Take a photo of a barcode or cover
brendamn's Reviews (370)
This story leaves you with a lot to think about, and because of that I will just narrow my review to keep from going all over the place. Out of everything in this book Franzen's approach to interpersonal relationships is what left the greatest impression with me. Religion has a massive presence itself, but for now I'm just going to stick to the depth of the characters and their interactions.
What felt like the most major driving force in this book was just the simple concept of empathy. You can see that the main family's religion has given them a deep and intimate understanding of it and you see how they strive to embrace it when interacting with their family members. Though of course it could be said that Franzen's specialty is dysfunctional families, the thing with empathy in this story is just how fucking impossible it can sometimes be. It is hard to be empathetic towards people who do little to deserve it, especially when they are ruining your life in the process.
There is a lot of strife among them and you hear it from five different perspectives. You see where they are able to forgive and where they cannot. You also are shown the paradox of doing all in your power to shed yourself of the negative influence of someone close to you, but in the end that struggle just increases the influence those forces hold on you in the end anyways.
My personal takeaway whether intended or not is that the real challenge is for the reader themselves to be able to relate and understand all the characters and be able to understand their faults. There has always been a sideshow sort of feeling to me when it comes to dysfunctional families in fiction, that they are something to gawk at and allow the reader to feel better about themself. Though Crossroads really made me stop and think, if a book were written about me where the majority is just focused on my faults and shortcomings, would I leave an impression of a person who deserves empathy myself?
I guess this doesn't really sound like I am speaking much about the interpersonal relationships in the book, but my counterargument would be that it was the driving force from where these observations spring from. Jonathan Franzen really does masterfully write complex characters and creates them as forces of power amongst each other.
What felt like the most major driving force in this book was just the simple concept of empathy. You can see that the main family's religion has given them a deep and intimate understanding of it and you see how they strive to embrace it when interacting with their family members. Though of course it could be said that Franzen's specialty is dysfunctional families, the thing with empathy in this story is just how fucking impossible it can sometimes be. It is hard to be empathetic towards people who do little to deserve it, especially when they are ruining your life in the process.
There is a lot of strife among them and you hear it from five different perspectives. You see where they are able to forgive and where they cannot. You also are shown the paradox of doing all in your power to shed yourself of the negative influence of someone close to you, but in the end that struggle just increases the influence those forces hold on you in the end anyways.
My personal takeaway whether intended or not is that the real challenge is for the reader themselves to be able to relate and understand all the characters and be able to understand their faults. There has always been a sideshow sort of feeling to me when it comes to dysfunctional families in fiction, that they are something to gawk at and allow the reader to feel better about themself. Though Crossroads really made me stop and think, if a book were written about me where the majority is just focused on my faults and shortcomings, would I leave an impression of a person who deserves empathy myself?
I guess this doesn't really sound like I am speaking much about the interpersonal relationships in the book, but my counterargument would be that it was the driving force from where these observations spring from. Jonathan Franzen really does masterfully write complex characters and creates them as forces of power amongst each other.
I don't really care for pirates, at all. If it wasn't for Perdido Street Station I would not have picked this up. Mercifully, Miéville did not go hard on the typical pirate stereotypes. I was thankful for that, even though some piratey shenanigans were ultimately enivitable.
Miéville comes up with ideas that are just so damn cool, and he remains an incredible world-builder. A city made up of thousands of ships tethered together, sweet. Powering that city by a leviathan, god-like sea creature, awesome. Careening that thousand-ship city powered by a leviathan sea creature into a tear in the fabric of reality, super freakin' awesome.
The length of the book really let him flesh out those ideas, but it also gave room for things that didn't really work out or make much sense. I just don't buy some of the decisions the characters made in the situations they found themselves in. Most of the time I did, but sometimes I found myself unconvinced. There were a couple long cons being pulled that in no way would anyone actually try to pull just because they were way too unrealistic on paper, but that doesn't matter when operating on book logic. I also found myself noticing minor continuity errors, probably unfair to get hung up on but still, they kinda nagged at me.
The final concept Miéville signs off on with this book was quite a great one. Even though I marked this as spoilers I'll still try not to give this away. I'll just call it a "Schrödinger's Hedrigall". He takes the idea of parallel universes (a now often used and sometimes tired idea in science fiction books) and takes it one step further in a compelling way.
Even though I found enough in the book that frustrated me I am still glad I picked it up.
Miéville comes up with ideas that are just so damn cool, and he remains an incredible world-builder. A city made up of thousands of ships tethered together, sweet. Powering that city by a leviathan, god-like sea creature, awesome. Careening that thousand-ship city powered by a leviathan sea creature into a tear in the fabric of reality, super freakin' awesome.
The length of the book really let him flesh out those ideas, but it also gave room for things that didn't really work out or make much sense. I just don't buy some of the decisions the characters made in the situations they found themselves in. Most of the time I did, but sometimes I found myself unconvinced. There were a couple long cons being pulled that in no way would anyone actually try to pull just because they were way too unrealistic on paper, but that doesn't matter when operating on book logic. I also found myself noticing minor continuity errors, probably unfair to get hung up on but still, they kinda nagged at me.
The final concept Miéville signs off on with this book was quite a great one. Even though I marked this as spoilers I'll still try not to give this away. I'll just call it a "Schrödinger's Hedrigall". He takes the idea of parallel universes (a now often used and sometimes tired idea in science fiction books) and takes it one step further in a compelling way.
Even though I found enough in the book that frustrated me I am still glad I picked it up.
