Barbecues are fun. Especially large group barbecues. Everyone pitching in to see that the food is cooked, the serving line manned, everything necessary is available. Kind words exchanged, small groups breaking off to have conversation - kids playing tug-of-war.
After the food is served, some participate as actors, some as honored members, some as spectators. The roles will change for the next. Since this particular BBQ was to celebrate the growth and development of some youngsters, there were proud parents and proud kids to go along with the ceremony.
And new faces. New members to the group, watching and participating for the first time. Feeling the welcome camaraderie of being part of something good, something significant, of belonging.
At times like these it is hard to believe there is strife, that there are disagreements. It is a welcome diversion from the awareness that not all agree with us. We can agree on so much, participate together in so much, have so much in common. Different though we may be, we look at our children, and together invest our time and energy to see to their development, and concur that it is a very important thing to do. We become like-minded, and briefly imagine the rest of the world may be, too.
I like barbecues.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Historical Perspective
From Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections (Benjamin I. Page):
In 1956, Adlai Stevenson put forth the idea during his presidential campaign for National Health Insurance, using federal aid to make voluntary insurance available to everyone.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater included planks to make Social Security 'flexible' and 'voluntary'.
And I thought these were new ideas. In reading history, I see that we keep retreading old ground in our quadrennial elections. No wonder the issues seem so entrenched that we can no longer get at the roots and work towards meaningful resolutions. The real stops to our desires, however, must be congress: Their recalcitrance on passing legislation for which there is majority popular support continues today - read any report of how current Health Care legislation has stalled. (61% support full Health Coverage to all today, up from 51% in 1956.)
(In 1960, Goldwater also published a book titled: "Conscience of a Conservative". Now I know where Krugman got his title.)
In 1956, Adlai Stevenson put forth the idea during his presidential campaign for National Health Insurance, using federal aid to make voluntary insurance available to everyone.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater included planks to make Social Security 'flexible' and 'voluntary'.
And I thought these were new ideas. In reading history, I see that we keep retreading old ground in our quadrennial elections. No wonder the issues seem so entrenched that we can no longer get at the roots and work towards meaningful resolutions. The real stops to our desires, however, must be congress: Their recalcitrance on passing legislation for which there is majority popular support continues today - read any report of how current Health Care legislation has stalled. (61% support full Health Coverage to all today, up from 51% in 1956.)
(In 1960, Goldwater also published a book titled: "Conscience of a Conservative". Now I know where Krugman got his title.)
Friday, May 22, 2009
Stories
More than anything else, we tell stories. Stories about our life, our friends, our world, and our place in it. Especially important are our origin stories: Tales about how we came to be, from a grand perspective (think Biblical, Origin Myth, Evolution) to smaller, closer to home tales about our particular family.
Stories give us identity. We repeat the tales about the founding of our country to reinforce the ideals and struggles that led to its birth, and in the telling, we share a common history.
We elaborate and embellish. Rare indeed is the individual whose recounting of past events doesn't have themselves playing a more prominent role, doesn't have themselves portraying higher morals, forgetting errors, adding conquests. That's not all bad: By recounting how we want to be, how we wished we'd behaved, we create a powerful cognitive feedback loop that reinforces future behavior. We act out the roles we create for ourselves in the stories we tell.
Sometimes, though, the story we hear repeatedly starts to sound untrue. Evidence mounts that the original tale has been distorted, perhaps has reached the point of caricature, or has undergone so much wishful embellishment as to appear completely made up. Perhaps it no longer serves a universal purpose, but has been captured by a small group.
Stories that recount the innate superiority of Western Civilization have started to fall into this category. New evidence about commonality worldwide has surfaced. For instance, no matter who you are or where you are reading this, you stand an equal chance of sharing more common DNA with me than my immediate neighbor. Researchers have uncovered other clues about the vagaries of existence, clues about the role of language and culture in cognitive development, and exposed the fluidity of it all.
Into this maelstrom roars Jared Diamond with his book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. Weaving together tales of biological availability, geography, cultural solutions to needs, he creates a new origin story about civilization. He creates an account of the development of immunity to germs through animal husbandry. He shows how some regions were ripe for agriculture through the availability of high protein grains, and how other areas, richer in other resources but lacking in cultivatable plants, had no compelling need to develop farming. He uses geography, and the ease or difficulty of traversing the landscape to explain why some migrations occurred, and others did not. The availability of domesticateable animals (for not all are!) explains population concentrations: With, a single farmer can supply many more; without, even transporting goods becomes difficult, forcing groups to live closer to their resources.
