Books vs Movies 1/2: Books I Read After Seeing the Movie

Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy

Movie: One of those movies that uses it's actors like juggling balls rather then for their talents and performances. Filled with a self-indulgent hyper-kinetic freneticism that is supposed to overawe but only makes me feel as empty as I do after watching forty minutes of Marvel movie fighting. I couldn't take more than a half hour of it.

The movie contains only the barest outline of the contents of the book (which is well over 700 dense pages).

Book: A classic, beautifully written, deeply insightful, and filled with a rich panoply of characters and events. I just don't like it. Why? Because it's filled with despair , depression, and the oppression of a soulless bureaucracy. I need someone to root for in my media, and there are no redeemable characters in the book. Anna starts out likeable enough, but soon becomes single-mindedly fixated on her adultery and filled with despair. Levin is kind of interesting as he works out the basics of communism, but hardly someone to identify with. Kitty is vacuous during the first half of the book, but she gains a few morals by the middle; unfortunately, her character just isn't that interesting.

Arrival, Ted Chiang

Movie: Quiet but phenomenal: intelligent, suspenseful, beautifully acted, scripted, and directed, and thoroughly engaging. It was only an hour after the movie ended that I figured out exactly what had been going on. One of my favorite movies of its year.

Book: A very nice short story, written in an economical style, well-plotted and thoughtful. To be honest,  the movie is so good that it makes reading the story kind of superfluous. The movie contains everything in the original story (with a few irrelevant changes) and more.

Atonement, Ian McEwan

Movie: A beautiful movie with some haunting cinematography and outstanding acting. Some of the scenes and characters are haunting, and it contains some of my favorite actors. The story is clean and harsh.

Book: Very well-written, the movie is fairly close to the book. Both were enjoyable.

Bridget Jones' Diary, Helen Fielding

Movie: A very well-made chick-flick romcom that is a modern remake of Pride and Prejudice. A defining role for the fetching, sarcastic, and sympathetic Renee Zellweger. Actually a lot of fun, although kind of devolves a bit at the end as romcoms do.

Book: Slightly better than the movie, with a sharper satirical voice. The movie pretty much follows the book, but the book has its own distinctive voice.

The Chosen, Chaim Potok

Movie: A classic coming of age movie set in two Jewish 1940s Brooklyns that intersect. Contains some lessons in overcoming prejudices, making friends, and dealing with the heavy roles placed on us by society and family.

Book: As I recall, the movie is pretty much a reflection of the book, but the book is longer and deeper. Honestly, it's been a long while since I read it.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Movie: An iconic live-action Disney musical and performance by Dick Van Dyke. Very reminiscent of his overacting and production, like Mary Poppins. Fun in a nostalgic kind of way.

Book: Holds up better than the movie It is aimed at young readers and has good pictures and a simple clean writing style. The movie basically follows the book but changes several story elements to make it more child-friendly.

E.T. The Extraterrestrial, William Kotzwinkle

Movie: A classic Spielberg movie, with an absent father, cute kids, realistic dialogue that can veer from maudlin to annoying, and an incredible sense of wonder and magic. Beautiful cinematography and direction.

Book: A novelization of the movie, and I remember being thoroughly underwhelmed. The book adds some inner dialogue to the book that somehow managed to destroy the magic of the story.

East of Eden, John Steinbeck

Movie: A great movie, one of the three major films starring James Dean. Powerfully shot and directed, with iconic performances.

Book: A powerhouse classic novel, one of the best American novels ever written. It is large, wide and epic, as well as thought-provoking with biblical allusions, well-drawn out characters, and interesting moral questions. The movie only superficially covers about the last quarter of the book.

The English Patient, Michael Ondaatje

Movie: A great movie; could be considered a chick-flick but it is so much more, with sweeping characters caught in a global war and a series of interesting character dynamics and coincidences. Beautifully shot and acted, and very engaging.

Book: The movie follows the book fairly closely, and may be slightly better, but the book is also great. A very good read.

Escape to Witch Mountain, Alexander, H. Key

Movie: I loved this as a kid. It's kind of dated and a bit hokey, but still pretty fun to watch.

Book: Aimed at a rather young audience, so very easy and quick to read. The movie and book are nearly identical.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, J. K. Rowling

Movie: An interesting movie, more low key than the Harry Potter movies. Two thirds of its time is spent on the pastoral main character and his doings and only in the last third do the hinted-at dark elements come to the fore. In this way, it is actually a closer representation of Rowling's writing style than the HP movies.

The main character is not a fighter, but a nurturer, which is quite an unusual choice for a movie that seems, superficially, to be more about action. It was well shot, had quirky characters, but was perhaps a bit slow. And then there was a battle sequence which went on too long, or at least with too much monotony. But it was enjoyable, all the same.

Book: Has nothing to do with the movie; it is a small fictional encyclopedia, which will eventually be written by the main character of the movie. You can skip it.

The Fault in Our Stars, John Green

Movie: Cute but disappointing. The characters were nice, the message was upbeat, but it was mostly predictable. The movie had a particularly bad misstep by setting a romantic scene in The Anne Frank House (ugh) and one particularly good scene near the end in a car. The rest was fine, occasionally charming, but too tame and pedestrian.

Book: The movie very closely follows the book. The book is slightly better, but has basically the same flaws.

Freaky Friday, Mary Rodgers

Movie: Here I refer to the original movie with Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster, I suspect that it is now pretty hokey, like many made for TV Disney films, but may still have some charm. I remember find it very funny and entertaining when I was a kid. The remake with Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan was watchable but often over-produced and dumbed down. I think I might try to find the original again.

Book: Has several major differences from the movie, as I recall, as it follows almost entirely the point of view of the daughter in the mother's body. I don't remember it, although I remember my brother owning a copy. It was aimed at young teens.

The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck

Movie: I saw this in high school and wasn't ready for it. It's pretty grim. Well made, but not really entertaining.

Book: A well written classic, and far more expansive than the movie. The movie covers most of the book, but skips the first few and last few chapters and glosses over a lot of the middle. The book is also grim, but the good writing brings the characters to life, and it is more engaging.

Heaven Can Wait, Leonore Fleischer

Movie: Another somewhat dated movie (1978). While the special effects are hokey and the timing and performances of the actors are sometimes a bit off, it still holds up pretty well. I really enjoyed it when I was young.

Book: Actually, the movie is based on the 1941 play Here Comes Mr. Jordan by Henry Segall. This is the novelization of the above version of the movie. It wasn't that bad, just a straightforward telling of what you see on the screen. Not worth seeking out.

The Hours, Michael Cunningham

Movie: A beautiful, thoughtful movie about three women in three different realities, connected by visual clues and emotional eddies. Perhaps a bit heavy handed on cinematic allusions, the directing and production are nevertheless solid, as are the magnificent performances by several incredibly talented actors. Emotional and hopeful.

Book: Was a disappointment after seeing the movie. It's not a bad book, but it is pedestrian in comparison. The movie essentially follows the book, with some cinematic licenses.

The Hunger Games (1), Suzanne Collins

Movie: I loved this movie so much that I immediately bought the entire trilogy of books knowing nothing about it. The performances are fantastic and the story and execution is beautiful. It's a great movie. Even so, the movie glossed over certain side themes and characters. It tried to both denounce the games while at the same time glorify them on screen, which didn't really make sense.

Book: The book is phenomenal, an instant classic, beautifully written with evocative characters and settings. The book presents the correct balance of despair and terror that the movie glosses over.

The second and third books are just as good or even better, while the subsequent movies got progressively worse.

John Carter (A Princess of Mars), Edgar Rice Burroughs

Movie: Roundly condemned for being boring, disjointed, and derivative, it was a huge box office bomb. I liked it. It was quirky and even daring in certain instances, and the plot, while somewhat far-fetched, was easy enough to follow. The characters and plot were shallow, but not boring.

