Day 324 – 52 Books in 52 Weeks

Okay… it’s been a while since I’ve posted, but I’ve still been reading. I have six books to comment on, and ten left to finish out my 52 for the year. Not sure I’ll make it, but considering the size of several books I’ve read this year (most were double or triple the size of a normal novel), I’m happy with the result whether or not I reach the full 52.

So, book one on the list to review: Rebel in Chief by Fred Barnes. Written in 2006, Barnes takes us behind the scenes of President Bush’s controversial first term and a half in office. He starts off the book by telling the reader why mainstream media, liberals and “sophisticates” despise the man: “he is defiant of the press, scornful of the conventional wisdom, and keen to reverse or at least substantially reform long-standing policies” (page 13).

He was also a president who lead the nation, he didn’t just govern it. As Barnes states on page 15, “There are two types of presidents: those who govern and those who lead. A governing president performs all the duties assigned by the Constitution, deals with whatever issues or crises crop up during his term, and does little else.” His examples of governing presidents include George H.W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.

Whereas a president who leads, such as FDR, Ronald Regan and George W. Bush, is one who “controls the national agenda, uses his presidential powers to the fullest and them some, proposes far-reaching policies likely to change the way Americans live, reverses other long-standing policies, and is the foremost leader in world affairs. All the while, he courts controversy, provokes the press, and polarizes the country.”

Bush’s faith is another reason most left-wingers despise the man. But as Bush told Barnes, his faith “frees me to make the decisions others might not like. Frees me to try to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well.”

Barnes also points out various initiatives that the liberals opposed including his Medicare prescription benefit. He says, “Liberals opposed the Bush bill, but only because Bush’s name was on the legislation. In truth, it was the new entitlement they’d been dreaming about” (page 27). It’s amazing how the supposed “open-minded liberals” would be so closed-minded about opposing a bill they’d been wanting for years only because the guy who is pushing it through Congress is a man they despise.

He also points out, rather bluntly, that Bush’s distaste for Washington won him no friends. His spurn of the Washington social circle caused him to be dubbed a redneck, social misfit and religious zealot. Again, his faith was pounced upon because Washington’s attitude towards religion, specifically born again Christians, is that it shouldn’t be a part of anyone’s thinking on politics or policy. Bush is diametrically opposed to these and other Washington attitudes.

The book gives an interesting insight into Washington and helped me to understand why people hated this president so much. A short little book, but gives you a good perspective on the inner workings of mainstream media and the Washington “elite.”

Book two is Isaac Asimov’s Gold. It’s probably hard to imagine any science fiction fan who hasn’t read anything by Asimov. Well, until I read this, I hadn’t. Oh, I knew who he was, and knew he was one of the “three kings” of science fiction (the other two being Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein). What I didn’t know, until I did a little background work on the man, was that he was an extremely prolific author. He has published works under every category in the Dewey Decimal system except one… but if you count the fact that in that one category, he wrote an introduction to a book, he’s kinda covered them all. He has written and/or edited over 500 books and over 9000 papers/letters. He has written many textbooks (his main field of study was biochemistry), science fiction, of course, and even mysteries. Wow. I have trouble writing a blog on a weekly or monthly basis.

Back to the book… it’s divided into three sections. The first is a series of short stories. Some just a page or two long. All were good stories but nothing really stuck out as “amazing.” The second section is entitled “On Science Fiction” while the third is “On Writing Science Fiction.” Both of these sections are taken from one or another of the magazines that were under his purview. Mostly they’re written in response to letters from readers.

I loved these two sections of the book because you got to know more about the author and how he wrote. In The Longest Voyage he talks about different forms of interstellar travel that have been proposed both in science and in science fiction, then gives a short objection as to why they won’t work. He does the same for time travel.

Another section deals with creating a universe, in specific, his universe that he used for his best-selling Foundation series. He talks about flying saucers (he doesn’t believe in them). He talks about his Robot Chronicles and how his Three Laws of Robotics are actually used in the manufacturing of real robots today (his three laws: 1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.).

When he talks about them he says, “Those laws, as it turned out (and as I could not possibly have foreseen), proved to be the most famous, the most frequently quoted, and the most influential sentences I ever wrote. (And I did it when I was twenty-one, which makes me wonder if I’ve done anything since to continue to justify my existence.)”

He talks about why most science fiction aliens are “humanoid” in appearance. He talks about why magazines are still essential (allowing new writers to get their foot in the door). He talks about words that he’s given credit for “inventing” such as “psychohistory” and “positronic” and “robotics” and how he didn’t realize they weren’t actually words.

