Flashman by George Macdonald Fraser

(Book Review)

A few months back, when I was reading the biography of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton by Edward Rice, I became very interested in the history of the British Empire in Afghanistan and "The Great Game."

I was talking about it with a British friend back in Japan, and he at once recommended the "Flashman books".

"They're absolutely hilarious," he said. "And you learn a learn a lot of history from them."

He then proceeded to tell me the idea behind the series. "He's a coward and a scoundrel, but somehow he always ends up getting the reputation of a hero. The books are written from the perspective of the 80 year old Flashman, who is trying to set the record straight on what really happened.
"Plus, the books are very well researched, so you learn a lot of history from them as well."

I had never even heard of these books before. (I'm not sure if that's just my ignorance, or if they're less popular in North America. Has anyone else read or heard of this series?) But, this was definitely enough to pique my interest.

Also, as often happens when you learn about something new, I found that once these books had been put on my radar screen, I began to notice references to them all over the place. Christopher Hitchens, in one of his clips on Youtube, made a passing reference to this series. John Updike and Terry Prattchett, it turns out, are both big fans.

So, eventually I decided to check it out. Since this book is light and easy to read, I've been using it as a way to relax in the evening while doing graduate school.

It is, if nothing else, a very pleasant way to learn history.

I have long -- been-- a-- fan-- of -- historical-- novels as an easy and exciting way to learn history.

But, if the pleasure of learning history is increased by making it into a novel, then that pleasure is doubled by making it into a comical novel.

The humor of this book (how the scoundrel Flashman keeps ending up a hero) is more an ironical humor than it is a-laugh-out-loud punchline every page type humor. But it should be enough to at least put a hint of a smile at the corners of your mouth as you read.
Personally my favorite parts were the descriptions of Flashman whining and crying when he was forced to defend a fort against an Afghan attack.

The history of the period is also quite cleverly woven in with the story. Although Flashman himself is purely fictional, he interacts with many historical figures and, Forest Gump like, somehow manages to always be present at all the key points in history (mostly against his will). He is present at the assassinations of some of the leading British political officers in Afghanistan, as well as many of the key battles.

As any good historical novel does, this takes a complex history and makes it understandable. When I first started reading about the British in Afghanistan, I very quickly became confused about the rival warlords and tribes. But when they all become characters in a novel, it's much easier to remember who is who.

In fact this little books is so chock full of historical figures and events that, if you're already addicted to wikipedia as I am, it's hard to resist the temptation to keep looking up people as you read through the book--Something that probably was less of an issue when this book was first published in 1969, but oh how times have changed.

Something else which has changed since the book's original publication is its relevance to current events. Now that our own army is bogged down in Afghanistan, attempting to do what the British and the Russian armies have failed to do, the lessons of history are perhaps again becoming relevant.

Update:
I was reading some of the reviews for this book on amazon.com (A). Most of the negative reviews focused on Flashman's treatment of women. Specifically there's a scene in this book where he rapes a woman. The actual rape itself is more implied than shown, but this was obviously enough to turn some people off from the book.
This made me wonder if perhaps I was a little bit too kind to this book in my initial review. Should I have been harder on this book for being insensitive to women?
Of course the whole premise of this book is that Flashman is a scoundrel, so nothing Flashman does is meant to be good. And the book sort of justifies itself by having the woman later get the upper-hand on Flashman. But maybe a line is crossed nonetheless?
I wish the author would have left the rape out of the book personally, but I still liked the book as a whole anyway.
But at any rate, a caveat should definitely be attached to my recommendation.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky on class in America

Flashman by George Macdonald Fraser: Book Review (Scripted)

Monarchy From the Middle Ages to Modernity by David Starkey

(Book Review)

A former British co-worker of mine in Japan, knowing my fondness for history and audio books, was kind enough to give me this audio book before he left the country. And lately I've been using audio books as a way to satisfy my interest in history whilst my time for leisure reading has largely disappeared since I'm in grad school studying something completely un-history related.
(Audio books are great. I can listen to them while I exercise, while I get dressed in the morning, while I walk to class, while I eat breakfast, and thus I can keep learning history without interfering with my course studies.)

In addition to this audio book, my British friend also gave me "This Sceptred Isle" (W). I'm not going to review "This Sceptred Isle" because it was originally a radio show and not a book (and hence falls outside the scope of my book review project). But I will say that between both that, and this book, I feel like I've given myself quite an education in British history. Which isn't bad for something you do while brushing your teeth.

(The next time you see me, try and somehow work British history into the conversation. I feel like now I've got all this useless information running around my head that I never get a chance to use.)

This book traces the history of British Monarchy all the way from the wars of the roses to Queen Victoria.

Personally, the monarchs--fat, spoiled, and usually full of themselves-- have always struck me as the most boring part of history. I myself would be much more interested in learning about some of the social movements in British history like the Chartists, the Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo Massacre matyrs, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, et cetera.
...Or I'd be more interested in a book about the British individuals who resisted the monarchy like Thomas Paine, John Lilburne, Wolfe Tone, et cetera.