Book: From 1912, the book is pre-golden age of science fiction, which explains its bizarre far-fetched plot. It is a decent read. The movie follows the book fairly closely, but expands on the text and plays with the start and end in order to provide a more compelling explanation of how the protagonist travels to Mars. Neither book nor movie are amazing, but they are both entertaining enough.

Julie and Julia, Julie Powell

Movie: A fun Nora Ephron movie about blogging, New York City, marriage, and cooking. Amy Adams is cute as Julie the blogger who decides to cook through Julia Childs' fat-laced Mastering the Art of French Cooking and Meryl Streep is delightful (of course) as a young Child as she first learns to cook. The fact that, in present time, Child acknowledges Julie only to dismiss what she does as a stunt is disconcerting but somewhat telling.

Book: The movie is actually based on Powell's book Julie and Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously as well as an autobiography by Child from the same year. Powell's book corresponds to the Julie scenes in the movie, and is written well enough. I can't really recommend the book: it's okay, but the author has some questionable morals.

Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton

Movie: An iconic, fantastic Spielberg movie that still works so well that you don't even mind the just ever-so-slightly off effects (except for when the girl says "It's a UNIX system!" which elicits a groan of pain from me every time). Has the usual daddy issues and cute, precocious children. Wonderful, magical film, with a great cast especially Goldblum), superb action and humor, and even a timeless message.

Book: The movie pretty much follows the book, which is also excellent. The book leaves out some of the great lines from the movie, but goes deeper into the characters, science, terrain, and so forth, and has a slightly darker more ominous tone, especially the ending.

Life of Pi, Yann Martel

Movie: A stunning work of cinematography, with a good story and good acting. This was one of my favorite movies of its year.

Book: The movie pretty much follows the book, but the movie is more fun to experience.

Me Before You, JoJo Moyes

Movie: Shallow and predictable. Its assets are the impossibly perky Emilia Clarke as Lou and the handsome and winning Sam Claffin as the wealthy but paralyzed Will. Everything else were just devices to have the main characters interact, trade barbs and glances, and share hearts. During the movie, when it appeared to be leading to a tragic ending, the realization of its inevitability evoked some emotion out of me, but that was its only real good point. When it ended I suspected that the book would be better.

Book: I was happily surprised to discover that the book is not only better, but it is excellent, well worth the read. The book goes deep into the poverty and struggles of Lou and her family, the dynamics of Will's parents and sister, the ethics of suicide and assisted suicide, and the lives and struggles of quadriplegics. The book takes its time and is well researched. Even Lou's boyfriend is more interesting in the book: in the movie he is one dimensional and you know he will be kicked to the curb a few seconds after he shows up on screen; in the book, he is still an ass but more well-rounded and sympathetic. I recommend the book.

After you read the book, you can enjoy the movie more, because you now know the back stories of the characters that were glossed over by the movie. Or you may also be even more disappointed in the movie for cutting the heart out of the book.

Message in a Bottle, Nicolas Sparks

Movie: Not a bad chick flick, it is solid but also not particularly daring. Paul Newman steals all of the scenes he is in.

Book: It's Nicholas Sparks: the plot is simple and fun, the writing is good enough to tell the story and not much more. The movie pretty much follows the book.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky

Movie: A fabulous movie about a strange teen and his mysterious problems and the odd friends he makes in high school The movie is beautifully scripted with several concurrent themes running through it, some serious and some light, and they all work together Great performances and music, too. Inspired me to read the book as soon as possible.

Book: Also great, a longer and more complex version of the movie. The movie managed to portray most of the book's major plot elements, but the book makes them more gripping with an attention to details and events more fully realized. Worth the read.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World, Bryan Lee O'Malley

Movie: A fun, wacky and engaging movie that inspired me to read the comic series as soon as possible. The movie is so random in some ways, and yet it cohesively uses video-game semiotics to metaphorically convey the main character's reality, while the main plot is its own metaphor about making a relationship work while dealing with the ghosts of past relationships. I loved it.

Book: My joy of the movie was lessened after reading the powerhouse that is the graphic novel series. Scott Pilgrim the six part comic series is incredible and incredibly deep, funny, original, cute, cool, and so much fun. The movie more or less covers book 1, some of book 2, parts of book 3, a teeny bit of book 4 and 5, and then nearly entirely rewrites book 6. The plot ends in a totally different place, and so much of the important story, character development, metaphors, depth, and life lessons from the last four books are absent from the movie. The movie is just a shadow of the incredible book series. I still enjoy the movie, but do read the series.

The Shipping News, Annie Proulx

Movie: An adult story set in New England mostly Maine) about loneliness and mediocrity, the movie is pretty good, although it doesn't really have a lot to say. The main characters are not all that sympathetic, but its a decent watch.

Book: A more fleshed out and sympathetic portrayal of the story, the main character transforms and grows by the end of the book. It is written solidly and a good read. Scenes that were flat in the movie are richer in the book since we can see can experience the characters' inner struggles. I enjoyed it more than the movie (and that feeling is only exacerbated by knowing what we now know about Kevin Spacey).

Slumdog Millionaire (Q and A), Vikas Swarup

Movie: A highly-praised movie, and well deserved. It manages to be funny and yet still explore some of the dark areas of Indian poverty, child abuse, and crime. Great acting and sets, and an engaging plot.

Book: Definitely better than the movie, well written and more satisfying. The book contains background information, relationships, and even entire scenes that are skipped over by the movie, so that many of the characters and their motivations make more sense. Not a long book, and worth the read.

Speak, Laurie Halse Anderson

Movie: The movie that introduced me to Kristen Stewart, it is a neat, quiet, but powerful little teen drama about an event that is hard to speak about. It is very well done, almost a classic teen movie.

Book: The movie essentially follows the book. It is something like two different people telling the same story - all of the plot elements are there, but the coloring and which parts are given weight is slightly different in each telling. A very good teen read.

Star Wars, George Lucas (Alan Dean Foster)

Movie: Not much to say here, I think.

Book: A novelization of the movie, adding only a bit of interior dialogue. It was nothing special. Foster went on to write the first sequel to Star Wars - Splinter of the Mind's Eye - even before The Empire Strikes Back came out. As a result, that book doesn't entirely adhere to the SW universe; it was a pretty good book, however.

Superman III, William Kotzwinkle

Movie: Superman was a little soporific, but also iconic in many ways. Superman II was pretty great; from today's perspective, its timing, some effects, and some of the dialogue is off, but it's still a good watch. Superman III tried to be a comedy with Richard Pryor, but it wasn't funny. It was pretty tiresome to watch, and its computer elements were as ridiculous as they come in movies. Some scenes with Clark Kent fighting his evil instantiation were okay.

Book: Like E.T.'s novelization, this book was pretty awful, robbing what little interest the movie held with poor cutesy prose. I hardly remember anything from it except that I didn't like it.

The Sword in the Stone, T. H. White

Movie: One of the minor Disney efforts, it's a barrage of meaningless, psychedelic, and silly visuals and jokes. The move has only passing reference to the book's form, missing nearly all of the rich descriptions, all of its important concepts, and all but the last, major plot point.

Book: The movie glosses over the first book of a five book series on the Arthurian legends. The first four are collected under the title The Once and Future King. The first book, rather like The Hobbit, is the juvenile entry of the series; the other four are more for adults. The entire series is a must read, an absolute classic of English literature, on par with The Lord of the Rings. Yes, it's that good.

The Time Traveler's Wife, Audrey Niffenegger

Movie: Certain movies, like this one, just work, and you can tell that from the first ten minutes. This is a lovely romance movie, which uses its science fiction element as an allegory (as all good works of science fiction do). Heart-warming and captivating, but very much an emotional roller coaster. It falters a bit when it veers into trying to explain things scientifically, and then certain story elements aren't exactly explained well (like how their time traveling daughter can possibly survive, at a very young age, the same kinds of experiences that the protagonist went through as an adult).

Book: Like Perks of Being a Wallflower, the movie is a condensed version of the book. The book gives a richer tapestry of the events, including expanded scenes and an ending that are more satisfying than the movie. A beautiful read, good to read together with a loved one.

