Excitement! Exuberance! Reading log!

Eliot Rosewater

Reading log for 2011 ... mandatory attention whoring smiley face ... we're off ...

Eliot Rosewater

Just My Type was released just before Christmas and (to my great shame, of course) is highly popular - it nearly reached the Top 100 sold books list on Amazon.co.uk. But it's a book about fonts, so the travesty is lessened.

Anyway, the book is targeted at that ominous beast, the general public, so it's a pick-it-up-put-it-down kind of affair. It's written in two or three page long segments, and is mildly intriguing. It covers lots of different things - anecdotes, font origin stories, typography history in general - and it includes examples of lots and lots of fonts.

But I wasn't really taken with the book. My biggest peeve was with the very noticeable lack of large illustrations. It's fine to put the font in the 11pt text (as was done a lot) but to really appreciate a font you have to enlarge it
to about this big
so that you can really get a feel of what's going on. You couldn't appreciate The School of Athens if it was only printed five centimetres high.

I didn't think the content itself was well selected, either. The author mentioned a few different methods of how type is actually applied to paper - photosetting, linotype and so on - but didn't go into any detail as to how these methods worked. Nor did he give any explanation about how a font is professionally designed. Which is a pity, because there was a good bit of fodder that could have been replaced - random names of font designers which will be meaningless to the kind of people this book is targeted at.

A bit of marketing and a few desperate attempts to find Christmas presents probably put this book near the top 100. The proof of the pudding is that I now want another book on typography - because I feel I have learned so little from Just My Type. It's a nice dainty, but little more.

Eliot Rosewater

Will You Please Be Quiet, Please? is the first collection of short stories that brought Raymond Carver to public light.

The stories are all set in small-town America, and deal with normal mundane people and their normal mundane lives. The focus is universally on the characters - their flaws and weaknesses, their failed hopes and their troubles. Yes, the stories feel negative, but that is only because they are so thoroughly realistic - and real life is not a place of rainbows and sparkles. Carver has a firm grasp of people - it's hard to overstate how real these stories are.

Carver also has a fantastic style of writing - really American, if such a thing can be said - and this combines brilliantly with his preferred themes and his people. I found this a great collection.

Cannibal Ox

The proof of the pudding is that I now want another book on typography - because I feel I have learned so little from Just My Type.

Three suggestions:
Type & Typography by Phil Baines and Andrew Haslam
Detail in Typography by Jost Hochuli
New Typography by Jan Tschichold

The first one is sitting on my desk and I've read the other two. I'd recommend them all, but from my flicks through it I think the first one looks like a better introduction to the subject. There's also a good film about typography called Helvetica, which is definitley worth watching if you're interested in typography.

Eliot Rosewater

I've watched Helivitica last week, and I really liked it. Thanks very much for the recommendations - I'm going to look into them!

Eliot Rosewater

The Libertarian Reader is a collection of about 70 essays connected to libertarian thought. The contributors list is an eclectic one: the oldest extract is from the Bible (1 Samuel 8) while the latest pieces are from people still living. There are many classic names in between: Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Immanuel Kant. There are a number of Nobel laureates included and well-known libertarians like Ayn Rand are represented*.

The book is designed to be an introduction to libertarian thought. It is suited to libertarians and those non-libertarians who are intelligent enough to know that classical liberalism is not a homogeneous school of thought. The essays are very diverse and key differences between different authors emerge. But the main diversity is in the subject matter.

The best essays were the modern scientific ones. While the general philosophical arguments by Mill etal. are interesting, the real juiciness is in the more detailed intricate pieces. Matters considered include the nature of justice, the market system's role in promoting permissiveness, the flaws of central planning, the challenges facing libertarians (written by a non-libertarian), private charity and so on.

The main benefit of the book is that it provides an introduction to many varied aspects of the world, and offers a good source for finding new reading. Even if you disagree fundamentally with libertarianism, I think some of the insights that libertarian commentators deliver are very worthwhile, and offer a totally different perspective in a world with a majority social democratic consensus. My only qualm is with the inconsistency of the book, which makes it a little less suitable for the mildly interested outsider.

*Not directly: Ayn Rand's literary executors don't consider her a libertarian and so refused to allow her work to be included! Her work is substituted by an excellent essay outlining her views.

Eliot Rosewater

I, coincidently, was reading The Road to Serfdom at the same time renowned statist Denerick was. That is to say, last week. Denerick, being the baby-eating thieving statist he is, derived many false interpretations from the book. He started, as soon as he was born, by stealing my tax; now he has finished by stealing Lord Hayek's reputation. The next step is, obviously, the genocide of former members of the Progressive Democrats. Obviously.


