This is just a fun book to read. It’s smart, with a good blend of action and dialog, and a quick read. I read this book once before after picking it up from the Barnes & Noble staff recommendations section, and now I’m reading Orwell’s 1984 as a comparison to Jennifer Govt.‘s business-centric society. I’m not too far into it, but already there are strong parallels.
Ironically enough, a scene from Jennifer Government took place in real life recently. Early in the book, Nike intentionally limits the number of shoes produced in order to generate demand. The demand is high enough to drive the price skyward and people to mug owners to steal the footwear, further creating interest in the items. So when a local store is rumored to have a number of the shoes, a throng of rabid customers surrounds the Nike store, leading to mayhem. Just such a scene broke out in New York last week [Story from NY Post]. For more business satire, I suggest Max Barry’s other book Syrup also.
I read Gatsby a few years ago when there were all of those “Best 100 Books of the 20th Century” lists. At the time, I wasn’t impressed. But after hearing praise from a number of people, I decided to give it another chance. I have to say that I’m glad I did. First, the story is entertaining and a pretty quick read. But beyond that, I feel like there are layers and layers in there. I really found myself thinking about the fluctuating relationships between the characters, the influence of the 20’s, the way the story is revealed. I suppose that’s what every book sets out to do. Now I understand that Fitzgerald’s success is what put Gatsby at the top of all those lists.
As I read this book it didn’t seem like the author was really accomplishing what he set out to do, which was to understand how people make split second decisions, but now that I think about it, it was pretty successful. One of the conclusions is that having a expertise in what you’re deciding gives you an advantage of some type. It doesn’t take a great leap of faith to accept that. However, the book’s real strength is the compilation of experiments to support conclusion. For instance, most people can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi in a direct taste test. But if you’re given three unlabeled samples (two Cokes/one Pepsi or vice versa), you’ll have a difficult time determining which two are the same, let alone what brand they are. It turns out that the colas are so similar that, unless you are a food expert, when you sip sample three you won’t be able to remember what the first was like. It’s the series of these experiments that made Blink a good read.
Wow, I’m quite the reader lately, eh? I found this one via the “People who bought this book also bought” feature on barnesandnoble.com. I think the premise is a good one. The protagonist starts receiving checks for $1000 every month at a low point in his life. This goes on for 7 years before the payer comes calling to press him into service. Some would say it’s formulaic, but I found it entertaining and an incredibly fast read. I think only the DaVinci Code was quicker, and most of that was read on a cross-country airplane ride. So if you’re looking for a fast, thriller type story, put this on your list.
Yes, I read the history of salt. Sodium chloride, primarily. I was expecting more. The author did a reasonably good job of relaying the importance of salt throughout the ages, economically, militarily, and in terms of food supply, but there were many deficiencies also. Why salt isn’t as important today isn’t well explained. I was also frustrated by the number and length of recipes employing salt. There were several sections that were quite interesting (e.g. evolution of ketchup, origin of McIlhenny tabasco), but these curiosities were too few. Perhaps the history of phosphorus will turn out to be better.
Thanks to my negligence in catching my flight back to the Bay Area, I was able to finish JFK’s biography. I’m certainly not going to make a habit of 700 page books, but I think this one was worth the effort. The writing and subject matter were excellent. I guess I’ve always been one of the people who thought that JFK got too much credit for just being a Kennedy. After reading this book, I was partly justified. His pre-presidential political career was nothing noteworthy. As president, he was somewhere between mediocre and poor on domestic issues, i.e. civil rights. In terms of foreign affairs, it seems like he essentially maintained the status quo, except for some progress on nuclear non-proliferation. So if the question is, “How much did the country improve over the period of his presidency?” the answer is going to be mildly positive. However, that’s really not the best way to evaluate. It’s unlikely that anyone could have much in terms of civil rights with half of his own party against him So while he could have been more bold on the divisive issue, he opted for smaller steps, and focused on foreign policy, a uniting issue. There were missteps, but his balance of pragmatism and idealism was a true masterpiece in a very dangerous environment. I say that he maintained the status quo, but it was a tough status quo. We could very easily have blown up the planet, so on that score, Kennedy deserves substantial credit.
This is an American history book made up of excerpts from foreign textbooks. It does an excellent job of putting perspective on the United States’ place in the world. Going in, I expected the American Revolution to be the most interesting part, however, in the context of Europe’s long history, that event represents just a small portion of what was happening globally for Britain and France. One thing I took from this book was the negative outlook of American foreign policy, basically since its inception. I wouldn’t say I was surprised, but it was a reminder in light of 9/11 that distrust of the United States is not a recent phenomenon.![[REM ticket]](images/misc/remticket.jpg)
I finished another book this morning, The Numbers Game by Alan Schwartz. It’s the story of the evolution of baseball statistics from when runs and outs were the only stats recorded to the present where OPS isn’t accurate enough to rate players. He does a pretty good job of focusing on the people involved instead of only the statistics (there are enough places to go for that), and the most interesting part is that even from the beginning, people wanted better ways to analyze hitters than just batting average and better ways to analyze fielders than errors. The description of the modern stat companies dragged a bit since there are so many groups doing similar things and money is involved now. Anyway, a good read for the Moneyball crowd.