Twilight, Stephanie Meyer

Movie: Not bad, although it also somewhat shallow. Like The Time Traveler's Wife, the central fantasy is a metaphor about sexual tension between an older boy and a minor girl, but it is also an action movie. It doesn't quite successfully juggle both elements, and Kristen Stewart doesn't give us much character depth, but that is more the fault of the screenwriter and director than hers. The movie is aimed at tween girls, and they like it, so that's that.

Book: Somewhat better than the movie, still aimed at tween and teen girls. Again, it's not bad, and certainly more original than the hundreds of similar books that it inspired and that came after.

The Wizard of Oz, Frank L. Baum

Movie: A wonderful movie that, amazingly, hasn't lost its charm. Full of great moments, great quotes, and great characters, and some very funny and scary moments you always seem to forget.

Book: Called The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, I was never able to get into it. The author's writing is not as good as the author's imagination. Dorothy is someone who things happen to, rather then someone who does things. The movie really makes the story shine.

Wonder, R.J. Palacio

Movie: I anticipated this being a boring movie with a straightforward story about a disfigured boy who goes to school, is bullied, makes a false friend and then a true friend, finally wins over the school, etc, blah blah. Actually, half of the book is about that, but the other half is told from the point of view of others in his life, and those stories are more interesting. Some of these side stories don't even revolve around the boy, which make the whole thing a richer experience. So I enjoyed the movie, although the main plot was somewhat shallow. I anticipated that the book would contain things left out of the movie.

Book: But the movie nearly exactly follows the book, even the structure of telling stories from the perspectives of the different characters. The book and the movie are essentially the same, so, while the book was also fairly enjoyable, it was not much more than that.

Review: The Hidden of Things by Yael Unterman

The short of it: The Hidden of Things is a warm, funny book with mostly insightful stories that will be enjoyed in particular by Jewish English-Speaking Thirtysomething Emigrant Religious Singles (hereinafter JESTERS) who make up the book's characters, but will also be enjoyed by people who like stories about dating, relationships, and the quest for meaning, and don't mind an occasional clunky bit of prose.

Disclaimers: Yael has been an acquaintance of mine for many years.

Book summary: The Hidden of Things is a series of loosely-connected stories about JESTERS dating, mostly in and around Jerusalem. The stories are set primarily between 1999 and 2002, with a few later stories coming every few years after until the publication date (2014) and one story set in the future (2029). The stories occasionally foray over to England and the US, but they are mostly set in the small areas of Jerusalem in which JESTERS tend to concentrate.

The protagonists are all JESTERS: nearly all female with the occasional male thrown into the mix. They are all on the hunt for a) a mate and b) a meaningful connection to God, the latter of which instantiates as a self-righteous abstinence of physical contact with the other gender and a desire to be more self-sacrificing. The stories describe hilarious or sad dates, internal conflicts with religion and selfishness, religious conundrums so fine as to be bewildering (you may find yourself thinking "first world problems!"), and the casual anti-Arab, pro-Israel, anti-secular, anti-French, and other provincial sentiments that are common to many (but not all) in the JESTER population.

The core group of women have stories that intersect over meals, at apartments, at the zoo, and on an artificial minimalistic theater stage. One story is a series of blog post entries by Emma, the snarkiest of these women and character with whom the writer most clearly identifies. One story is written like a play. One is mostly a dream sequence. One, being written in the future, dabbles in an exaggerated version of today's religious restrictions as it may instantiate with pervasive computing. Mostly, the stories are laments about loneliness, life choices, or reflections during a torah lecture. Many of them touch on the anxieties of living in Israel, away from family and during the Intifada.

Reactions: Yael chose to write what she knows, and it is obvious in many stories that the people and scenes come from her own experience or the experiences of people close to her. She has a keen eye for the absurd. The stories are often funny on paper, but they are even funnier if you have a chance to hear Yael read them aloud.

Her characters have multiple dimensions, to the limited extent that their world provides: they are all machmir Orthodox Jews, bordering on Haredi: worrying about insects that might be hidden in a fresh date or over the slightest amount of skin that might show or the slightest contact they might make with the opposite sex. Their lives are consumed by a search for a mate, the danger of terrorism, and their fear that they are not holy enough. They attend lectures by perfect, male Rabbis, about whom they speak with reverence and who lecture about general principles about how to be good. These lectures are always exactly what the protagonists need to hear when they hear them (these sequences are used as bridges of transformation within the characters).

The book is strong when describing women and their relationships with men. These stories are keen and sensitive, and everyone has their hangups and foibles. The use of interwoven characters that occasionally come together in conversation is excellent; it raises even the lesser stories to a sum greater than the parts.

The book is weak when it ventures out of this territory. The male characters think like types: like how women want or believe males think; I found them one dimensional and unrelatable. Her "feminist" passages are polemics ranting against straw men of her own devising. The two long stories about people becoming ultra-religious - a woman singer born to humanist parents who moves to Israel, and a man who leaves a sheltered Haredi world but ultimately returns - are unconvincing fairy tales; even if they are/were based on true stories, the stories contain little of interest beyond sermons on the emptiness of modern culture and the joy of withdrawing from it (the man leaves his ghetto because he discovers that he is walled off from the world, but he ultimately returns to it). The last story, a science fiction story, was frightfully badly written; bad science fiction, and a bad story.

In my opinion, a good editor should have cut out or down some of the latter stories, cut or massaged a few other sequences, and asked for more of what she does best. The overlapping characters work better than I think even Yael realizes, it seems; more of this would have been welcome. As it stands, if you can forgive the weaker parts (mostly the last few stories), you can really enjoy the bulk of the book: some really great stories and sad/funny characters offering a slice of early twenty-first century expat singles life in Jerusalem.

Review: Eurogames, by Stewart Woods

Eurogames - Stewart Woods
2012 McFarland & Company

Disclaimer: I was provided with a free copy of the book. Also, some of my articles and my game are referenced in the book.

Summary

A nice introduction to Eurogames and to some game studies topics in general. Well written, accessible, covers the topic without much industry detail. Could have used more about specific Eurogames and its culture and less about other topics.

Overview

Eurogames is around 200 pages, excluding 50 pages of preface, introduction, end-notes, and bibliography.

Chapters 1 to 4 (about 70 pages) cover the history of board games in general and Eurogames in particular.  The history does not reach back to ancient cultures, but sticks mostly with modernity. After dividing games into classic, mass-market, and hobby games, hobby games are then divided into genres, each with a short history. The book analyzes the origins of Eurogames in America and Germany and briefly mentions game awards and conventions.

Chapter 5 (40 pages) categorizes Eurogames, mostly through mechanics, with a brief introduction as to how the categories were chosen. This section also includes talk about elements, rules, mechanics, goals, themes, information aspects, chance, and the end-conditions of Eurogames.

The remaining 95 pages discuss players and the motivations behind play. They spend a lot of time on a 2007 survey of BoardGameGeek users conducted by the author, giving us the makeup of a typical circa-2007 BGG user (one type of Eurogamer). They discuss collecting games and the relationship that gamers have with publishers and designers.

Why gamers play is then discussed, including an overview of "flow", social interaction, luck, and the other elements of games that are fun, as well as goals, and the tension between fun and striving to win. Social problems with games (such as cheating) are also discussed. The book concludes with a few pages on games and culture.

Reactions

This book is aimed at the general public, i.e. not academic and not business. It is easy and friendly, and covers the general idea of Eurogames very well. It also covers, slightly more than necessary, various topics in game studies: what gamers are like, why people play games and why they cheat. These topics are covered in order to flesh out the idea of the kind of person who plays Eurogames, but the analysis really applies to any gamers of any genre, and even tp anyone who plays games at all.

It's a fair survey of these topics; for more depth, you can read many of the titles referenced in the bibliography. I found the topics to be only peripherally concerned with Eurogames and gamers, and so were not really necessary. Instead, I felt that the book should have spent more time going into depth about certain Eurogames.

