Thursday, April 1, 2010

The Truman Show

One of the points of the Truman Show (not, I believe the main point although pretty close) is a criticism of most types of theism – Christianity and otherwise. That criticism is this: God must be unjust if he keeps us tucked away in this little pocket world ignorant of the wider world out there.

Christian theology has two takes on the afterlife. The first, notably championed by C.S. Lewis, is that there is a wider more vivid world out there. The viewpoint responds to this criticism by saying that we are like children and like children we need to be kept away from dangers we don’t understand (nor as yet developed a basis for understanding them) and there in relative safety allowed to grow to meet that wider world. As to the charge that we should be told about that wider world, we Christians would respond – but we are, it’s just that you aren’t much interested in hearing about it; being, no doubt, too interested in the gaudy toys in our playpen.

The second idea of the afterlife is that it is a spiritual experience of joy and bliss or sorrow but is not in fact a wider system than our current world. In fact the complexity and diversity of our current world is an illusion and a red herring luring us away from the things that are important, namely the inner spiritual life. This view renders the criticism absurd on its face.

I find the wider world explanation much more compelling, as the second seems to make this life the focus and the afterlife merely complementary to this life, like getting the trophy after the game. (A trophy without a game is meaningless, whereas a game without a trophy is perfectly enjoyable) If that is so, thinking about an afterlife is a distraction from what is really important – here and now. This doesn’t mean God is unimportant but that his importance would be his relevance to this life.

On the contrary, the more vivid unseen world view renders this life here and now extremely important. A child plays childish games as part of developing adult skills after all. It makes this life important, but not the focus. Good, I think because this life isn’t always good.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Flowers for Algernon

I recently read Flowers for Algernon. It was a pretty good book, about a ‘moron’ who becomes a supergenuis and some of the difficulties that he encountered. The book doesn’t look at that from an intellectual viewpoint after he gets up to an IQ of about 95-100 – rather it focuses on the social aspect of his increased intelligence. The authors point seems to be that increased intelligence is associated with having fewer friends – although this is not clear as he spends little time (in the book) in the normal IQ range. He is mostly dumb dumb dumb and then smart, smart smart. My own feeling is that friends would need to be similar in intelligence for a deep broad friendship to exist.
There is also a sidepoint that despite all of our surface intellect strong undercurrents that you might call ‘animal spirits’ or ‘conditioned responses’ control our emotions and shape our lives despite all of our smarts. Pretty good, but I think it left plenty material unaddressed that another similar book could cover. I highly recommend it – it is very touching.

On a tangent: My English teachers in High School and a lesser extent in college always would tell me. “Show don’t tell.” Which I took to mean something like this: when describing a character instead of saying: X is smart, allow the reader to make that conclusion by his conversation, diction etc. I think there is a lot of value in it, but, I think this principle needs a little bit of moderation. For example, for an author to portray somebody who is much smarter than them or outside of the experience of his readers requires telling not showing. So, in Flowers for Algernon, we see a good example of the author showing the main character getting smarter at first but later he reverts to mainly telling us with some vague showing – professors don’t have anything to say to his topics of conversation – he writes a paper. This still works though, because we of only average or slightly above average intelligence can only see that vaguely whereas in the first part we can see clearly how he is getting smarter and smarter.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

I recently read Hyperion by Dan Simmons. It is an absorbing book as well as interesting and imaginative. My only criticism is that it’s ending is weak and nonexistent. That may be because the real ending is in the next book The Fall of Hyperion. That only slightly excuses the point, IMO. And I foresee the ending there (if there is one) to be unsatisfying.

But, the one thing I want to talk about in the book is the author character he has in the book talking about his career. He was a hack writer – churning out uninspired prose for steady amounts of cash for the followers of the same after his opus flops. His hack writing is ten novels long following the lives of people over time.

It always seems to me that a long series is usually like that. You read the next book in the series because it is comfortable and because you have developed a sort of bond with the characters. In a sense they become your imaginary friends and you want to know what happens next in their lives, just as you would want to catch up with your real friends whenever you meet them. Also these friends live fantastic lives – not that they are particularly interesting but fantastic things happen to them. Tall, dark, wealthy, experienced vampires find them fascinating despite their extreme ordinariness. Why? Who knows, explanations would only seem contrived.

In Harry Potter (borderline pulp IMO) we have the last scene where the next generation goes to Hogwarts. This is completely irrelevant to the story but fans (myself included) like it because we start to feel a bond with the characters and want to know what happens.