But, never look a free audio book gift horse in the mouth, right?

( I'm a slow reader, so I tend to be very picky about the books I actually physically read because I know I'll be stuck with it for a couple months. But audio books are so painless I'll listen to whatever I can get my hands on.)

And there is no denying that in British history, eras are often defined by the reigning monarch. So it's useful to learn all the different monarchs just to be able to talk intelligently about the history, or to have a framework in which to put the other events.

And indeed, as a result of this book, I now feel confident that if I were in a bar, and the person next to me asked me to trace out the whole line of succession from Henry VIII to Queen Victoria, and outline the highlights of each reign, I could do a pretty good job of it.
(Sadly, however, and no one ever seems to ask that.)

This period also covers some of the more interesting years of the monarchy, such as the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell, the abolition of the monarchy, and England's temporary experiment with republicanism.
As the author David Starkey points out, an often overlooked fact in history was that England, not France, was the first country to publicly try and execute the monarch, declare monarchy illegal, and declare a republic--something often overlooked in history textbooks.

(I myself once mistakenly told a class of Japanese students that the American revolution was important because it was the first republic since the days of ancient Rome. My Amero-centric scholastic education had completely neglected the short lived English Republic, the Dutch Republic, and some of the republican city states in Italy. But I digress here.)

The main selling point of this book is just its engaging style. The author David Starkey is one of those delightful authors who likes to tell history as a story. And he has excellent skills as a story teller. He focuses in on the quirks and peculiarities of each monarch, and has lots of interesting anecdotes. Despite the rather intimidating sounding title ("from the middle ages to modernity"), this book is incredibly easy to digest and almost reads like a novel.
The beauty of this book is that it touches not only the larger-than-life figures of Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth, but also brings to life many of the lesser known monarchs like William IV or Edward VI. And if those names sound boring, rest assured David Starkey has dug up some interesting anecdotes about them that will make it fun reading.

Link of the Day
Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's theory of Linguistics & Politics

Monarchy From the Middle Ages to Modernity by David Starkey: Book Review (Scripted)

Kim by Rudyard Kipling

(Book Review)

Before I get into the meat of this review, a few words about the reasons it ended up on my reading list to begin with.

1). I had recently finished reading the biography of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton by Edward Rice. In that book, Rice claims that Kipling based one of the characters in "Kim" off of Richard Burton. (I think, although I've left my copy back in Japan, that it was the character of Colonel Creighton.)

2). Also in reading Richard Burton's biography, I learned for the first time about the "Great Game" (W). This was something that had been left out of my scholastic education, but was the 19th century rivalry between Britain and Russia for influence and control of Afghanistan, played out by secret agents from both sides trying to obtain information and influence Afghanistan war lords.
The idea of a 19th Century version of cold war spy games is intriguing enough on its own (for those of us who are bitten by the history bug.) But the fact that our own army is currently stuck in the Afghanistan quagmire makes this historical period all the more relevant.

It turns out that the plot of "Kim" actually revolves around the "Great Game", and tells the story of a young boy sucked into the world of 19th century espionage in central Asia.

3). Third, and finally, Rudyard Kipling was one of those authors that I had enjoyed in childhood, and had always meant to someday return to.
When I was about 11 or 12, I read Kipling's "Jungle Books" series, and loved them. I also enjoyed Kipling's "Just So" stories.
And, if it's fair to count movies loosely based off of Kipling's works, "Gunga-Din" (W) was another childhood favorite of mine.

"Gunga-Din", filmed in 1939, had become politically incorrect long before I saw it. But when you're a kid watching movies on TV in the basement, no one tells you these things, and it shaped my childhood image of India as a gallant British soldiers bravely advancing the cause of civilization against the savage native Thuggees.

...Which brings me to the dark side of Kipling's legacy: the whole "White Man's Burden" thing--something I was blissfully ignorant of as a child, but something that is in inescapable in any adult review of Kipling's literature.

I'll try and dodge this controversy as much as I can by saying upfront I'm no expert.

A few years ago I was reading through a book of George Orwell's essays, and read his views on Kipling. The entire essay is on-line (link here) but if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing I'll summarize Orwell's thoughts:
"I know it's popular in leftist circles these days to call Kipling a fascist these days, but it's not true. He maybe an imperialist, a racist, a sadist, and a bad poet, but he's not a fascist."

And this kind of thing was the image of Kipling I've had as an adult.

Therefore I was pleasantly surprised in reading this book to find that it had a lot more sensitivity to India than I expected given Kipling's reputation. There are overtones of subtle racism throughout the book, but overall one gets the sense from Kipling that he loved India and he loved the people.

Which isn't surprising, considering he spent much of his life there, and was able to speak in Hindi before he could speak in English.

