for my own pleasure of course, and I can’t help but picture a dark clear night in the deserted streets of Moscow. A homeless Ivan leans back emptying the contents of a clear glass bottle into his bottomless stomach. He trips over a curb and falls, landing on his back. His head cracks against something sharp and solid. Tasting metal in his mouth, he feels something warm start to trickle down his back. Unable to move he stares into the dark sky. He can only see the brightest of stars, the rest, like so many potential futures left unrealized, are hidden by light pollution. In the distance he can hear a train’s lonely call, the walls of the sleeping city echo back their ghostly replies. While nearby, giant smokestacks exhale their black life into this last night of nights. Completely alone, his voice barely above a whisper he says ...

Summary Written in 1921 while WW1 was fresh on his mind, Freud investigates the psychology of groups. Little did he know, one of the most notorious groups in history was just a few years from rising to power, ultimately forcing him to flee to London in 1938, where he would die of cancer. The book starts with a summary and critique of contemporary Gustave Le Bon’s work on group psychology and then investigates past where Le Bon’s work ends. ...