Now, there is nothing wrong with pulp if you enjoy it, but you must recognize it for what it is: imaginary friends and unimaginative fantasy. I enjoy it some, but it is like sugar for me – just a small amount please.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Short Story: Small Hinges

Ah, junior year of high school – those were some dark times for me. It all turned out well, but it was a close thing.
I was angry with the world and in trouble. I was in trouble with my teachers. I was in trouble with my parents. I wasn’t well liked; the best treatment I got from students usually was just being ignored. I didn’t like them either. In fact my only real friend was Marcus Fonseca. Not that I was a loner, I’d always have a group to hang out with but none of them were real good fits. Soon I’d be moving on, sometimes quietly, sometimes with a lot of drama and hating between me and some of them. I was not really welcome anywhere for long.
At my high school there were only two ways for a guy to get by. If you were white, Asian or some unheard of Middle Eastern ethnicity you played the teachers game of academics and skated safely through protected by authority, rules and the aura of success. If you weren’t, you needed to play the man’s game of toughness and strength of numbers for safety against the other students and for getting around the rules and teachers and boredom.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Book Review: John Boyd Biography

I recently finished reading a biography: John Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. My brother Aaron lent it to me after I gave it to him for Christmas. It took him about 6 hours to read it.

The book is about a fighter pilot who barely missed WWII, was in Korea for only a little bit, and missed Vietnam. He rode planes to their absolute limit (dangerous) and experimented with different maneuvers (also apparently dangerous). Because of this and an obsession with fighters and tactics he good enought to be an instructor at the Air Force’s Top Gun and champion of mock duels.

He developed a theory of fighters that says how quickly you can lose or gain energy (speed/altitude) determines how good of a fighter you have. Since this varies by wing design, speed and altitude a good pilot will stay in his zone where he has more “energy” than other planes.

Then (and I wasn’t expecting this from the blurb), he goes on to develop a theory of warfare based on reacting faster than your opponent to changing situations. (in fact it calls for deliberately doing what he doesn’t expect while confusing him so he reacts too late and incoherently) According to his theory the F-86 was a worse plane than the Mig-15 in Korea yet it had a kill rate of 10-1, he decided this was because the Saber had power controls and the Mig didn’t which allowed American pilots to transition from one maneuver to another much faster than their counterparts. This led him to create his theory on reacting faster "getting inside the decision cycle" of your opponent.

According to the book this was used to create new doctrines most notably for the Marines. This theory and Boyd were also crucial to the planning and lightning victory of the gulf war.

Some of the claims it makes are incredible, yet I find reasons to believe them.
First Norman Schwarzkopf called the battle plan in Gulf War I a “Hail Mary Plan” which is weird, unless it was a battle plan that he had forced on him and not one he came up himself – and he thought likely to fail, which is how this book describes it.
Secondly, I’ve heard some discussion on the second Iraq war criticizing the “lightning” nature of it and saying that it would have been better if they had just gone head to head with the Iraqis – lots of Iraqis would have died but they would have known that they lost fair and square and the insurgency would have not gotten a bunch of recruits from the disbanded military. This is a silly argument if you think about it, but it does seem to indicate a behind-the-scenes debate about maneuver warfare (My pre read thoughts on this subject).

Another thing I want to talk about is his creativity theory. He advocates linking facts from different fields to create a synthesis as a source of creativity. He also says that you should never expect to have arrived at the truth but must be constantly searching for improvement and embracing change.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Book Review: Duncton Wood

Take the chronicles of Narnia, make it catholic instead of protestant. Aim at adults, not young teens. Remove the sons of Adam, other worlds and all talking animals except for Moles. Add a love story. You now have Duncton Wood. I like it. A lot.

Friday, December 19, 2008

My Library (Books)

This are books that I consider to be worth owning. That is to read and re-read and to have your children read (when they are teens).
C.S. Lewis:
Mere Christianity, Screw Tape Letters, Til We Have Faces, Narnia

O.S. Card: Enders Game*, Enders Shadow*, Seventh Son, Red Prophet, Saints
J. Pournelle: Go Tell the Spartans, Prince of Sparta, Legacy of Heorot, The Face of the Enemy, The Mote in Gods Eye, Blood Fueds*, Blood Vengeance*, Strategy of Technology
Larry Niven: Protectors, Chuut Riit, Eater of Grass, Hall of the mountain King
Jane Austen: Pride & Prejudice, Emma
J.D. Fitzgerald: Papa Married A Mormon
H. Beam Piper: Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen
Robert Heinlein: Citizen of the Galaxy, Starship Troopers, Podkayne of Mars*
P. Anderson: All Hoka stories
Aspirin: Phules Company, Skeeve
G.R. Dickson:Blood and Iron, Soldier Ask Not*, Tactics of Mistake, Dorsai, Final Encyclopedia, Young Bleys
Tim Powers: Declare
John Scalzi: Old Mans War*
John C. Wright: Orphans of Chaos
Gilbreth: Cheaper By The Dozen,Bells on their Toes
P.G. Wodehouse: Jeeves Series,Blandings Series
Tom Wolfe: Man in Full
Waterson: Calvin & Hobbes
Timothy Zahn: Admiral Thrawn Trilogy
G.K. Chesterton: Heretics,Orthodoxy
Jared Diamond: Guns Germs & Steel
Edmund Burke: Reflections … France
Conan Doyle: The White Company
Hal Clement: Mission of Gravity
L.M. Bujold: Miles Vorkosigan
Vernor Vinge: A Fire upon the Deep
Cold Sassy Tree
Edith Wharton: Age of Innocence
David Brin: Startide Rising

Books marked with an asterick are books that I want to edit for one reason or another.