For example, a couple of pages on how Settlers of Catan or Ticket to Ride was designed, how it is played, how the mechanisms interact, and how sessions go. Maybe focus on a dozen other popular games. Also missing were details about the game industry; how the industry arose in general is covered, with mentions of Z-Man Games, Rio Grande Games, Mayfair Games, etc, but not a look at real facts about the current game industry: number of companies, profits, distribution, penetration, country statistics, etc.

I say this only FYI. You can't blame a book for what it's not trying to be.

The book provides good coverage of many parts of the social scene of the die-hard gamers: the early Internet groups, the awards, the evangelists, and so on. It includes many quotes from BGGers on every topic from what makes a game fun to what makes a game serious.

One problem I fault the book for is that its data about gamers and their motivations comes from a voluntary survey of BoardGameGeek users. I don't think that BGG users necessarily represent Eurogamers, or even gamers, in general. They are a certain type of active social gamer/collector, and tend to have a myopic view of the world. In my own town of about 40,000 people, only a handful of people come to game nights and have BGG accounts, but dozens or even hundreds play or have played a Euro or hobby game.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the read. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the history of modern hobby games, or with the various topics covered, such as what makes a gamer enjoy games, will find this book to be a pleasant overview and a nice read.

Day 8: Still Sick

This morning at around 9 I left Killarney heading toward Limerick. And promptly got stuck motionless for 30 minutes due to road work. I didn't get to Limerick until nearly 12.

My first stop was at the South Court Hotel which is supposed to have a large antiques and craft fair, only I didn't notice that the fair is scheduled for Sunday, not today. My second stop was at the Hunt Museum, listed as a top destination on tripadvisor. Even though the hotel was "straight down the road, can't miss it", it once again took me an additional half hour of driving around - missing the museum, looking for a place to park - to get there.

Not the Hunt Muesum

Not the Hunt Museum

Also Not the Hunt Museum

As far as the museum goes: eh. It's an eclectic collection that was originally the private collection of some rich guy. The individual items might be interesting if you see them at a friend's house, but in a rich guy's house, or castle, or in a museum dedicated to just this guy's stuff, I feel like I'm watching Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. It's voyeurism; not deep enough to give any real history or be especially interesting. I can't stand castle tours for that reason; I have to pay a rich guy to see his stuff? Please.

Now, if the collection of historical items, jewelery, ceramics, paintings, etc were divided up among the national museums, each added to the proper collection, I would feel differently.

And that's the way Yehuda c's it.

Poetry

Anyhoo, the real reason I thought it might be worth my while to check out the museum in the first place was that there was supposed to be a poetry reading at 2:30. In this case, I had the right date, and the poet in question showed up only a few minutes late. Funnily enough, no one else turned up, so I was the entire audience.

The poet in question was a man named Barney Sheehan, who doesn't have much of his own poetry (I think). He runs a poetry reading night Wed nights at the White House pub in Limerick for the last ten years, which has apparently attracted some good Irish talent. Barney came to read selections from a book he created/edited containing pictures, quotations, and poetry from Desmond O'Grady, a man who counts as influences his personal relationships with Ezra Pound and others. O'Grady is still alive, but doesn't get out much.

Barney was thrilled to meet me, as someone from Israel and someone who has tried to organize poetry readings (and who has written some poetry of his own). Barney spent too much time reading the introductory notes and quotations from the book and not enough time reading the actual poems; he was proud of his work and it was important to him to impress on me the importance of Desmond. It didn't matter much, as I enjoyed meeting him and listening to him. And I got to read a few more of the poems while other people were wandering around us, viewing the exhibits and talking.

He was kind enough to gift me a copy of a different book containing poems read at the White House during the first years of the poetry gathering. He really wanted/wants me to come back to the gathering tonight, but I'm too sick. If I get out at all, I'll poke my nose around Castleconnell, which is where I'm staying.

Tomorrow it's back to Dublin.

RIP My Uncle Howard

A few months after losing her husband, my mom lost her brother on Friday. I'm spending tonight and Tuesday night with her in Beit Shemesh. I'm tired of being a bearer of down vibes to my friends and readers. As Mirah says in Daniel Deronda, "I am too ready to speak of troubles, I think. It seems unkind to put anything painful into other people's minds, unless one were sure it would hinder something worse."

I'm reading / listening to Daniel Deronda. What a shock it must have been to readers in the 19th century to encounter the rich, sympathetic, Zionist Jewish world in the context of a traditional English novel.

Obgame: I played two games of Set with the kids of the kind family who invited us for shabbat lunch. It's only a game if the players are evenly matched.

Shabbat Gaming

Friday evening we went to some friends. I played Five Stones with one of the kids. Later in the evening I saw them playing a game I hadn't seen before: Spin & Trap. They didn't have the rules, and were obviously playing it wrong, since one person simply undid what the next person did ad infinitum. The real rules don't allow you to place the larger spin device onto your opponent's marbles, which helps a bit, but not much. I think the game will still be unterminating.

I played Anagrams with my shabbat guest, and Sunday night I played Scrabble with Rachel. She shot ahead by some 60 points, while I was stuck with racks of six vowels. I managed to score a Bingo (terrier) near the end of the game, and squeaked out a victory solely due to the points left on her rack (went from -3/+3 to +3/-3).

Watching Scott Pilgrim inspired me to read the graphic novel series, which I just finished. It's very cool. It's got flashes of deep: a transparent metaphoric structure, but it works it well and, in some cases, subtly and skillfully. A fun read, and the drawing and layout are well executed.

Philosophical Pig Tales

Philosophical Pig Tales: the Origins of Modern Ethics Explained Through Retellings of the Classic Story of the Three Little Pigs by Katie Hatz

I so want this. This is the funniest thing I've read in a year, at least. I laughed out loud at every page. The entire text of all three stories, about hedonism, stoicism, and nihilism, is online. Warning: the pictures are not all safe for children, as they include topless pigs and profane graffiti.

Librivox.org: Free Downloadable Audio Books

I recently had to travel to and from Tel Aviv every day for a spate of work. The travel time is between 1 to 2 hours each direction, depending on the time of day and whether I drove or took the train.

BBC gets pretty repetitive, not to mention the fact that their concepts of interesting and balanced don't match mine, and Israeli radio stations are hit and (mostly) miss. And I can't listen to game podcasts all the time. So I was thrilled to find librivox.org, a site that does for audio books what Project Gutenberg does for books: convert them and put them online, for free.

There's something about listening to a soothing voice read a literary classic that makes even the most complex book enjoyable and accessible. Those of you who have a hard time sitting down to read an 18th or 19th century novel might just get hooked if you can listen to it being read. I think it evokes the primal pleasure of being read to as a child. And a reader - a good reader - makes any text more vibrant and comprehensible.

The audio files are divided by chapter. Some books are read the entire way through by a single reader, while others are read by different readers. Quality varies, but most are good. Some are excellent. My favorite so far, and my lucky first choice to which to listen, was Brenda Dayne reading The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton.

The version of Anne of Green Gables that I listened to had a few middle chapters read by someone with a cloying voice, but there are at least five versions on the site. Silas Marner was also read excellently.

Not Party to Parties

I went to two parties this evening, and didn't socialize much at either one.

The first was a housewarming for a friend whose occasionally come to the game group, as have his kids. I've described them before; they play an assortment of old-world games as well as a few modern ones.

This evening while the party was going on, the kids were on the porch playing Jungle Speed.



Here you see only four players. By the time we left, there were seven, and three more looking on (around half of the party).



That's my game, which my host had pre-ordered from me. I brought him his copy which he placed on the counter near the wine bottles.

Out of the ten copies of my game that I had for sale, I have parted with five, and two others are spoken for. Three to go. There seems to be a consensus that a quality edition of the Menorah Game with the original theme would sell well in Israel and around the Jewish world, which is currently severely lacking in good Jewish-themed games.