Diamond's story is a very good one. It parks at the door ideas about innate superiority, and instead replaces them with proximate causes, external factors. It provides a more equitable place in the world for all people, and forgoes judgment of civilizations that haven't expanded in the same way as ours.
However, it's always good to seek out criticism, to search for inadequacies in any story, to reveal options for improving the tale and our understanding of the world.
I've seen critics of Diamond in the past, but they always appeared to be angry that he had so successfully created a tale that didn't rely on innate differences to explain the world as we see it today. They were riled that they could no longer point to internal causes - one could easily see that in 500 pages Diamond had erased part of their identity. They were forced to recreate their own origin tales to fit in the new picture, or, they had to discount Diamond's account. Such criticisms are not substantive.
I ran across some more thoughtful, anthropological critiques yesterday by Timothy Burke (you can read them here and here.) The summary is that Diamond too easily ignores data that doesn't fit his grand story (his account is long, slow, and sweeping; what about short term, close in explanations that are sufficient?), that the stage is set in the 11,000 years leading up to 1500, and events since then have unfolded because of this long pre-history, ignoring "the importance of accident and serendipidity at the moment of contact between an expanding Europe and non-Western societies around 1500."
If you have enjoyed 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', I highly recommend that you read Burke's essays. They have certainly given me a larger appreciation for what anthropology is about, and a new way of viewing Diamond's works.
But, the crucial question: Does Burke invalidate Diamond? It would appear not. Like every map, which is just an approximation, capable of answering some questions about the terrain while leaving others out, so, too, any origin story is only an approximation, highlighting the salient points. Even accident and serendipidity don't require innate superiority to function. Diamond provides a useful account of human expansions and civilization that flies in the face of Western arrogance, and if we'd listen, perhaps provides us with a little humility.
It is useful, too, as we continue to create our particular story. That we strive for greatness of culture, of civilization is important. That we look for real ways to explain our relative success, that we can pass on our methods and share strengthens our tale. And, by not appealing to some innate quality, but instead searching and building on what we have, we open ourselves to more possibilities, to a greater society. Enabling broader participation in our story creation should lead to a more compelling story.
Stories give us identity. We repeat the tales about the founding of our country to reinforce the ideals and struggles that led to its birth, and in the telling, we share a common history.
We elaborate and embellish. Rare indeed is the individual whose recounting of past events doesn't have themselves playing a more prominent role, doesn't have themselves portraying higher morals, forgetting errors, adding conquests. That's not all bad: By recounting how we want to be, how we wished we'd behaved, we create a powerful cognitive feedback loop that reinforces future behavior. We act out the roles we create for ourselves in the stories we tell.
Sometimes, though, the story we hear repeatedly starts to sound untrue. Evidence mounts that the original tale has been distorted, perhaps has reached the point of caricature, or has undergone so much wishful embellishment as to appear completely made up. Perhaps it no longer serves a universal purpose, but has been captured by a small group.
Stories that recount the innate superiority of Western Civilization have started to fall into this category. New evidence about commonality worldwide has surfaced. For instance, no matter who you are or where you are reading this, you stand an equal chance of sharing more common DNA with me than my immediate neighbor. Researchers have uncovered other clues about the vagaries of existence, clues about the role of language and culture in cognitive development, and exposed the fluidity of it all.
Into this maelstrom roars Jared Diamond with his book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. Weaving together tales of biological availability, geography, cultural solutions to needs, he creates a new origin story about civilization. He creates an account of the development of immunity to germs through animal husbandry. He shows how some regions were ripe for agriculture through the availability of high protein grains, and how other areas, richer in other resources but lacking in cultivatable plants, had no compelling need to develop farming. He uses geography, and the ease or difficulty of traversing the landscape to explain why some migrations occurred, and others did not. The availability of domesticateable animals (for not all are!) explains population concentrations: With, a single farmer can supply many more; without, even transporting goods becomes difficult, forcing groups to live closer to their resources.