The plot of the book is really 3 fold. It's partly a road trip story, as Kim and a Tibetan lama search for a mystical river. It's partly a spy story, as Kim is trained in the Great Game, and must learn to outwit French and Russian spies.
And it's partly a coming of age story, as Kim grows from a child into a young man during the course of the book.

But all 3 of these plots are rather thin. Most of the beauty of this book is just in it's description of 19th Century India. And that is the real value of it.

As Orwell says, in the essay linked to above, "Tawdry and shallow though it is, Kipling's is the only literary picture that we possess of nineteenth-century Anglo-India."

And in the vivid characters, marketplaces, crowded trains, and landscape descriptions that Kipling includes in this book, you can really visualize it. It's a fascinating portrayal of 19th Century colonized India.

Which brings me to an important caveat: this book is heavy on descriptions, and light on story. Since I was expecting a rollicking spy story, this was something that jolted me a bit when I first started the book.
Once I realized what kind of book I was in for, however, and re-adjustment my expectations accordingly, I found it a fascinating read.

Second caveat: this isn't always an easy book to read. It's usually classified as children's literature but, apparently there's some debate about this.

As mentioned above, I read Kipling's "Jungle Books" and "Just So Stories" as a child. I remember approaching them with a bit of hesitation (as you always do as a child when preparing to tackle a Victorian era classic) and then being pleasantly surprised at how easy they were to read.

Kim was a bit more of a struggle. I'll quote another blogger who puts it better than I could:

I find this a curious book. First, as I mentioned previously, I sometimes find it hard to follow. Sometimes there will be a conversation, and I'll think "Woah...is it the whiskey or do I just have no idea what these people are trying to say to one another". Then I'll realize I haven't even had any whiskey. And then, a page or two later, everything is clear again. Not sure if this is due to Kipling's style, or whether it's just ADD kicking in. Regardless. it's disconcerting. Then there's the problem of a lot of vernacular in the book. There are a bunch of different types of people, English (white), Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and each of them seems to have their own nickname...pahari, faquir, sahib, pathan, etc. While exotic and colorful, it's also hard to follow. An annotated version of this book would be an excellent help. There's also the issue of politics...just who is spying on who in "The Great Game"? We all know Britain ruled India in the 1800s, but who were they spying on? We get some clues...rebellious kings, Russians, but the historical background is unknown to me.

(By the way, the above quote comes from "Blogging the Canon", a blog I stumbled upon while doing research for this review, and which I found to be very interesting. Check it out if you have time.)

To me, in the end the rewards of the book were worth the struggle. But this is something every reader will have to decide for themselves.

*One final note: apparently the great Edward Said has written extensively on "Kim", and the subtle themes of Imperialism in the book. Unfortunately I haven't been able to track down a complete copy of his essay online, so I can't really recommend it. But I'm sure given Said's expertise in this area that he would tackle some of the thorny issues in Kipling's legacy much better than I could.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky - Crime and punishment in America

Kim by Rudyard Kipling: Book Review (Scripted)

Introducing Chomsky by John Maher and Judy Groves

(Book Review)

This is part of the "Introducing..." series, by Icon Books, which seek to introduce great thinkers and philosophers in comic book type fashion.

...Which, with apologies, brings me to a quick point of station identification.
Since I started this book review project, I have meticulously reviewed every single book that I've completed reading. I have not, however, extended that to include comic books. (One has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you'll spend your whole life reviewing every piece of media you come across). So, even though I've read several comic books this past year--more than I care to admit to at my age--I've not reviewed any of them on this blog. (Although - I - have - reviewed - books- based- off- of comic books.)

This book walks the line, but it's not really a pure comic book. It's more of a text with lots of pictures. So I'm counting it as a book.

I bought this book because I thought it would be useful for my applied linguistics course. And, I thought the illustrations would help to make this a fairly painless introduction to Chomsky's grammatical theories. (Despite being a long time fan of Chomsky's political work, I've never yet come across a primer on Chomsky's grammar theories that I could completely understand.)

Unfortunately, despite the eye-catching pictures that fill up this book, the actual text of it is quiet dense and hard to make sense of. To give a typical example from page 15.

E-Language and I-Language
Chomsky originally developed the notion of competence, which is the system of knowledge that a native speaker possesses. This cognitive system or domain is reformulated, rather differently, as I-language: a state of the mind-brain. I-language is what a child acquires when it learns language: an instantiation of the initial state. It is highly abstract, remote from ordinary behaviour and mechanisms. By contrast, E-language means external, extensional, any concept of language that is not internal to the mind-brain. So, if one refers to "Irish" as the language they talk where it is dotted orange on a map of Ireland, that's a case of E-language. It bears conceptual resemblance but no special relation to the earlier term performance--how language is actually used. E-language relates neither to competence nor performance, which are about organisms, nor to complicated socio-political constructs.