The second party was a book launch for our good friend Yael Unterman. She finished a biography on Nehama Leibowitz called Nehama Leibowitz: Teacher and Bible Scholar. It's massive, full of rich information, yet accessible. It includes not only biographical material and stories from her life, but detailed information about her work, philosophy, and its influence.



Yael is intelligent, funny, cool, pretty, and single. And she's a Settlers of Catan fanatic. ;-)

Auditioning

My daughter dragged me out to audition for a play (set of plays) this evening. I haven't been in, or tried out for, a play since 7th or 8th grade.

I didn't bring my own monologue to perform, so I had to pick one up and learn it on the spot. The one that was available was a compilation of extracts from "Adam's diary" by Mark Twain. It sure is hard to act a piece when you just got hold of it and have to keep referring to it every sentence while on stage.

At least I had an hour to learn it. Harder was when they gave me something else to try after I had done my monologue, which required acting out while reading it for the first time.

The first one I think I overacted a tad, the second one I probably underacted. Ah well. I enjoyed it without getting too nervous or breaking out in to many silly grins, as I am wont to do in front of audiences. Which is what happened when I used to read at the Jerusalem poetry slam.

Yehuda

The Magic Pot

Once upon a time in the land of Dingle there lived a poor young widow by the name of Dolores.

Dolores' husband had died of a fever only a year after they had married, leaving her with nothing but a small house, a small pot, and a small garden. Every day, Dolores would spend hours cooking vegetables in her pot to sell in town. The little money she got from her trouble was used to pay for fuel to cook, medicine, and so on, so that none was left over.

One day, while she was pulling vegetables out of her garden, Dolores saw a small figure with a large nose sitting on her fence, watching her.

"Good day, sir," she said politely. "Who are you?"

"Good day to you, Dolores. I am the gnome of Dingle woods. I have seen your struggling and have come to give you a magic gift from the fairies of Dingle."

"Oh, heavens! What a surprise! Why thank you, sir gnome. What gift have you brought me?"

"It is this," said the gnome, taking a pot out from behind the fence and offering it to Dolores. "It is a magic cooking pot. When you place water and vegetables into the pot, the pot will cook them in a few minutes without any need for fuel."

"Oh, truly this is a wonderful gift!" cried Dolores. "How can I ever thank you?"

"There is no need to thank me," said the gnome. "But beware! Only put water or vegetables in the pot. The day that anything else is put into the pot, the spell will be broken and it will turn into an ordinary pot."

"Oh, I shall be very careful, sir gnome. I shall! Thank you, again. Good day!"

And the gnome disappeared.

On that very day, Dolores put vegetables and water into the magic pot, and lo and behold, within a few minutes, they were all cooked, without any need for fuel. Dolores had many hours to herself that day free from cooking, which gave her time to lay about in the sun and pick flowers. She sold her cooked vegetables for the same money as always, but because she didn't need to buy fuel, she had one penny left over at the end of the day.

This went on for ten years. Dolores cooked vegetables, lay about in the sun, sold them, and saved a penny each day. And always she was careful not to put anything besides vegetables and water in the magic pot.

And then one day, Dolores planted flowers in both of her pots, bought a microwave oven for $26.50 from a local Walmart, and with the $10 she had left over she bought a ceramic gnome to put in the garden.

The end.

Review: No Contest: The Case Against Competition

The Book

No Contest: The Case Against Competition by Alfie Kohn

Summary

A must-read for every parent, teacher, manager, and game designer. Presents several revolutionary ideas that should be integrated into every level of our society.

Notwithstanding this, Kohn loses his way when discussing certain issues, such as play and self-confidence. He sets up some straw man arguments, and tries to claim that, since extreme competition is extremely bad, moderate competition must be moderately bad.

Overview, with Comments

Competition pervades our culture. Things are not enjoyed, they are evaluated and ranked (who's the best opera singer? what are the top ten games?). Competition is not only our instinctive attitude, but it is also built into nearly every structure or our society, with artificial exclusive attainable goals: who is the highest in class, the thinnest in the room, all or nothing politics and justice, best business, and so on. Everything is built around winning and losing. [Actually, this is not entirely true. There are many instances where an independent percentage score is relevant, where a middle rank is better than a lower rank, or where performance is not simply competition based.]

Competition, when structured, seems to be inevitable: only so many acceptances to a college, only one company can get your business, only one winner in a tennis match. But goals can be achieved competitively, cooperatively, or independently. People believe competition is a) unavoidable "human nature", b) motivating and drives success, c) fun, and d) builds character and self-confidence.

As to human nature, that argument is often a convenient one for maintaining the status quo, especially if many of our institutions are already built around it. Yet, train people to act cooperatively, show them the benefits, and they will take to it. Furthermore, many societies behave far more cooperatively than others; competition is built into the Western world because everyone thinks it's better. So we train children to become good at it. That's a vicious circle.

Consider the classroom: raised hands mean competing against fellow students. The right answer is rewarded, the wrong answer is punished. Grades set some students above others, some as triumphant, some as failures. This is not inevitable. Classrooms could be organizes so that a student struggling gets help from others instead of attempts to best him or her. Grades could instead be evaluations and recommendations; and schools don't have to be rigidly organized into years the way they have been for the last century and a half; they weren't always like that.

As to animal nature, competition exists, but so does vast amounts of cooperation, within families, herds, species, and between species.

As to competition motivating and driving success, one should be careful not to equate success with victory. If victory is the only measure of success, competition may sometimes be inevitable. But racing against oneself can be just as motivating as trying to best someone else. In fact, a lot more so, because once it's clear whether you're going to win or lose, your motivation disappears.

Rewarding everyone in a group for learning a problem is no less motivating or driving than rewarding only the winner. [Unless there are a few who are simply determined not to learn, in which case it could in fact be demotivating. In which case, independent rewards are still motivating. But intervention, separating out the problems and addressing them individually, can help to solve this problem.]

Competition for newspaper stories doesn't produce better journalism, nor does competition for most food sold equal better food, or most business earned mean better service. It produces people who are good at winning and losing, not at doing the actual tasks they are supposed to be doing "better". Competition benefits some people, but usually at the expense of many others, usually the poor or the ill-connected.

The canonical idea that competition will produce better vaccines and better cars doesn't hold up to the fact that competition really produces cheaper erectile pills and bigger hummers. And poorly treated workers. And safety violations.

When the object is winning, and not performing best, cheating is inevitable. Trying to deal with cheaters one by one is ignoring the structure that breeds cheating to begin with.

As to fun, here Kohn drops the ball. He defines "play" as a free activity, disconnected with the real world, not serious, and non-goal oriented. And then he shows how competition is antithetical to his definition of play. And therefore, competition isn't really fun. He then goes on to talk about the effects of extreme competition in child's sports and so on, which serve to make the game less fun and more work for everyone.

I must not be having fun when I play games, I guess.

As to building self-esteem and character, he brings in the cases of extreme competition which produces winners and losers, and can have a deleterious effect on self-esteem, even for the winners. However, trying to transfer the same argument to light competitions just doesn't work. If failing to achieve something is something that everyone experiences, and harder work will let you win more often than before - in other words, if failure is safe, then the effects of extreme competition don't really apply.

Still, a pervasive competitive society, where everyone tries to be the thinnest, richest, most beautiful, most admired, and so on are detrimental, not enhancing, to most people's self-esteem. And everyone knows people who are "so competitive", and we don't really admire their character.

Competition bred into our work and schools leaks into our personal lives. Many women, and some men, know the husband or wife who is always competitive, showing off, showing off their spouse, and otherwise ruining a good relationship. Competition between cultures and nations results in wars, disparate resources, dependency, aggression, mistrust, and so on.

Wrapping it up, Kohn states that our society is caught in a circle: we think we have to be competitive because that's the way our system works. And our system is built around competition because that's the way we think it should be.

