false4353193true5671245read23true3776022currently-reading26true3776021to-read74true3778916interesting18true6931302one-day16true3776146backburner3true4420038remind-me-never-to-read-this180false3949631non-fiction160false3949635fiction100false3779454military65false3949615philosophical65false3949655fantasy53false3949646history52false3949667speculative34false5163401personal-favorite32false3949652memoir29false4847855iraq27false3949604narrative25false3949761adventure19false4847865ww216false3949737thriller15false4545926policy14false3949887science13false3949746historical12false5163376personal-classic12false4847860afghanistan10false3949730religion10false3779459instructional6false3949645biography5false5440219rwanda5false4847863vietnam4false5391483economics3false4847866ww13false3949768education2false9055302music2false5604228nature2false5165675georgian2false4563631western2false9157439romance1false5165739victorian1false5601376thar-culture1false5587891comic1false4894644mystery0false9143090wishlist
<![CDATA[Wes added 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism']]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/64572897
to: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster CapitalismbyNaomi Klein bookshelves: economics,
non-fiction,
policy
A good history, and easy prose too…when you're not wearily brushing aside the author's ever-present ideological slant. I know it may be harder for some to see than others, but it was blatant enough to me to make the book a trying slog at certain points.
I will not go into a refutation of said ideology here. It would be pointless and I would get riled and I wouldn't convince you of anything in such a heated manner even if you happened to disagree with me. (Yes, you. Whoever you are. How was your day?)
So I will say instead, that in many ways the refutation for the mixed-in excoriation is the last few pages of the book's conclusion. After all the asides, the nods to the reader, about the obvious superiority of the public sector and the necessity of an active and strong government paw to dominate the Invisible, we are told some success stories—presumably in defiance of Free Market™ ideology. But look at them again. What got things fixed, what got things rebuilt, was individual initiative and collective (local!) responsibility. The kind of sentiments that can't be implanted via governmental efforts. Those people didn't wait for the state. Absolutely true. So why should we, in general, subscribe to an ideology that glorifies the worst aspects of that ineffectual bureaucratic sovereignty?
I things were so horrendous for eight years, and it was all brought about so easily by a collection of zealots, free elected, what really is the problem? Are the men at the helm actually steering this place, or has the course been predetermined, and we've only the throttle? What is the reason for the seeming decline, for the malaise? Could it be the profligate culture itself, maybe? And why do we need the Bear ineptly micromanaging things, to an even greater extent, for those success stories to become everyday experiences, everywhere?
]]>
<![CDATA[Wes added 'Pride and Prejudice']]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/37956832
to: Pride and Prejudice (Paperback)byJane Austen bookshelves: fiction,
georgian,
romance
Circumlocution. And an odd habit of narratively glossing over the most interesting conversations. Those are the only things holding the book back from the classic shelf for me. I mean, wow. While I don't pride myself on looking down upon manners-type romantic fiction (the little I've read), I didn't expect to be this surprised by how much I cared about Eliza and silly, silly Darcy by the end.
I was also surprised during the stretches where the author so eloquently analyzes the flaws of her puppets. Really unflinching stuff, too. I got my share of chuckles from the excesses or idiocy of a few of the choicest specimens, but I'd assumed that was their sole purpose in the story: comic relief, a source of delicious conflict for the protagonists. But then, in a paragraph, she'll tell you so much about them—not just flaws to make you hate them more, but items that make them real. And I must say it's rather atrocious to shove such inconvenient depth onto the unprepared reader. Downright shocking. Who has room for such egregious nuance! Serious discussions of morality and character—the gods recoil!—have no place in a novel, when one expects only a simple romance tale with some satirical wit sprinkled in for flavor. I feel cheated now. I want…a refund…something.
Also, yes, I must fault the author for paraphrasing and condensing the exchanges I wanted to hear most, just when I'd gotten truly involved with the pair's toils. And maybe it was just a case of nothing being able to live up to expectations at that point, I don't know. Maybe the author putting in those much-pined-for exchanges would've soured the mood or slowed things down. Maybe.
But maybe I wouldn't care. Maybe I'd squee like a fangirl in giddy satisfaction. Maybe I'd write fan-fiction. Maybe I would.
In some ways I believe so. Howl (and Sophie) are secondary characters, just dropping in, not mains. He also makes an appearance in another book that has a flying carpet on the cover which I obviously can't remember. This one promised greater quantities of him, however, which is why I'll try it first. I can loan you Howl whenever. (I am reading a prequel to Peter Pan and it's pretty entertaining.) It's a quick read.
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Wes]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/74975458
Hayley's review of
Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder byRichard Louv
I have always wanted to spend an entire day following one lizard around.
Of course if I did so I'd look like a weirdo…and the mostly-ancient-and-nosy people populating my subdivision would probably get excited, call the police, report a suspicious person, etc.
A kid can get away with this, however. (Curse them, yes.)
]]>