Understand all that? I certainly didn't. (And I know I took that above quote out of context, but trust me it doesn't make any more sense in context.)
I read it over several times, and then just shrugged my shoulders and moved on. And basically the whole first half of the book was like that.
In fact, the only parts of the grammar theory I understood were the parts I had previous knowledge of from Steven Pinker's explanation of Chomsky in "The Language Instinct".

Of course I could be just unusually dense, so I went over to amazon.com to check out what other people were saying:

... I gave up trying one third into the book. Not only are the technical terms not defined, but any attempt to derive their meaning or establish relationships between concepts failed.Much of the argument is enigmatic rather than explanatory. Many utterances seem to be drawn out of context...

...I could not recommend it to a non-linguist who wanted an introduction to Chomsky's thought. There's simply too much use of technical terms without defining them, mixing of difficult technical concepts, etc....

...Utterly fails to make it understandable for begginers. I found myself drowning in a subject I didn't particularly want to read about anyway...

...The book might make sense for someone already well familar with Chomsky's ideas but it didn't help me much, I just gave up on this one as not the place to start....

...this book didn't explain all the technical terms too well, or at all. I finished this book with hardly anything learned about linguistics...

...for almost the entire book, its about chomsky on linguistics which, by the way, MADE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!! it was just so confusing, which was the whole point of making an introduction in the first place!...

You begin to see a pattern here perhaps?
I understand that the author John Maher was locked into the comic book format because this book was part of a series. But I wished (and apparently most other people did to) that instead of an illustration taking up most of the page, the author would actually take time out to careful explain what he was talking about.

The first 120 pages are dedicated to Chomsky's linguistic theories. I struggled through them as best I could, and I like to think that for all my confusion I learned maybe one or two things from it.

The last 50 pages are on Chomsky's political theories.
And fortunately this is much easier to understand.

It's hard to succinctly introduce someone like Chomsky, who is a walking encyclopedia on just about every political event of the last 100 years. But an attempt is made, and some of Chomsky's more notable thoughts are introduced (some of his opinions on Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Vietnam.)
And the book also firmly grounds Chomsky in the anarchist tradition. (I've been debating some Trotskyists lately who have been trying to claim Chomsky for their own, so it was nice to see his anarchist credentials re-affirmed.)

This part of the book is alright, as far as it goes. But one wonders if Chomsky's politics even need an introduction, or if Chomsky speaks well enough on his own. Unlike Chomsky's grammatical theories, his political speeches are very simple and straight forward. Simply watch any clip of Chomsky on youtube, or pick up any of his books. (Or watch "Rebel Without a Pause" or Power and Terror.") You'll find out where he stands on the issues very quickly.

The author John Maher seems like a good person with his heart in the right place, but unfortunately some flaws remain in this book.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky On Corporate Propaganda

Introducing Chomsky by John Maher and Judy Groves: Book Review (Scripted)

Down Under by Bill Bryson

(Book Review)

I actually read the British edition of this book. (Some British friends were moving out of their apartment in Japan, and gave it to me before they left.)
I flipped through the American version, and there do appear to be some differences between them. I'm not sure if this is a major issue or not, but I've decided to play it safe and review this under the British title "Down Under", even though it is probably more familiar in America as "In a Sunburned Country."

I've discovered Bill Bryson a bit late, but it's safe to say I'm becoming a fan. (For other books of his that I've read, see also:
"The Mother Tongue",
"A Walk in the Woods",
"The Lost Continent",
and "The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid".

Outside of Bryson, I'm not really familiar with travel writers, but I always pictured the genre as filled with a lot of books about strong people going through rough places.

Bryson, however, seems to spend a lot of time talking about where he stopped for a cup of coffee. Or the food he ate at the hotel. Or the conversation he had with a waitress at the bar.

It's the "normal guy out having a look" type quality to his books that make them a lot of fun to read.

(An exception to this life of easy travel might be the grueling hike he and Stephen Katz did in "A Walk in the Woods." But even there, what makes that book such a classic is the blatant "fish-out-of-water" quality these too have as they attempt to conquer the trail, and end up bickering with each other the whole time.)

When reading Bryson's books, I always feel kind of inspired to go out and have my own little adventures, and then write up something. (I took a lot of inspiration from him for my "Better Know a City" project, or at least the second wind I got on it two years ago, shortly after reading a couple of his books.)

However, comparing my own efforts to Bryson's, I'm reminded of what my Calvin English professors used to always stress: the kind of breezy conversation tone in good writers, which appears so effortless, is actually very difficult to write. It takes a lot of revision and hard work to achieve that casual tone.

How much work Bryson puts into his prose I don't know, but he has got the easy conversational tone down pat, making him a perfect guide for any sort of travel book.

I read this book on the plane on my way in to Australia, and it's been really neat the past few weeks to actually see in person the things Bryson talks about in the book.