Breaking this cycle is difficult, but not impossible. Kohn has written dozens of books on the subject of education and parenting, the best places to start undoing the learned competition. From the quality of this book, they're probably worth checking into.

- Unconditional Parenting

- The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing

- The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and "Tougher Standards"

- The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools

and others.

Yehuda

Review: The Player of Games by Iain Banks

Summary

The Player of Games by Iain Banks is a sci-fi novel about culture, temptation, sexism, and deception, but most of all about the mind of a gamer. A few weak spots don't detract from the otherwise well plotted enjoyment.

Plot

The story takes place in Banks' universe, a utopian civilization of several races mixed with AIs both equal to and superior to it's "humans". Everything imaginable is available, and humans can mold their own bodies or secrete internally produced drugs at will or heal themselves with no cost. As a result, there are virtually no laws, leaving all beings to pursue what pleasures or activities they desire so long as they don't disturb others; rare severe abrogations are dealt with via isolation and enforced robotic supervision.

Jernau Morat Gurgeh is a player of games, possibly the finest ever living in the 11,000 year old Culture. He's looking for something new, and the Contact arm of the Culture's AI interests him in the game of Azad, a complexly structured game played in a non-Culture empire whose members invest so much importance in it that one's standing in the game determines one's profession, all the way up to emperor.

When an additional and rather contrived blackmail plot is added to encourage his leaving, Gurgeh accepts the invitation to play the game, resulting in a full-fledged culture clash between the utopian views of the Culture and the more dystopian medieval Earth-like empire of Azad for the benefit of the reader. Gurgeh exceeds expectations (natch) and gradually discovers that his own involvement in the game is just one more pawn in a larger game between civilizations.

Reactions

The Player of Games is a fine novel which should appeal to lovers of all genres of fiction. His Culture is a bit hard to believe: AIs superior in intelligence to "humans" but still maintaining a human-centric society; lack of any personal or passion-driven conquest or strife; and so on is all too nice to ring true. But, given this reality, he populates the universe with a fine array of complex characters in a serviceable plot that moves well.

He handles the interactions between human and AI, and human and alien with a deft and smart touch. Like all sci-fi, facets of human nature are revealed in the process.

One scene in particular was near-epic in scope. Having accepted a bet with an empire opponent, the loss of which will result in mere inconvenience for him but devastation for his opponent, Gurgeh is near to resigning the game when an AI takes him on a Dante-like journey through the underworld of the empire. The scene functions as an exaggerated examination of our own world's underbelly, and is quite moving.

While not entirely a surprise, the whole sweeps to a tight and satisfying conclusion.

The weakness of the book is that it is written by an author whose talents are merely forming. The blackmail scene is handled crudely, Gurgeh's inevitable success at each turn is not at all surprising, and scenes which are supposed to elicit emotion merely elicit interest. It's not an exceptional book, but it is a good read. And it gives promise that later works by Iain, should he develop his talents further and not rest lazily on his laurels, may be significant indeed. Since this book is twenty years old and already followed by half a dozen others, this may already be the case.

Of course, my special interest is in the attention paid to games and Gurgeh as a gamer. The thoughts and feelings of Gurgeh will be familiar to any board or card gamer, and these often take center stage. He alludes to a myriad of games without actually describing them, both within the Culture and the empire. The games are too vaguely described to be of any real game design value, but are interesting to fathom, nonetheless.

Conclusion

Well worth picking up, especially if you are a lover of games, The Player of Games is a good start for a talented author, and will be enjoyed by both lovers of sci-fi and lovers of general fiction alike.

Calvin and Hobbes Minus the Last Panel

You may already be familiar with Garfield Minus Garfield by a guy named Travors. It reproduces many of the Garfield strips without Garfield or his speech bubbles. The result is Jon Arbuckle talking to himself and appearing to be even more of a desperate lunatic than he normally appears.

It's quite clever, and kudos to Garfield's creator, Jim Davis, for not bothering travors and allowing him to continue.

I think what Travors has tapped into is not unique. Comics, perhaps humor in general, is a light way of looking at what would otherwise be desperate, quirky, sad, or frustrating situations. Take away the punchline, and you're left with an unredeemed situation.

Take out one of your Calvin and Hobbes collections (Google some images, if you don't have one) and read each strip without the last panel.

It's often just as desperate, odd, and quirky as Jon Arbukle without a punchline. Read a whole book of Calvin and Hobbes strips this way and you'll begin to wonder why Bill Watterson added the punchline.

It's the bizarre without the humor that makes up so much modern literature, art, and film. It's the humor added to the bizarre that tries to make us feel good about the situation, rather than simply jarred. With humor we can laugh at the situation, rather than feel that what we are witnessing is a world spinning out of control.

It may be what separates art from less meaningful entertainment. Or it may be that there is a lot more art in our humor than we tend to notice.

Patents and Literary Criticism

I've been reading a slew of books on biblical criticism, literary analysis of the bible, poetics and narrative, etc... and I'm struck by how similar the construction of literary criticism is to a patent submission.

A patent looks like:

"Our process / method is in the field of X. Previous inventions in the field of X include: A, but A isn't good enough for such and such; B, which is good for this, but not for that; and C, which goes further, but fails to do so and so. Our process / method solves all of these problems by doing blah blah."

Literary criticism looks exactly the same, except that after describing blah blah, the rest of the book actually uses the process to accomplish what it sets out to do (to greater or lesser success). A patent merely describes what the patent submitters intend to do.

Literary criticism might involve taking an old methodology and applying it to a new body of text, or an altogether new methodology. Patents try to make their claims about methodology as broad as possible so that if anyone does anything remotely similar in some other field, they can sue for the credit. Literary critics imply similarly, although they only want a citation.

Imagine if methods of literary criticism were subject to patents. Wouldn't that be a great way to destroy yet another field of human progress?

Four Assumptions Created the Bible: a Lecture by Prof James Kugel

James L. Kugel (1945-) is chair of the Institute for the History of the Jewish Bible at Bar Ilan University in Israel and the Harry M. Starr Professor Emeritus of Classical and Modern Hebrew Literature at Harvard University. (Wikipedia) He's also an Orthodox Jew.

Prof Kugel has written 15 books; his latest is How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.

Kugel demonstrates not only thorough and exhaustive research, but an open and accessible writing style. I heard him speak tonight about his new book at a lecture given on behalf of the Bat Kol Institute (website currently down). My only previous reading of his work was his book In Potiphar's House, which examines how midrashim originate and change over time.

Midrashim are interpretive texts on the bible written throughout history. In particular, important midrashim were written from two to three centuries B.C.E. until a few hundred years C.E. These midrashim form the basis of how nearly all Christians and Jews interpret the bible today.

According to Kugel, the basic texts' original meanings may have had nothing to do with our current interpretations.

For instance, using the same text we have today, the original Adam and Eve story, when compared with similar texts and similar versions of the text in the same period, is a story about moving from a hunter/gatherer culture to an agricultural one, from naked beasts to humans in clothes. Today, it is nearly universal to read this story as a tale of "the fall" from a state of innocence to sin. How did this happen? Gradually; and amazingly, without changing the text.

As what we come to know as the biblical texts were brought together, assumptions as to how to treat the texts crept in. These assumptions caused textual problems and that's when the midrashim arose.

The four assumptions are:

1) The texts are cryptic and symbolic.
2) The texts are prophetic and homiletic.
3) The texts are consistent.
4) The texts are divinely inspired/given.

Give these assumptions, interpretations were needed to explain when the plain meaning of the texts didn't appear to reconcile with these assumptions.

For instance, in the Adam and Eve story is the sentence by God that "on the day they eat of the Tree, they will surely die". This didn't happen in the narrative, so what gives? How do you interpret the text so that it's perfectly consistent? Was God making an idle threat? Was it God's mercy? Can we use the interpretation that a unit of time "day" is not meant in human terms (which we can pull from various sources in the Prophets: 1000 years = day to God)? The latter doesn't answer why the delay of the punishment. The Rabbinic midrashic answer which best fits became the standard interpretation: the text means "you shall become mortal" i.e. a dying creature, not "you shall die".