One of the funniest chapters talks about how most science fiction writers tend to have a 10-year life span, usually less. He gives a couple suggestions as to why that’s the case, then talks about the “survivors” (those who’ve been around 40+ years and still going strong) and gives his reasons as to why they’re still going… and selling… even after death.

He talks about why “dystopias” are far more interesting to read about than “utopias” – giving the example of, “in The Lord of the Rings, not much can be told about the stay of the Fellowship in the utopian elfland of Lorien, but how the story intensifies and grows more interesting as we approach the dystopian Mordor.” But he does make the point that either a pure utopian or pure dystopian story will be dull. “The evil of Mordor was made bearable by the courage and humanity of Frodo and the story would have remained interesting and successful even in Frodo had failed in the end. It was his courage and humanity, not his victory, that really counted.”

By the time we get to section three, On Writing Science Fiction, the reader who doesn’t have a clue about what Asimov was like or his writing style, already feels like they know the man. He’s witty, brilliant, and pretty blunt. So we start section three with him talking about giving an interview, which he says, “I don’t go looking for these things, because I hate the hassle of being photographed… and I hate the risk of being misquoted or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, I can’t always turn these things down because I’m not really a misanthrope, and because I do like to talk about myself.”

Anyway, this funny little story goes into how build a story around a plot and gives examples of various ways to do so, then does the same for using metaphors (Macbeth being his prime example).

We move on to coming up with ideas… stemming from a conversation he had where someone asked him where he got his, which got him to wondering if he had a system. He gives a two page summary of how this works for him and was the basis for his Foundation and Robot novels. This is a great little chapter for any aspiring writer to read.

The talks about the use of suspense (again citing The Lord of the Rings as an example of excellence).

Then out of the blue, there’s a chapter entitled, “The Name of Our Field.” He walks us through terms such as “tale” “narrative” “fiction” and the evolution of the term “science fiction” and how that’s been shortened to SF or sci-fi. However, Mr. Asimov is clear to point out that SF (science fiction) is not the same as sci-fi.

Science fiction, or SF (with or without the periods S.F.) deals with future changes in the level of science, or science-derived technology, whereas sci-fi is “trashy material” thus, he says, Star Trek is SF while Godzilla Meets Mothra is sci-fi.

The next chapter “Hints” just lists a bunch of suggestions for those who want to be writers. And something that is missing today in our schools is the reading of good literature. Asimov states, “Do you read books on how to write, or attend classes on writing, or go to writing conferences? These are all of inspirational value, I’m sure, but they won’t teach you what you really want to know.

“What will teach you is the careful reading of the masters of English prose… In my opinion, the English writers who most clearly use the correct word every time and who most artfully and deftly put together their sentences and paragraphs are Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and P.G. Wodehouse.”

He goes on to discuss irony, plagiarism, symbolism, prediction, originality, names, revisions, etc… and though I’ve written a lot about this book, one thing Asimov hammered home about writing was to keep it clear and concise.

And since he mentions P.G. Wodehouse, I’ll talk about this book next. Barmy in Wonderland was the most delightful book I’ve read all year. I was first introduced to Wodehouse by a friend. We got to talking one day about the TV show House starring Hugh Laurie. She asked me if I’d ever seen Black Adder or Jeeves and Wooster, both of which he starred in. I said no and immediately went and purchased the full series of both shows.

First of all, Black Adder has to be one of the funniest shows I’ve ever seen. Hilarious. But on the heels of that, I watched Jeeves and Wooster, a series based on the Jeeves and Wooster novels by P.G. Wodehouse. Very British, very witty, and very well written. So… occasionally when I’d come in to work, there would be a bunch of Wodehouse books for me sitting on my desk. Apparently my friend’s husband has accumulated multiple copies of Wodehouse books and thought it best that I should be indoctrinated into the world of Wodehouse. I now have a rather significant collection which makes me very happy!

Anyway, as I mentioned, I watched the entire series and loved it, but I hadn’t read any of the books. So I picked up Barmy, and from page one to one hundred and eighty eight, I was giggling, smiling, chuckling and enjoying Wodehouse’s brilliant use of the English language. There is simply not one single word out of place… and the story is so charming that even if you’re extremely depressed, you’ll find a smile on your face after just one page.

If you haven’t read Wodehouse, you’re missing out on a master. I can’t wait to dive into another, and another…

Sorry, I’m not giving out any great quotations from the book because I’d have to quote the entire thing. Just buy it and read it. I can’t recommend it enough.

Well, it’s long past my bedtime, so I’ll finish reviewing the other three books later.