...Although when one reads a travel book about an area one is visiting, I suppose one would just expect as a matter of course to see in person at least some of the things described in the book. So I don't know why it was a big deal to me whenever I saw some sort of landmark Bryson mentioned, but it was. Perhaps because Bryson is so famous, and perhaps because he's almost more of a humor writer than a travel writer, I was always like, "Hey, that's just what the famous guy was talking about in his book."

And although I have, as of this writing, yet to venture anywhere beyond walking distance from Melbourne University, I've already managed to see several little things that got passing references in this book.

And so, I was delighted when I saw Crown Casino, and realized it was the same Casino Bryson mentioned in his book.
And also when I saw a statue commemorating the tragic expedition of Burke and Wills, and realized I had read about this in Bryson's book.
I set off to see the "Immigration Museum" in Melbourne, precisely because Bryson had talked about it in this book.
And when I visited the Parliament building in Melbourne, I knew it had also once been a national capital because Bryson had mentioned it in his book.
And when an Australian friend pointed out to me the jail where Ned Kelly (W) was hanged, I knew the whole story from this book.
And the infamous Melbourne right turns--this book again filled me in, so the other day when some people were complaing about driving in Melbourne, I knew what everyone was complaining about.
And, the argument between Australian politicians Abbot and Costello (which Bryson has a laugh at in his book) is apparently still going on. Just saw an article about it in the Melbourne paper the other day (link).


And that brings up another good point about this book: it's one of those books that teaches you a lot of stuff without you even realizing it. You think you're just having fun reading about Bryson and his zany adventures, but without knowing it you suddenly develop a wealth of knowledge about Australia. Several times already since I started reading this book, someone has tried to tell me something about Australian culture, and I've found myself saying, "Yes, I already know that. It was in Bill Bryson's book."

One final note:
Bryson relates that some of the Australians he meets (particularly the ones on the Indian Pacific Railroad) have unfortunate attitudes about the Aboriginal people.
While living in Japan, I've also noticed that some of the older Australians can casually refer to the Aboriginals using terms that would be considered politically incorrect back in the United States.
But I should also say that among Australians my own age or younger, I've not observed this same attitude. In fact many younger Australians seem very sensitive to the Aboriginal issues.

I've also noticed in my brief time at the University of Melbourne that they will frequently begin large assemblies by acknowledging the Aboriginal tribes who originally owned the land the university is standing on.

I don't remember any assemblies back home begin by acknowledging the Native American tribes. Wouldn't be a bad idea though.

Addendum:
Here are some of my videos from Melbourne Australia HERE:



Link of the Day
Chomsky on Nicaragua - and international law

Down Under by Bill Bryson: Book Review (Scripted)

The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

(Book Review)

Like “Me Talk Pretty One Day” and “The Mother Tongue," this is another book I read to help me get ready for my applied linguistics course.
Since I have no idea what I’m getting into with this course, I’m not sure whether or not any of these books will be useful. But this one was definitely very informative about linguistics in general.

The book is written to make the last 60 or so years of linguistic research available to the more general public, and is written in an appropriately engaging style designed to appeal to a wide audience. Steven Pinker is a talented writer, and infuses his prose liberally with jokes, dry wit, and references to pop culture.

For example, in his chapter on mentalese (examining whether thoughts are based on words, or if thoughts are simply translated into words), Pinker begins the discussion with a lengthy quotation from George Orwell’s “1984,” which includes the following:
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [English Socialism], but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words….”
The quotation goes on for a bit, but afterwards Pinker examines whether this would really be true.
As someone who has read “1984” numerous times (or rather, via audiobook listened to it numerous times) I’ve always been intrigued by that question, and was grateful to see Pinker take it on.

And much of the book is like that. The chapter on real life human speech patterns is illustrated by a lengthy quotation from the Nixon Watergate tapes. The difference between German grammar and English grammar is demonstrated by quoting Mark Twain. Woody Allen and Saturday Night Live references abound. The whole book is full of little treats to make the subject matter more interesting.

That being said, parts of this book were a challenge for me. Especially the more technical parts, where Pinker describes what happens when our brains decode the meaning of a grammatical sentence.
I could get through it, but I needed to sit in a quiet room with no distractions, and often had to read the same paragraph several times over before the meaning sunk it.
(As someone who reads almost exclusively trashy novels and arm-chair histories, I’m a bit of a wimp when it comes to any sort of technical reading. Other people might have an easier time of it than I did.)

However, once I did put in the hard work to understand the book, I usually found what Pinker had to say to be quite fascinating. I always taken language for granted like I do breathing, and never really thought about what goes on in my brain when I hear a sentence. Or why my brain can easily understand a sentence like:
“Remarkable is the rapidity of the motion of the wing of the hummingbird,”
But struggles with a sentence like:
“The dog the stick the fire burned beat bit the cat.”

The book is heavily based off of Chomsky’s theories of universal grammar.
Since I, like most people, know about Chomsky exclusively through his - political - work, it is easy to forget that he leads another life as the world’s most prominent linguist. But I didn’t realize the full impact of his work until I read Pinker’s book. The way Pinker describes it, Chomsky created the model that all subsequent linguistic work has been based off of.