A later question then asks (as now the interpretation gives rise to its own problem): why did their descendants become mortal? Is mortality hereditary? The answer that fit best: sinfulness was heredity (so, in fact, the punishment is continuous onto each generation). Sinlessness is not possible outside garden.

Early Jewish, pre-Cristian sources agreed with this; in the battle of interpretations, this won out, like a Darwinian species. 4th Ezra, a Jewish text, concurs with this interpretation, for example. Later, the rise of Christianity forced this interpretation out of Rabbinic interpretation.

The text is now no longer about hunting and agriculture, but about morality. The same text, with a different interpretation.

Similar re-interpretations can be made for Abraham being the father of monotheism, Jacob being a "good guy" (and King David), and texts such as "eye for eye", various prophesies, the Psalms, and so on.

Modern biblical scholarship in a product of the Renaissance. Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek began spreading to Christian scholars. They became the first challenges to Jerome's Latin translation of the bible from the 4th century; people could now do their own translations and decide that Jerome was wrong. Protestantism met this movement, putting interpretation into individual hands (scripture is holy, not the pope).

Then these hit the enlightenment and science (Hume, et al). Protestantism had no easy answers to radical interpretations by individuals (hoist on its own petard, so to speak). Then came modern archaeology. Then came biblical critical scholarship which matched and compared biblical texts to other ancient texts. Biblical texts now just looked like one set of texts among many others from the same period.

For a man of faith, how do we deal with these four assumptions and yet also accept modern scholarship about biblical texts?

Kugel's suggested answer is that what you read depends on what meaning you're looking for in a text. Text is interactive between a reader and a text. The original texts didn't change, but the interpretive reading of them did. That means that "The Bible" didn't exist until interpretation was imposed onto a text. Bible scholarship is not about "The Bible", it's about the biblical texts, which are not the same thing as "The Bible". When a critical scholar drops the four assumptions to critically read the text, he or she is dealing with a different entity than The Bible.

In my view, it's still a hard leap from there to divinely inspired interpretation imposed onto a set of texts. It means that the texts were divinely inspired when written but only recognized for what they meant when they fell into the right hands; or that the divine inspiration was taking the tools (texts) that were lying around and forming them into what was required.

Kugel's answer to the question as to how he remains Orthodox, is that the early Talmudic scholars were aware of all this. They took texts, decided what to keep and what not (sometimes changing their minds), imposed interpretations on what they knew wasn't the original interpretation, and were fine with it. Consider the midrash about Moses looking into a class by Rabbi Akiba, and not being able to follow along. So if they could do it and be religious, so can we.

Yehuda

Review: Little Brother by Cory Doctorow

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who wrote that one mediocre science-fiction novel is worth more to civilization than a shelf-full of well-written general fiction. By this yardstick, Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing fame, is worth about one or two well-written general fiction books.

I like Cory, and I like Boing Boing, but Cory did not succeed in writing a mediocre science fiction book. Little Brother (download it for free here) is a really bad book with some good intentions, bad writing, very poor characterization, and a serviceable but ridiculous plot.

Story

17 year old Marcus and friends live in San Francisco of the near future where surveillance is up and methods to avoid it are just as up. After a terrorist attack on the city, the powers that be clamp down even harder with a series of invasive and paranoid security measures, each one more ineffective than the last.

Early in the book, Marcus is picked up and released by Homeland Security for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but not before being terrorized as he futilely attempts to assert his rights. The DHS threatens him to keep his mouth shut, which he tries to do while still wreaking havoc under alias on an underground network, but he eventually decides to take his story to a reporter.

Reactions

Cory's book reads like the unskilled ranting of a paranoid conspiracy lunatic. I'm on Cory's side with regards to the erosion of civil rights, ridiculous security systems, and so on, but this book is filled with paranoia so deep and one sided that it's reminiscent of the very worst parts of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (a comparison that I'm sure Cory will enjoy), without a semi-coherent philosophy to back it up. Cory's philosophy can neatly be summed up as "Surveillance and torture is bad! Fight the power! Don't trust anyone over 25!"

Marcus is the one-dimensional wet dream of every hacker wannabe; an infallible, unflappable super-libertarian with perfect technical skills who does everything right while everyone around him does everything wrong, unless they agree with him and fawn over him. Neither he, nor anyone else in the book has so much as a paint dollop of personality.

The author is so smug about his protagonist that it's actually painful to read. Marcus, and by so doing, the author himself, compares himself to the great revolutionaries of the sixties, the last stand between the overwhelming police state and the one shining star of freedom.

Cory's biggest mistake is treating his audience like they're idiots. Rather than present scenes where things happen, Cory spends more than half of the text in the first two-thirds of the book methodically pointing out very basic ideas about technology, ideology, and his version of liberty. Either his audience is smart enough to understand the gist, in which case these explanations are boring, or they aren't, in which case these explanations are boring. This is supposed to be a fiction novel, not a Wikipedia entry.

This is the cardinal sin of bad science fiction: you're supposed to tell a story, not describe technology. Technology is supposed to serve the story, not get in its way. Cory rattles on for paragraph after paragraph about how a particular piece of technology, software, or security system works without furthering the plot. All of these descriptions are unnecessary, and could have and should have been alluded to with a word or phrase, if or when required.

The story, as I said, is serviceable enough. It's pace picks up halfway through the book and might even keep you interested to see how the inevitable, highly predictable ending will come about. But calling the story one vast cliche is probably the understatement of the year.

Conclusion

If you want to read a highly unoriginal story with tedious asides about technology, polemics about Big Brother, and a smarmy, forgettable teenager who fights against the system using viral videos, be my guest. I dare you to get through the first chapter without shaking your head in disbelief.

If you want to be inspired, pick up books about real revolutionaries and heroes such as Nelson Madella, Mohandas Ghandi, or Natan Sharansky. If you want to know about hacker culture and security, there are any number of books that can supply your needs. Read websites, including Boing Boing nearly every week, about why torture is bad and government surveillance is useless and backwards.

The book has a lot of things going for it: It is being promoted strongly by Cory on one of the world's most popular blogs, it is being promoted by his friends who are great guys, too, some of whom are even great writers. It's a free download, and its release under Creative Commons is semi-noteworthy, and liable to generate some press just for that, maybe even viral press. Some of the ideas the book covers are important ideas, and well worth discussing in a more well-balanced forum.

But what it doesn't have is a well written book.

How to Amuse Yourself at Snooty Poetry Reading Receptions

Rachel and I attended a literary evening of poetry and prose at the Shaindy Rudoff Graduate Program in Creative Writing at Bar Ilan University. Shaindy founded the program and began organizing these events five years ago. She died (young) of cancer two years ago. So this was the second of these events that was subtitled "in memory of Shaindy Rudoff".

On hand were a number of speakers, including the poets Gerald Stern and Peter Cole, and the authors Tamar Yellin and Nessa Rapoport. The guest of honor appeared to be Gerald Stern, an oft-awarded American Jewish poet. He's not quite beat, though he comes from that generation, but he's plainspoken, funny, poignant, and sharp.

Before the proceedings, the attendees mingled among hot drinks, soft drinks, and cheap pastries. An air of snootiness permeated the place.

I don't know exactly why that is. I don't get that feeling before other cultural events, such as musical events, plays, dances, or anything else. Something about a reading. When people talk, you can feel the class judgment radar beeping. People seek out people of higher literate standing and try to ingratiate themselves.

Everyone is dressed like a bohemian or a professor. Half the people stare around the room from the sidelines evaluating prospective conversations; they nibble their pastry or sip their coffee. The other half talk up authors or professors, or bask in being talked up. Conversation consists of praising your partner for his or her work, asking simplistic questions that will allow the author to talk about himself, or exchanging contacts and suggested reading lists.