Diamond's story is a very good one. It parks at the door ideas about innate superiority, and instead replaces them with proximate causes, external factors. It provides a more equitable place in the world for all people, and forgoes judgment of civilizations that haven't expanded in the same way as ours.
However, it's always good to seek out criticism, to search for inadequacies in any story, to reveal options for improving the tale and our understanding of the world.
I've seen critics of Diamond in the past, but they always appeared to be angry that he had so successfully created a tale that didn't rely on innate differences to explain the world as we see it today. They were riled that they could no longer point to internal causes - one could easily see that in 500 pages Diamond had erased part of their identity. They were forced to recreate their own origin tales to fit in the new picture, or, they had to discount Diamond's account. Such criticisms are not substantive.
I ran across some more thoughtful, anthropological critiques yesterday by Timothy Burke (you can read them here and here.) The summary is that Diamond too easily ignores data that doesn't fit his grand story (his account is long, slow, and sweeping; what about short term, close in explanations that are sufficient?), that the stage is set in the 11,000 years leading up to 1500, and events since then have unfolded because of this long pre-history, ignoring "the importance of accident and serendipidity at the moment of contact between an expanding Europe and non-Western societies around 1500."
If you have enjoyed 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', I highly recommend that you read Burke's essays. They have certainly given me a larger appreciation for what anthropology is about, and a new way of viewing Diamond's works.
But, the crucial question: Does Burke invalidate Diamond? It would appear not. Like every map, which is just an approximation, capable of answering some questions about the terrain while leaving others out, so, too, any origin story is only an approximation, highlighting the salient points. Even accident and serendipidity don't require innate superiority to function. Diamond provides a useful account of human expansions and civilization that flies in the face of Western arrogance, and if we'd listen, perhaps provides us with a little humility.
It is useful, too, as we continue to create our particular story. That we strive for greatness of culture, of civilization is important. That we look for real ways to explain our relative success, that we can pass on our methods and share strengthens our tale. And, by not appealing to some innate quality, but instead searching and building on what we have, we open ourselves to more possibilities, to a greater society. Enabling broader participation in our story creation should lead to a more compelling story.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Is Twitter Our Id?
Read Roger Ehrenberg (Twitter is our Id, Facebook our Ego) and let me know: Is he right? Especially from my friends who 'Tweet'...(and extra credit if you can do it in the size of a twitter msg!)
Chief Justice Roberts
There is an article in this week's New Yorker about Chief Justice Roberts, his views expressed during his current tenure on the court, and a historical perspective on his life.
In reading it, I was struck by a couple of things. One was his focus on race (in the guise of removing our focus on race), and the second his deference to power.
In his desire to remove our nation's focus on race, Justice Roberts has sided against laws that uphold quotas or similar means to address racial inequalities. In a statement guaranteed to be widely quoted (out of context and likely turned into a cliche, but really amounts to a tautology), Roberts observed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But even while challenging the laws that attempt to address past and current racial inequities, Justice Roberts himself ignores context. While it is true that most attempts at rectifying the results of discrimination end up imposing discrimination, concentrating on those ignores the initial causes of inequality - namely, the often implicit discrimination that exists in our society. Are you poor? You are most likely black or minority. Is your father in jail? Again, you are most likely black. Is your local school overcrowded, with poor teacher retention and dismal graduation rates?
We might do well to do away with explicit racial quotas on hiring and college school attendance. In 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwell cites a study that followed those who attended law school and looked at the outcome. Did those who got in under quota (perhaps with less preparation than some passed over peers) under perform after? The answer was 'No.' In many things, after a certain threshold has been crossed, all can equally receive the training and education with similar results, thus leading to ideas of a lottery. We can't with precision determine who will succeed and who won't, so perhaps we shouldn't try, and let the individuals themselves decide. Of course, there are those who put forward extreme preparation that might be passed over, but since we can't adequately measure and predict, we aren't really doing anyone a disservice. Plus, our college educated ranks should more closely resemble the ratios of race in the population.
Of more concern to me is Justice Roberts deference to power and existing power structures. Jeffrey Toobin writes:
As I've observed elsewhere, individuals can rarely do as much damage as groups, and perhaps our most egregious violators are our nation's corporations, often acting without regard to safety, social needs, or respect for the long term environment.