And this book serves as a very good introduction to Chomsky’s theories on universal grammar.
I have, once or twice in my youth, picked up introductory books on Chomsky’s grammar theories, just out of curiosity. This was the only book I could remotely understand. Even though parts of it required some concentration, it’s much more readable than anything else I’ve come across.

A couple other quick notes:
*Because this book was published in 1994, I imagine much of the information in it might be a bit dated, especially because Pinker is constantly saying things like, “Scientific research is just on the verge of figuring out this problem.”

* As a complete novice to the subject area, I more or less accepted everything Pinker had to say as concrete facts. I’ve since read a couple of reviews on-line, which have criticized him for emphasizing this or that theory, and dismissing others.

Link of the Day
Hopes And Prospects (Amnesty International Lecture)

The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker: Book Review (Scripted)

Avatar

(Movie Review)

I had read several reviews of this movie before seeing it. I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that pretty much all the reviewers had the same take on it. The same themes kept popping up in review after review, (and friends I talked to repeated this as well). They all said:
1). The visuals are really great, and
2). The story is just a rip off of "Dances with Wolves"/ "Ferngully"/ "The Last Samurai"/ Those old Jimmy Stewart movies, et cetera.

Well, I'll start with the number 1.
Yes, the visuals are pretty impressive.

I had read a couple reviews which had said something to the effect of, "These are the most spectacular battle scenes ever put to film."
And, maybe my expectations were raised too high, but I was slightly disappointed when the battle scenes didn't completely blow me away.
They were exciting, yes, but I'm not sure they were particularly better than hundreds of other movies I've seen before.

More than the battle scenes, I suppose the impressive thing about this movie is just the whole look of this alien world : the floating mountains, the spectacular waterfalls, the glowing plants, and the vibrant green jungles.
I'm usually not a big fan of CGI, but this was well done enough that I didn't mind. Sure it was all computer animation, but it didn't look like it was computer animation. And so you could really take in the beauty of this planet and forget, for a moment, that what you are looking at was just a computer generated image. Several times I even caught myself thinking, "That looks really beautiful. I'll have to find out where they filmed that."

Okay, onto the second point, the fact that this story is just a rip-off of Dances with wolves, Last Samurai, Ferngully, those old Jimmy Stewart movies...
(And actually well I'm on it, the spirit tree reminded me a lot of Disney's "Pocahontas", and the big battle between an advanced technological army and a forest tribe reminded me a lot of "Return of the Jedi".)

Since Hollywood is constantly recycling story lines (and each cookie cutter movie seems more like the last) I'm not sure how big of a deal this is. Can we forgive a little repetition of the plot themes in this movie, when we forgive it in just about every other formulaic movie? I guess this is something that every viewer will have to decide for him or her self.

The big difference between a movie like this, and say, your basic formulaic action movie, is that this movie gets preachy. You can easily forgive the recycled plot of a mindless action movie, but when this movie is trying to make you feel, you get a bit more critical.

Or put another way: I'll put up with a movie trying to make me feel emotional about the plight of the Sioux. I have less patience for a movie that tries to make me feel sad about the blue people.

That being said, overall I liked the anti-imperial message of the film. (As a liberal, I suppose you would expect no less of me. I certainly have nothing but disdain for those right wing critics who questioned Cameron's patriotism).

However, I do think this movie was overly simplistic.
In this movie Giovanni Ribisi, the evil corporate chief, states quite openly that he is willing to kill the Na'vi in order to get the precious minerals. And the army is quite willing to do the killing for him. Nice simple bad guys with nice simple motives.

Reality is a lot more complex than that. Motivations for taking over a foreign land are seldom that nakedly obvious.

For example, you could always invade for the natives' own good.
The idea of invading to spread Christianity among the natives is perhaps a bit dated now. But the idea of invading to spread democracy is still a valid excuse. (And if there happens to be lots of valuable resources in the region, or if the land has strategic value, that's just an added bonus.)

Or, you could invade for humanitarian reasons (like the British got involved in the Sudan to stop the slave trade) and just help yourself to the resources well your there.

Or you could get involved initially for humanitarian reasons, but then subtle racism causes a slippery slope where you start massacring the very people you came in to help (Mi Lai massacre in Vietnam, Haditha in Iraq)

Or you could claim that the area represented a security threat to your nation (Cromwell in Ireland, US in Iraq), or that it was unstable and was a breeding ground for terrorists.

Or you could invade to help one side in a civil war (British in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, Caesar in Gaul, et cetera).

Or you could establish a puppet government (Japan in Manchuria).

Or you could just bribe the local elites, and cut them in on your profits as you rape the land. And if someone protests you, you could lean on the local government to execute the dissenters (Shell Oil in Nigeria).

Or if the current government refuses to cooperate, you could aid a military coup (Chile in 1971, Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, et cetera).