An older gentleman came up to Rachel and said hello. Rachel introduced herself, but before she could introduce me I said, "I'm Yehuda Berlinger, author of 'Last Chance to Procreate' [1]".

"Ah, yes" said the gentleman, with an intonation that of course he has heard of it, obviously trying to decide whether he could fake his way to claiming having read it. Unfortunately, my wife shoved me and told the man to ignore me. She was a little embarrassed.

Can't say I blame her, but I told her afterwards that she would have been less embarrassed if she had had the presence of mind to just go along with it. In the end, I was the one who was embarrassed, because it turns out that the old gentleman was Shaindy Rudoff's father, and so was probably not disposed to being made a fool of, even for a few seconds, at a memorial lecture given for his daughter who had died of cancer.

Rachel banished me to the corner where I read my book [2] until the proceedings began.

Luckily, I enjoyed the readings, so it was a good night after all.

[1] Literally made up in a split second.

[2] I'm rereading Ulysses by James Joyce.

The Well-Played Game

I've got a boat load of game books to read. I sent them, one by one, to a friend's house in the U.S. anticipating that I would eventually get there to pick them up. This didn't happen. So after two or three years of this I finally asked him to mail them all to me in Toronto, to take back with me to Israel.

I accidentally acquired duplicates of some of the books. Also, some of the books deal with issues I was dealing with on the blog a long time ago but have since abandoned. So not all the books are useful to me. Luckily I generally buy books used at around $1 or $2 plus shipping.

One of the first I got though is The Well-Played Game, by Bernie DeKoven. The edition that I read is the 1978 edition; the one pictured is apparently an updated edition. Many of you know Bernie from his Major Fun awards or Deep Fun blog. Bernie's been in the play business for a long time. In the 70s he ran his own play center, organized play dates for 250,000 people at a time, and taught and took part in the New Games Foundation. I met him for lunch a few months back; he was a real hippie back in the days, and he's still a bit of one today.

The Well-Played Game was written in the 70s, and so is really infused with his hippie mentality and style. Present tense, spiritual, somewhat meandering, and embellished with personal anecdotes, what-ifs, and stories.

The main thrust of the book is that we strive to play "well-played" games which have less to do with winning or rules and more to do with moments of feeling good about our play. One example would be volleying in table tennis without keeping score: a better player might handicap themselves to make it challenging for both players. The book examines the factors that tend to help or hinder this feeling of having played well, both on a personal and communal level.

Two chapters in particular deal with issues about which I don't often read. Chapter 4 examines the way in which games, or play, provide help for players who are stuck, need hints, need to bend the rules, take a time out, or overcome interference. Chapter 6 discusses how games or play end: what happens when someone wants to leave early, loses, wins, or gets eliminated.

It's an interesting and fairly quick read. His lessons about games are metaphorically about life, as well.

Yehuda

Shakespeare on Games

Shakespeare knew the different definitions of the word "game", and used them to refer to actual games as well as games of politics, courtship, or intrigue. He also often used "gamester" to refer to a gambler or a chance-taker.

Wrestling

The first two parts of As You Like It's first act revolve around a wrestling match between Orlando and Charles.

In Troilus and Cressida, Nestor makes a brief offhand mention of the sport: "And I have seen thee pause and take thy breath, When that a ring of Greeks have hemm'd thee in, Like an Olympian wrestling: this have I seen; But this thy countenance, still lock'd in steel, I never saw till now."

Another offhand reference to Olympian games is given in Henry VI, Part 3 by George: "And, if we thrive, promise them such rewards As victors wear at the Olympian games: This may plant courage in their quailing breasts; For yet is hope of life and victory."

Tic-Tac-Toe

In Measure for Measure, "tick-tack" literally means the game Tic Tac Toe, although euphemistically it refers to sexual play. Lucio worries that Claudio's sister (Isabella) should be kept in a chaste environment: "I pray she may; as well for the encouragement of the like, which else would stand under grievous imposition, as for the enjoying of thy life, who I would be sorry should be thus foolishly lost at a game of tick-tack."

Dice Games

Dice games were popular at the time. Not only are dice mentioned by name, but specific dice games, such as Hazard, also weigh the meaning of words on occasion (source).

In the Merry Wives of Windsor, Shallow, a Country Justice refers to dice: "How now, master Parson! Good morrow, good Sir Hugh. Keep a gamester from the dice, and a good student from his book, and it is wonderful."

In the Merchant of Venice, Morocco, one of Portia's suitors, reflects on his chances: "If Hercules and Lichas play at dice Which is the better man, the greater throw May turn by fortune from the weaker hand."

In Much Ado About Nothing, the feisty Beatrice reflects on losing Benedick's heart: "Indeed, my lord, he lent it me awhile; and I gave him use for it, a double heart for his single one: marry, once before he won it of me with false dice, therefore your grace may well say I have lost it."

Falstaff recounts his wild days in Henry IV, Part 1: "I was as virtuously given as a gentleman need to be; virtuous enough; swore little; diced not above seven times a week; went to a bawdy-house once in a quarter--of an hour; paid money that I borrowed, three of four times; lived well and in good compass: and now I live out of all order, out of all compass."

King Lear's Edgar does the same: "A serving-man, proud in heart and mind; that curled my hair; wore gloves in my cap; served the lust of my mistress' heart, and did the act of darkness with her; swore as many oaths as I spake words, and broke them in the sweet face of heaven: one that slept in the contriving of lust, and waked to do it: wine loved I deeply, dice dearly: and in woman out-paramoured the Turk: false of heart, light of ear, bloody of hand; hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in greediness, dog in madness, lion in prey."

In Henry V, the chorus describes the English and French attitudes: "Proud of their numbers and secure in soul, The confident and over-lusty French Do the low-rated English play at dice; And chide the cripple tardy-gaited night Who, like a foul and ugly witch, doth limp So tediously away.

Later, Dauphin decries his side's broken ranks: "O perdurable shame! let's stab ourselves. Be these the wretches that we play'd at dice for?"

Biron, one of the three men swearing chastity in pursuit of scholarship in Love's Labours Lost, refers to dice twice. The first is while bantering with Princess: "Nay then, two treys, and if you grow so nice, Metheglin, wort, and malmsey: well run, dice!"

And again while describing his friend Boyet: "This gallant pins the wenches on his sleeve; Had he been Adam, he had tempted Eve; A' can carve too, and lisp: why, this is he That kiss'd his hand away in courtesy; This is the ape of form, monsieur the nice, That, when he plays at tables, chides the dice In honourable terms: nay, he can sing A mean most meanly; and in ushering Mend him who can: the ladies call him sweet;..."

Even Hamlet has a passing reference to dicers: "Such an act That blurs the grace and blush of modesty, Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose From the fair forehead of an innocent love And sets a blister there, makes marriage-vows As false as dicers' oaths ..."

In Anthony and Cleopatra, a Soothsayer gives advice to Mark Anthony about Caesar: " If thou dost play with him at any game, Thou art sure to lose; and, of that natural luck, He beats thee 'gainst the odds: thy lustre thickens, When he shines by: I say again, thy spirit Is all afraid to govern thee near him; But, he away, 'tis noble."

Mark Anthony reacts: "Be it art or hap, He hath spoken true: the very dice obey him; And in our sports my better cunning faints Under his chance: if we draw lots, he speeds; His cocks do win the battle still of mine, When it is all to nought; and his quails ever Beat mine, inhoop'd, at odds."

Cards

Mark Anthony later decries Cleopatra's alliance with Caesar: "I made these wars for Egypt: and the queen,-- Whose heart I thought I had, for she had mine; Which whilst it was mine had annex'd unto't A million more, now lost,--she, Eros, has Pack'd cards with Caesar, and false-play'd my glory Unto an enemy's triumph."

In King John, Louis of France will not make peace with England: "Have I not here the best cards for the game, To win this easy match play'd for a crown?"

Sources

Some information on Elizabethan games. The page looks like a spam site; maybe it is.

Gambling in Shakespeare's time. Card games. And more games. Other sources abound.