But I'm not a lawyer. So what concerns me most about Roberts' view is not that he may be wrong, but that he may actually be right - That his interpretation of our nation's laws is consistent with the intent of our nation's laws. For over 200 years the common individual of America has been fighting against entrenched power, has been fighting for the right to live and excel on their own merits, has been fighting to be free from exploitation by powerful controlling groups. And again and again, fearful that if the masses have the same opportunities, the same privileges, that they will undermine the powerful, laws have been passed and judgments made that keep power in the hands of the few. Although there are anecdotal stories about 'self-made men', vastly more common is the 'success' of those who started out with money, privilege, and advantage.
Between our laws and a sympathetic Chief Justice, it is likely to remain that way.
In reading it, I was struck by a couple of things. One was his focus on race (in the guise of removing our focus on race), and the second his deference to power.
In his desire to remove our nation's focus on race, Justice Roberts has sided against laws that uphold quotas or similar means to address racial inequalities. In a statement guaranteed to be widely quoted (out of context and likely turned into a cliche, but really amounts to a tautology), Roberts observed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But even while challenging the laws that attempt to address past and current racial inequities, Justice Roberts himself ignores context. While it is true that most attempts at rectifying the results of discrimination end up imposing discrimination, concentrating on those ignores the initial causes of inequality - namely, the often implicit discrimination that exists in our society. Are you poor? You are most likely black or minority. Is your father in jail? Again, you are most likely black. Is your local school overcrowded, with poor teacher retention and dismal graduation rates?
We might do well to do away with explicit racial quotas on hiring and college school attendance. In 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwell cites a study that followed those who attended law school and looked at the outcome. Did those who got in under quota (perhaps with less preparation than some passed over peers) under perform after? The answer was 'No.' In many things, after a certain threshold has been crossed, all can equally receive the training and education with similar results, thus leading to ideas of a lottery. We can't with precision determine who will succeed and who won't, so perhaps we shouldn't try, and let the individuals themselves decide. Of course, there are those who put forward extreme preparation that might be passed over, but since we can't adequately measure and predict, we aren't really doing anyone a disservice. Plus, our college educated ranks should more closely resemble the ratios of race in the population.
Of more concern to me is Justice Roberts deference to power and existing power structures. Jeffrey Toobin writes:
In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.
As I've observed elsewhere, individuals can rarely do as much damage as groups, and perhaps our most egregious violators are our nation's corporations, often acting without regard to safety, social needs, or respect for the long term environment.
But I'm not a lawyer. So what concerns me most about Roberts' view is not that he may be wrong, but that he may actually be right - That his interpretation of our nation's laws is consistent with the intent of our nation's laws. For over 200 years the common individual of America has been fighting against entrenched power, has been fighting for the right to live and excel on their own merits, has been fighting to be free from exploitation by powerful controlling groups. And again and again, fearful that if the masses have the same opportunities, the same privileges, that they will undermine the powerful, laws have been passed and judgments made that keep power in the hands of the few. Although there are anecdotal stories about 'self-made men', vastly more common is the 'success' of those who started out with money, privilege, and advantage.
Between our laws and a sympathetic Chief Justice, it is likely to remain that way.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Strike One - You're Out!
Anyone else catch the interview with AIG CEO Edward Liddy on 60 Minutes last night?
After admitting that it was perhaps just 20-30 people who brought AIG to the brink of collapse, it seemed to me that he struggled a little to explain why they still worked for the company. Although 2 have tendered their resignations, the remainder are allowed to continue on, and Mr Liddy even mentioned that perhaps the company still had need of their expertise. Wow.
But isn't that how it is? We coddle those who make mistakes at the top, while we 'throw the book' at those who make mistakes at the bottom. "There, there - you relied too heavily on flawed models..." vs "Three strikes and you're out!"
There will be those who will complain that comparing fraudulent financiers to drug dealers is an unfair or at least very unequal comparison. I would agree. The amount of social upheaval and damage caused by a single drug user is tiny compared to the damage caused by an unscrupulous financier. We can't afford to give them three chances - One, and they should be out!
Keep explaining, Mr Liddy. We're not buying. And as 85% owners of the company, we want them out!
After admitting that it was perhaps just 20-30 people who brought AIG to the brink of collapse, it seemed to me that he struggled a little to explain why they still worked for the company. Although 2 have tendered their resignations, the remainder are allowed to continue on, and Mr Liddy even mentioned that perhaps the company still had need of their expertise. Wow.