Well, you get the point hopefully. Seldom do the bad guys simply say straight out, "We're going to kill the Na'vi so we can get their land." And seldom do they just go in with guns blazing. Usually they get themselves invited in someway.

And in that respect, I think this movie would have been a lot better had it acknowledged this complexity.
Especially because we as a culture already know it's wrong to invade another country without any cause. And so you could question whether we really need a movie with a message so obvious.

But, I guess you could argue that we don't go to the movies for political complexity. We go to see simple morality plays, and this is a simple story with a simple moral. A place where the good guys always win, the bad guys always get what's coming to them, and all of life's problems are solved with some really cool action scenes.

Final verdict: definitely worth seeing once, but I'm not sure I'm going to be re-watching it any time soon.

Link of the Day
Chomsky Interview

Avatar: Movie Review (Scripted)

Three Empires on the Nile by Dominic Green

(Book Review)

"In a major Arab nation, a secular tyranny is toppled by Western intervention, but an Islamic backlash turns the liberators into occupiers.
Caught between interventionists at home and radical Islam abroad, a prime minister flounders. His ministers betray him, his alliances fall apart, and a run-away general makes policy in the field. As the media accuse Western soldiers of barbarity and a region slides into chaos, the Armies of God clash on an ancient river, and an accidental empire arises.
This is not the Middle East in the twenty-first century.
It is Africa in the nineteenth century...."--from the Introduction.

When I first saw this book on the library shelves, I was slightly worried it be a repeat of "Napoleon's Egypt" by Juan Cole. And although the time periods don't overlap at all (this book covers 1869-1899) there are no doubt similar themes. Both books seek to put some historical perspective on current US foreign policy.

And yet I'm extremely glad I read this book. It was absolutely fascinating. (If you're interested in history, I think you'll find both books are well worth reading).

In the introduction to this book, Dominic Green very clearly and explicitly draws some parallels between the 19th century Victorian quagmire, and our own present day. And he does so again in the conclusion. But the good news is that in between he does not repeatedly hit you over the head.

In the actual meat of the book, Green is not concerned with making a political point. Instead, like any true history geek, he is simply a story teller, in love with history for the sake of history. (In fact, I almost wonder if the introduction and conclusion were forced on Green by an editor.)

Green wants to tell an interesting story, and bring to life all the colorful characters of the past.
And he does this remarkably well. A truly skilled writer, this is one of those history books that almost reads like a novel.

Although a slender book (280 pages) it manages to cover a lot of disparate ground: the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and "Eastern Question", the Crimean War, the rivalry between British prime ministers Gladstone and Disraeli, the Chinese Taiping rebellion, Charles "Chinese" Gordon and his last stand in Khartoum, the rivalry between the British and the French, Ferdinand De Lesseps--architect of the Suez Canal, and even young Winston Churchill (an officer involved in the Sudanese expedition).
All of this is interwoven with the story of Egypt during the late 19th century.
However, Green is able to weave many different characters and events seamlessly into a single narrative.

Since this book covers so much ground, I'm not going to attempt to summarize it here. I'll just comment on a few of the things that struck my interest.

***I had already known a bit about the Gladstone/Disraeli conflict, and Charles Gordon's last stand in Khartoum, largely through watching television documentaries (such as the PBS documentary on Queen Victoria's Empire (A)), but this book was much more informative, and filled in many gaps in my knowledge.

** On that note: one of the fascinating things about this book is that this is not simply a military history. Green focuses as much on politics in London as he does on soldiers out in the field.
So we find out what out what political pressures prime ministers are under when they order troops around. We also get to understand their motivations.
We have the story of Gladstone, a British prime minister who is decidedly an anti-Imperialist, getting trapped into creating an Empire when he can no longer control the wheels that he has set in motion.
Many of the British motivations for getting involved in Egypt were very noble--the anti-slavery sentiment, and the desire to stamp out the slave trade in Africa was one of the main reasons the British public supported intervention. But this book vividly demonstrates the old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

And to me, this is the most valuable part of the book.
All to often, history books portray the "Age of Imperialism" as heartless European nations shameless grabbing what they can with no justification. However if we examine closely the motivations and justifications given at the time, we might find out they are not too different from today. Contrary to popular belief, the British army did not simply attack natives and annex territories at random. Often, they were called upon to stabilize a country, or were asked to intervene by one side in a civil war.

For that matter, I believe that if we carefully looked at Roman history we might find several parallels. Although the Romans are always portrayed in history books as soulless aggressors, much of the Roman Empire was created by being invited into a region to help out in a civil war, or helping to quiet a disturbance. (The Romans actually had a law on their books forbidding a purely aggressive war, but they usually found a justification to get around it.)

The danger, when we forget these lessons, is what you often hear people say these days: "America isn't like the old empires. When we invade a country, we're trying to help them. We're not out simply for conquest, like the Romans or the Victorians were."