But seriously, I think Hayek is a moderate libertarian and is not black and white. Consider the following excerpt from The Road to Serfdom:

"To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, or to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained than the social costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services-as long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields."

I see The Road to Serfdom as a refutation of a centrally planned economy. I don't see it as a total refutation of the welfare state, or of social services. I don't think the book was written primarily to promote classical liberalism; I think it was written to demote socialism. So I find the cult status it has amongst libertarians to be a little strange.

Hayek is no Ayn Rand. The crucial difference is that Hayek believes in the market first because it is efficient, and second because it promotes and maintains individual rights. Rand is the other way round: she sees the market primarily as a necessary consequence of individualism. And so they split ways when it comes to, say, externalities. Hayek might favour them, as per the above quote, whereas Rand never would, because to force tax on people would be an affront to their individualism.

I found The Road to Serfdom to be informative, and very solid in parts, but I wasn't drooling over it. I think it's a good refutation of central planning and socialism generally, but it's no bible for the liberal, in my opinion. I wouldn't hold it up and shout "this is what I believe!" I'll have to read Constitution of Liberty for that.

Denerick

Well I don't think I really did derive any false interpretations from it; true, he doesn't advocate the kind of minarchist state that modern libertarians might, but that is hardly an argument against my post. I thought his arguments were interesting, but disproved by future events. I have great respect for Hayek and consider him among a certain pantheon of thinkers; but not, if I dare say so, a friend of 'events'.

In the immediate postwar years western Europe proceeded to create a powerful central state which claimed a huge share in the national economy. public services were provided, taxes increased, and the state payroll enlarged. None of which led to tyranny, which seems to have been Hayek's core argument. I don't detect any slip into totalitarianism as social democrats captured western parliaments; quite the contrary really, individuals had never enjoyed such personal liberties ever before.

Eliot Rosewater

Yes, but the social democratic consensus operates side-by-side with the free market. When Hayek speaks of central planning he is speaking of the socialist kind, where the government organises the whole (or most) of the economy. I don't think he is speaking of the social democratic kind.

Denerick

DId the social democratic kind really exist in 1943? There was some experience in some countries of a very rudimentary welfare state, but to Hayek, I'm sure that the welfare state of Britain, France and West Germany were as socialist as anything else.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

DId the social democratic kind really exist in 1943? There was some experience in some countries of a very rudimentary welfare state, but to Hayek, I'm sure that the welfare state of Britain, France and West Germany were as socialist as anything else.

Fair point. Hayek would probably have seen the rise of the comprehensive Welfare State along with so many public services to be a precursor to full-blown socialism and totalitarianism, as he saw it.

Eliot Rosewater

All Quiet on the Western Front is a description of the First World War from the perspective of a young German soldier who left secondary school to fight the war. The novel was based on Remarque's own experiences fighting on the western front.

Unlike other war books I have read, All Quiet on the Western Front is on the ground, dirty and gritty. All the other war books I have read - Slaughterhouse 5, A Farewell to Arms, etc. - all exist on a level above the actual soldier. When Ernest Hemingway says "the next year there were many victories" he is considering the war from a macro level that does not see individual soldiers, but sees battalions instead.

Slaughterhouse 5 and others can be described as anti-war novels, but I think All Quiet on the Western Front is the truly authentic one I have read. It refuses to see war as something abstract, something to be analysed as a thing, or as a movement. It sees war only in the actions of individual soldiers, and thus thoroughly undermines any kind of war glorification one could have.

"...the bayonet isn't as important as it used to be. It's more usual now to go into the attack with hand-grenades and your entrenching tool. The sharpened spade is a lighter and more versatile weapon - not only can you get a man under the chin, but more to the point, you can strike a blow with a lot more force behind it. That's especially true if you can bring it down diagonally between the neck and the shoulder, because then you can split down as far as the chest. When you put a bayonet in, it can stick, and you have to give the other man a hefty kick in the guts to get it out..."

Remarque doesn't primarily disagree with war because of abstract notions of conflict, harmony and democracy. He is anti-war because he believes throwing a shovel into a man's neck to split his breathing body up is a fundamentally bad thing to do.

Remarque also challenges the justification of war. He creates scenes in which German soldiers use physical violence against other Germans they have disagreements with. And the reader is forced to ask himself: if violence is an acceptable way for nations to sort out conflict, why isn't it acceptable for individual people?

Those looking for abstract philosophising will only be mildly interested in the book. It exists on a micro level. It is set in shell trenches, not in mountains in the distance. In my opinion, this book is must read for anyone thinking about war.


I was giving out copies of All Quiet on the Western Front for World Book Night. I still have a few copies left, and I might be able to send a few away - drop me a PM if you're interested.