But isn't that how it is? We coddle those who make mistakes at the top, while we 'throw the book' at those who make mistakes at the bottom. "There, there - you relied too heavily on flawed models..." vs "Three strikes and you're out!"
There will be those who will complain that comparing fraudulent financiers to drug dealers is an unfair or at least very unequal comparison. I would agree. The amount of social upheaval and damage caused by a single drug user is tiny compared to the damage caused by an unscrupulous financier. We can't afford to give them three chances - One, and they should be out!
Keep explaining, Mr Liddy. We're not buying. And as 85% owners of the company, we want them out!
Monday, May 11, 2009
From Poo to Power
I've been reading 'The Big Necessity' by Rose George - a book on human waste (not trash, mind you, but defecation). It is an amazing chronicling of waste disposal around the world, its attendant difficulties, and why it is so important to get it right (disease mitigation primarily, plus water conservation).
Throughout the book are various ingenuous ways waste is used to generate gas (for cooking and lighting) or electricity in addition to fertilizer. So, this segment on NPR caught my ear: The Denver Zoo is installing a waste gasification plant on-site that will turn 'Poop to Power'.
Although the payback will take a number of years, this has got to be a better approach than moving the waste to a landfill (carnivore) or even the composting that is done with herbivore waste. Listen for the full story, and take note of just how much 'poo' an elephant makes on a daily basis!
Throughout the book are various ingenuous ways waste is used to generate gas (for cooking and lighting) or electricity in addition to fertilizer. So, this segment on NPR caught my ear: The Denver Zoo is installing a waste gasification plant on-site that will turn 'Poop to Power'.
Although the payback will take a number of years, this has got to be a better approach than moving the waste to a landfill (carnivore) or even the composting that is done with herbivore waste. Listen for the full story, and take note of just how much 'poo' an elephant makes on a daily basis!
Social Security Notes
With the release of tomorrow's report, Social Security will once again be on everybody's mind, especially those that would like to trim, if not gut, the current program under the rubric that we can't afford it.
As one who knows many individuals who, despite efforts to save and prepare, found themselves on the short end and use (not abuse!) SS for their retirement (and even some cases that used it many years before retirement when a spouse died young) - I find myself a fan. Sure it takes a little of my income, but it takes the same little of everyone's income, and in return we have a floor through which we cannot fall regardless of life's vagaries.
But the rich don't see it that way: It's just an entitlement of the poor, and they hate paying money to the poor. Never mind the social good it does, never mind the relative pittance it is to their incomes....
So, some numbers, and a very good plan for maintaining Social Security for the next 75 years.
And access to your Senator when the hatchet jobs start coming in! Let 'em know you care! Keep Social Security alive.
As one who knows many individuals who, despite efforts to save and prepare, found themselves on the short end and use (not abuse!) SS for their retirement (and even some cases that used it many years before retirement when a spouse died young) - I find myself a fan. Sure it takes a little of my income, but it takes the same little of everyone's income, and in return we have a floor through which we cannot fall regardless of life's vagaries.
But the rich don't see it that way: It's just an entitlement of the poor, and they hate paying money to the poor. Never mind the social good it does, never mind the relative pittance it is to their incomes....
So, some numbers, and a very good plan for maintaining Social Security for the next 75 years.
And access to your Senator when the hatchet jobs start coming in! Let 'em know you care! Keep Social Security alive.
Counter-Intuitive Reasoning
That the recent economic downturn is due in large part to a bubble in housing values seems incontrovertible. That the housing bubble was due in large part to fraud in the financial sector again appears incontrovertible. That the fraud was the outgrowth of a lax environment brought about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and the rise of extreme libertarian thinking at the Federal Reserve, again, seems above argument. Greed rules, and given an outlet, will take it.
Our economy grew fine from 1933 until 1999 while Glass-Steagall was in effect. The ensuing bubble and economic disruption caused by its deflation would seem like something we'd like to avoid in the future. I know that I can see no reason why regulating the financial sector again wouldn't be the most prudent approach.
Now, I can understand that those who grew wealthy during the last decade (at the expense of a large portion of America!) would oppose regulation. I can understand why those who intend to make finance their vocation might oppose such regulation. And, I can understand why those who hope to make CEO (or at least VP) at a large corporation might oppose regulation - regulation would be lowering the ceiling for all of these individuals.