But now that I've got that out of my system, let me reiterate what I said before: don't read this book just because of the historical parallels to America's empire, read it because it's a fascinating story told by a master story-teller.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky - Anarchism (Libertarian Socialism)

Three Empires on the Nile by Dominic Green: Book Review (Scripted)

Angels and Demons

(Movie Review)

After reading "The Davinci Code", I never bothered to continue onto any of Dan Brown's other books. (More because I'm a lazy reader than any other reason.)
However I've heard from friends that all of the Robert Langdon books are pretty much the same formula just recycled over and over again.

Assuming this movie is an accurate reflection of the book it was based off of, that appears to be true.

I enjoyed this movie slightly more than I did the DaVinci code, I think mainly because I didn't know the story before hand. And so the various twists and turns the story line took caught me slightly off-guard. (I will admit to being completely fooled by the ending.)

However at the same time, I was beginning to lose patience with another set of symbols and mysteries to be unravelled. It was cool the first time because it was unique. But the second time around, I was feeling like we had already covered this ground.
(And yes, I know this book was actually written before "The DaVinci Code", but for most of us I think we encountered it second.)

I mean, one secret society laying clues all through out art history I could believe. But when two groups do it, it starts to seem ridiculous.
And having stuck with Robert Langdon through all his puzzle solving, dead ends, and revelations in the first movie, I felt like I was loosing patience going through it all over again.

In my personal opinion (and you can agree with this or not according to your own tastes) these movies could benefit a lot from more of the "Indiana Jones" formula. A little bit of a historical mystery goes a long way. And one or two secret puzzles decoded will probably do for the whole movie. Other than that, give us exotic adventures.
We don't need to see the main character in professor mode the whole movie. And we don't need to spend the whole movie decoding puzzles.
And we especially don't need a trilogy of movies about decoding puzzles in art history. "The DaVinci Code" was fine by itself. This second movie was pushing it. And the 3rd movie (rumored to be in production) is really going to outstay its welcome.

If you want to see a movie about corruption in the Vatican, I think "The Godfather 3" was much more interesting than this was.

Link of the Day
Chomsky on Socialism, Communism & Government

Angels and Demons: Movie Review (Scripted)

Zombieland

(Movie Review)

Yet another film that came out while I was in Japan, so I missed a lot of the buzz surrounding it. (Sorry if I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on that point).

As with a lot of sleeper hits from back home, I heard about this mainly from word of mouth. I started to hear a lot of references to this film before I really knew what it was. And eventually some of my friends in Japan got ahold of a pirated version, and watched it one night. I wasn't there, but they told me about it afterwards. (They all recommended it very highly to me.)

I, however, was a little bit confused. "Wait, it's a zombie movie, but a comedy? Haven't we already done that with 'Shaun of the Dead'? Is this just a rip-off of that?"

No one was really able to give me a straight answer on that one. Yes, kind of, but the tone of the two films is a lot different, was the general consensus.

After seeing this film so highly praised on this amateur review video (link here) I decided to check it out.

I was, unfortunately, largely disappointed with this. Maybe it had just been built up too much for me. I don't know.

It's been a few years since I've seen "Shaun of the Dead", so I'm slightly worried about relying on my memory for this one. But from what I remember, it was a completely irreverent comedy. More or less everything was played for a laugh, including the scenes with the Zombies themselves. You had the two guys arguing over what records to throw as the Zombies bared down on them. And you had Ed, the friend who refused to take the whole Zombie invasion seriously.

This movie, on the other hand, reminded me a lot more of a typical teen movie, only with Zombies added. (Perhaps I'm just noticing the difference between an American comedy and a British comedy).

It had a lot of humorous parts, sure. The opening narration, when Columbus was explaining his rules, was pretty funny. And they way those rules kept popping up on screen at appropriate moments throughout the movie was also pretty funny.
And some of the conversations the characters would have also got me chuckling.

But my big problem with this movie is that, like a typical teen movie, they tried to make me care too much about the characters. And this is where I had a lot of problems.

Most of the things the characters did in this movie made no sense. And I could have put up with that if the movie had been just one cheap excuse for a laugh (a la "Shaun of the Dead"). But when the movie is trying too hard to make me care about these characters, then it really bugs how stupid those girls were. And how they kept getting in trouble by doing stupid things, and then having to be rescued.
(In that respect, they were not so much real characters so much as plot devices. Which again, I could have put up with if this movie were all about cheap laughs. But we were also supposed to care about the relationships these characters had with each other, and that I just couldn't do).

To sum up: don't get me wrong, this movie had its moments. And I think I would have been a lot more impressed if this had been the first time someone had ever gotten the idea of playing a zombie Apocalypse for laughs.

But because "Shaun of the Dead" already used that idea (and only a few years ago), this movie struck me as largely unimpressive.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky on Zinn, Haiti, Iran

Zombieland: Movie Review (Scripted)