Travel is good

Thanks so much for that review. I recently heard the book on audiobook & was impressed. I hear Hitler tried to ban it in Germany.

I'm hoping to get a copy of the book next month from another World Book Night giver.

Good choice for WBN.

Eliot Rosewater

Most people have heard of The Catcher in the Rye, and it has built up a reputation as an angsty teenage novel. I think this interpretation of the book is highly flawed. Unfortunately the interpretation has stuck.

In a nutshell, I think The Catcher in the Rye is not primarily about phoneys or society, but is instead about a troubled, insecure 16 year-old young-man who cannot recover from his brother's death and who is petrified of growing up into adulthood. The book is narrated by said 16 year-old, Holden Caulfield, whose dialogue with the reader speaks volumes about his fears and his sentimental longing for the past.

Much of the book is wonderfully subtle. There are, for instance, quiet hints that Holden's parents have emotionally abandoned their children, and that Pheobe is far from the super-star sister that Holden makes her out to be. Such subtly is the way of real life. No little kid says "I consider my older brother to be my father because my parents don't support me emotionally." We would construct such personal information by looking at the way in which the child acts - what they say, what they do, the emotional signals they send out. Salinger forms his characters in exactly the same way - and this is one of the reasons they're so incredibly real.

I think Salinger also speaks through his characters. Holden's dialogue has to be taken as product of a fallible and flawed human being, but sometimes I think Salinger's voice shines through. An example:

"And besides, even if you did go around saving guys' lives and all, how would you know if you did it because you really wanted to save guys' lives, or because you did it because what you really wanted to do was be a terrific lawyer, with everybody slapping you on the back and congratulating you in court when the goddam trial was over, the reporters and everybody, the way it is in the dirty movies?"

So while I think the book is primarily about Holden, I also think it deals with philosophical issues too - about how individuals interact with each other, and how that interaction is formed and influenced. But the other parts of the book are just a special case of that philosophy, really. The book is a dialogue between Holden and the reader, and a lot of the time one is thinking, why is he saying that; why is he choosing to interact with me in this way? By delving into Holden's motives for interacting in a certain way we delve into the core of his character.

I think to read The Catcher in the Rye properly you have to be a mature enough reader, so that you don't get caught up in the populist hype. I also think you have to be able to see beyond the face-value of people generally, and have a certain desire or tendency to see what they're really up to. If you can rise above that and appreciate some of the complexity of the book I think you'll be rewarded.

Anyway, 5 out of 5 - one of the best books I've ever read.

Eliot Rosewater

What is this thing called Science? is an introduction to the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science seeks to answer questions such as "what is science," "what fields count as science," "what, if any, are the advantages of scientific knowledge over other kinds of knowledge," "what is the best scientific method," and so on. It is an interesting field.

I did a module in college on the history and philosophy of science this year, and read Chalmers' book to revise what I had learned and so tie it all down. The book seems to cover most of the posts - observation and experiment, empiricism, falsification, scientific paradigms, the role of theory, and so on - but I was generally disappointed with it. Philosophy of any kind is about critical thinking, and I found Chalmers kind of lacking in that department.

A major example of this is his interpretation of mathematical probability, which borders on embarrassing. When speaking of theories, he said they are confirmed by a finite number x of experiments (the apple falls from a tree a finite number of times) but that there are an infinite number of situations in which the theory is relevant (gravity is everywhere!). Thus the probability of the theory being true is x divided by infinity which is always 0. But probability doesn't work like that at all: the relevant formula is number of successful experiments divided by the number of total experiments carried out - in this case x/x and so 1. I.e., in the light of x experiments all confirming the theory there is no reason to doubt the theory.

Perhaps this example, early in the book, had me biased against Chalmers and looking for faults. But I did seem to find them. For example, in wondering why the world should obey scientific laws he says "It is the operation of causal powers and capacities characterised by laws that make systems obey them." In other words, the world obeys laws, and so the world obeys laws. And I am also sceptical of his choice of material to cover. Some of the big names mentioned in my college course didn't appear at all, while Chapter 11 seems of have been included simply because it relates to two papers Chalmers wrote. He mentions these papers three times in the text and, incidentally, references himself more than anyone else.

I could elucidate more on the faults of this book, but they aren't the real issue. The real issue is the absence of anything really good. I didn't find the book particularly insightful or illuminating, many of the historical examples lacked bite, and in general it just didn't make me passionate about the issues at stake. The presence of all the little problems just turned the neutral into a negative.