But what I don't understand is when the common worker takes up the call against imposing regulation on this sector. Why, when it is our hope for reasonable retirement that has been so cratered by the actions of a greedy few, wouldn't we ask that it can't happen again? Why, when our pensions are in dire straights due to cross investment in derivatives and default swaps, wouldn't we ask that such instruments be banned? Why, when we know of at least one of those 6 million American's who has recently lost their job, wouldn't our own empathy force us to ask for future protection?
Too many of those I know, who have the same stake in a stable economy as I, are still under the influence of the ideas that 'we' can't solve our problems. That 'we' can't impose regulations and stabilize the economy. That 'we' can't act in our self-interest - that to do so would somehow prevent those who, through their own self-interest, really drive the economy and trickle down benefit to all.
'We' of course, is acting in concert as the government. Somehow, in the land of Jefferson, we no longer believe in democracy. We believe in John Galt, in greed, that our fortunes are all tied to those few that drive it for the rest - and if they misbehave a little, it's okay.
That has got to be one of the all-time greatest victories of propaganda.
Our economy grew fine from 1933 until 1999 while Glass-Steagall was in effect. The ensuing bubble and economic disruption caused by its deflation would seem like something we'd like to avoid in the future. I know that I can see no reason why regulating the financial sector again wouldn't be the most prudent approach.
Now, I can understand that those who grew wealthy during the last decade (at the expense of a large portion of America!) would oppose regulation. I can understand why those who intend to make finance their vocation might oppose such regulation. And, I can understand why those who hope to make CEO (or at least VP) at a large corporation might oppose regulation - regulation would be lowering the ceiling for all of these individuals.
But what I don't understand is when the common worker takes up the call against imposing regulation on this sector. Why, when it is our hope for reasonable retirement that has been so cratered by the actions of a greedy few, wouldn't we ask that it can't happen again? Why, when our pensions are in dire straights due to cross investment in derivatives and default swaps, wouldn't we ask that such instruments be banned? Why, when we know of at least one of those 6 million American's who has recently lost their job, wouldn't our own empathy force us to ask for future protection?
Too many of those I know, who have the same stake in a stable economy as I, are still under the influence of the ideas that 'we' can't solve our problems. That 'we' can't impose regulations and stabilize the economy. That 'we' can't act in our self-interest - that to do so would somehow prevent those who, through their own self-interest, really drive the economy and trickle down benefit to all.
'We' of course, is acting in concert as the government. Somehow, in the land of Jefferson, we no longer believe in democracy. We believe in John Galt, in greed, that our fortunes are all tied to those few that drive it for the rest - and if they misbehave a little, it's okay.
That has got to be one of the all-time greatest victories of propaganda.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wow! (Neil Gaiman - American Gods)
Just finished my introduction to Neil Gaiman - by reading his novel American Gods. Wow!
I love mythology, and since this book emulates so well the old Norse and Greek and Egyptian myths, but in a new setting (America!), adds an interesting twist, and wraps it all in descriptive, readable text - I couldn't put it down! And when was the last time characters in a book discussed the philosophy of Julian Jaynes (He of the Origin of Consciousness in the Break-down of the Bicameral Mind)?
Besides the plot and the ability to keep me guessing as to how it might all turn out, I really, really enjoyed Gaiman's prose - his wonderful working of the English language into something exciting, with often surprising juxtapositions. In one sequence, as the protagonist drifts into a dream, and 'Darkness roared.'
Gaiman has roared into my awareness, and I look forward to reading more. Hopefully they are all as compelling!
I love mythology, and since this book emulates so well the old Norse and Greek and Egyptian myths, but in a new setting (America!), adds an interesting twist, and wraps it all in descriptive, readable text - I couldn't put it down! And when was the last time characters in a book discussed the philosophy of Julian Jaynes (He of the Origin of Consciousness in the Break-down of the Bicameral Mind)?
Besides the plot and the ability to keep me guessing as to how it might all turn out, I really, really enjoyed Gaiman's prose - his wonderful working of the English language into something exciting, with often surprising juxtapositions. In one sequence, as the protagonist drifts into a dream, and 'Darkness roared.'
Gaiman has roared into my awareness, and I look forward to reading more. Hopefully they are all as compelling!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)