2/5

Eliot Rosewater

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a famous work of libertarian political philosophy written by the then Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University Robert Nozick. (He died in 2002.) The book, published in 1972, is composed of three parts. The first part is an attempt to demonstrate how a minimal state can arise without violating peoples' rights (the usual individualist rights), and is thus an attempted refutation of anarcho-capitalist political philosophy. The second part challenges common arguments for a more extensive state, and in particular the arguments put forth by John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice ("a fountain of illuminating ideas," according to Nozick). The third part outlines a "framework of Utopia" in which individuals are free to move from community to community depending on their political desires and how such communities can satisfy them.

I obviously came at the book as someone who is often described as a libertarian. However, it is not for this reason that I found it to be one of the most challenging, stimulating and satisfying books I have ever read. Nozick is simply an intellectual powerhouse and Anarchy, State, and Utopia is, as a result, a delight to read. Whatever about his conclusions, Nozkick is an absolute genius at constructing arguments and concepts and enquiring after conclusions. He is, it seems to me right now, exactly what a philosopher should be. He tackles issues in a methodical (even mathematical) way. He creates concepts and frameworks that completely illuminate the topic at hand. He gives time to any side-considerations that arise. He is an expert at formalising gut notions. He draws from all kind of learning - economics, game theory, probability theory, etc.

His conclusions are, in my opinion, not very important. It is the way in which he goes about his arguments that make the book so great (albeit difficult to read). The conclusions themselves are interesting and sometimes surprising. At the very least, they provide a nice challenge for anyone who disagrees strongly with libertarianism to tackle*. The book's approach also encourages critical thinking from the reader, and I found myself trying to construct justifications for the state within Nozick's argument - I think "prospects for government intervention in Anarchy, State, and Utopia" would be an intriguing and perhaps unpredictable study.

My recommendation of this book comes with a large caveat. Like all difficult books it only rewards readers who are willing to devote time and effort to it. I also think you need to be academically honest, and not dismiss everything his does just because you disagree with the deductive premises (which most people will). But if you're into philosophy and system-building I think you will enjoy it.

*You can, of course, just dismiss his premises out of hand, but where's the fun in that?

Eliot Rosewater

My reading of Troubles was a bit sporadic due to study in April and exams in May. Reading a medium-size book over the space of two-and-a-half months is never good I think!

Troubles is set in the years 1919-22 and charts the decline of the Majestic, a hotel on the coast of Wexford. The hotel is owned and populated by members of "the quality" - the Anglo-Irish protestant elite. The fate of the hotel and its inhabitants mirrors the decline of the British presence in Ireland and, more generally, the British Empire as a whole. This comparison is emphasised throughout the book by the irregular interspersion of news articles relating to the growing unrest in Ireland and the Empire.

The actual decline of the hotel is portrayed with fantastic artistry by Farrell. It is a slow decline that in the period of a few pages is hardly noticeable, but that over the space of many pages takes definite form. The hotel is overrun by nature - by cats from the inside and the growing reach of rhododendrons and other vegetation from the outside - and eventually the building itself begins to crack. As well as this artistry Farrell is quite an eccentric writer - punctuating the narrative with sly humorous passages and interesting words ("interminable," "querulous" and "expropriated"*). More than any other author I've read, I got the distinct impression that Farrell seriously delighted in writing and had lots of fun with of it. I can almost imagine him smirking at his writing table picking certain phrases!

As regards the historical themes and metaphors and all that I can't really comment as I read the book over such a long period and was unable to get a grasp of the whole thread of it. When I got into the book though I did find it really enjoyable because of Farrell's writing style and the bizarre and quirky characters and relationships he develops. I think it does merit and more careful rereading to get a hold of it all.

*All of these were lifted into Derek Mahon's poem, A Disused Shed in Co. Wexford, which is set in the hotel of the book.

Denerick

Glad you liked it. Farrell is one of my favourite writers and Troubles seems to be his most accomplished work of literature. I might be somewhat biased since its set in early 1920s Ireland and portrays the decline of the Anglo Irish aristocracy, something which I've always held a certain peasant's fascination for. But regardless, it is a particularly rich work of literary metaphor and allusion, and definately deserves due attention and respect.

I'd recommend you read the Siege of Krishnapur if you liked Troubles, it has loads of that Farrell wit that you may have enjoyed.

Eliot Rosewater

Machiavelli's The Prince is outrageous and shocking: outrageously boring and shockingly obvious, that is. The philosophy advanced in the book can be summarised like so: "you should try to be good, but sometimes it is necessary to be bad to achieve what you want." Wow. This is a philosophy so profound that the average self-aware 15 year-old kid has already thought it up.

Machiavelli's comparisons between contemporary political events and those of antiquity are interesting, and there's no doubting his knowledge. But in terms of philosophy, this book offers (or at least offered me) little to nothing.