The major themes which shape VALIS are religion, mental illness and Ancient Greek philosophy. The first half of the book tangles these together in a way that makes for disorienting and chaotic read. Plenty of times I could not tell whether things were going over my head or just weren't meant to make sense in the first place.
It was rough for me to get into, and I wondered if I ever would, whether it be the book itself or just my own shortcoming. When things did start falling into place though it was quite rewarding.
The narration was unique in that it was Philip K. Dick speaking as himself and in third person as his alternate personality. It added an extra element to the book of trying to sort out the autobiographical from complete nonsense at times. It doesn't feel like it was nonsense to him though, I guess just inaccessible to me. It had a real weird intimacy to it as well.
It was rough for me to get into, and I wondered if I ever would, whether it be the book itself or just my own shortcoming. When things did start falling into place though it was quite rewarding.
The narration was unique in that it was Philip K. Dick speaking as himself and in third person as his alternate personality. It added an extra element to the book of trying to sort out the autobiographical from complete nonsense at times. It doesn't feel like it was nonsense to him though, I guess just inaccessible to me. It had a real weird intimacy to it as well.
To abolish poverty in America the estimated cost Desmond suggests is $177 billion, if it was applied to most effective programs and initiatives of course. It is not so much a magic number, but more the best starting point if seriously approached. His answer to the knee-jerk question of where that money would come from is straightforward, the cheaters. Those who cheat on their taxes and corporations who squirrel money away in shell companies, which puts our government at over a $1 trillion loss.
It is of course not a new idea, and it has generated much debate of course as to whether it would be an effective approach. Though in the end, it is crazy not to at least try. They may just change their tactics to hold on to their ill got gains, but just throwing our hands up in they air and not trying at all is insane. "There is no point so just let them keep it" in the end is what really is least effective, it does absolutely nothing at all. Give the IRS some actual teeth to do its job at least, and if you don't like that idea then pick another one from the pile, choose whatever method looks best to you. If after that nothing changes by all means go ahead and say "See, I told you so.", the fact is we would have at least tried.
He dives much deeper into this, but it was what stood out to me the most. Because it really can be that simple. The illusion of scarcity, segregation via housing and zoning, and the hypocrisy of how people demonize the idea of subsidizing people in poverty even though the affluent are verifiably the most heavily subsidized group in the U.S. are other things that he covers incredibly well.
In my opinion, Poverty, by America ought to be the last book that needed to be written on this subject at all. He nails everything. The vast majority of books I have read regarding income inequality spend a lot of time analyzing the subject, exploring the results of their findings, and then devote a final section or chapter of possible solutions. This entire book is all solutions. If you want to know what our nation both on a governmental and personal level need to do in order to eradicate poverty, it is all here. No more exploration is needed, this is it.
Though to be real, the chances of that happening are slim at best. But the important thing that Desmond proves with this book is that it can happen, it is a goal we have the resources to achieve. The impoverished are not who is the most responsible for their station in life, it is the system our society is designed around that keeps them there. Most of those in poverty can do everything in their power to escape their situation, but in the end it is up to the rest of us and our institutions who can bring about the most change.
It is of course not a new idea, and it has generated much debate of course as to whether it would be an effective approach. Though in the end, it is crazy not to at least try. They may just change their tactics to hold on to their ill got gains, but just throwing our hands up in they air and not trying at all is insane. "There is no point so just let them keep it" in the end is what really is least effective, it does absolutely nothing at all. Give the IRS some actual teeth to do its job at least, and if you don't like that idea then pick another one from the pile, choose whatever method looks best to you. If after that nothing changes by all means go ahead and say "See, I told you so.", the fact is we would have at least tried.
He dives much deeper into this, but it was what stood out to me the most. Because it really can be that simple. The illusion of scarcity, segregation via housing and zoning, and the hypocrisy of how people demonize the idea of subsidizing people in poverty even though the affluent are verifiably the most heavily subsidized group in the U.S. are other things that he covers incredibly well.
In my opinion, Poverty, by America ought to be the last book that needed to be written on this subject at all. He nails everything. The vast majority of books I have read regarding income inequality spend a lot of time analyzing the subject, exploring the results of their findings, and then devote a final section or chapter of possible solutions. This entire book is all solutions. If you want to know what our nation both on a governmental and personal level need to do in order to eradicate poverty, it is all here. No more exploration is needed, this is it.
Though to be real, the chances of that happening are slim at best. But the important thing that Desmond proves with this book is that it can happen, it is a goal we have the resources to achieve. The impoverished are not who is the most responsible for their station in life, it is the system our society is designed around that keeps them there. Most of those in poverty can do everything in their power to escape their situation, but in the end it is up to the rest of us and our institutions who can bring about the most change.
I'll just start with the most important part, at least for those who loved Dark Matter. Yes, it is the successor from Blake Crouch that you have been wanting. Not better or worse, they are just too different to make that kind of judgment.
It explores what it would be like if we could enhance humans beyond current limitations in physical and cognitive ability. Unlike the movie which shares the same name as this book, it is not just a straight up high tech Rambo beat 'em up story. The book does have its moments in that regard of course, but it explores much more.
It focuses primarily on the ethics of deploying these genetic enhancements across the board for our species. Showing that no matter how good the intentions are, the unpredictability of the outcome could make for an existential and unintended catastrophe. Though what does that matter if you do nothing with your power to invoke unique and profound change if a different and definite existential risk exists all the same?
I don't quite recall if Dark Matter did have its own moral undertones tucked within in, though Upgrade does and they are quite compelling. It also is grounded in a more near future technological quandary rather than the ever fun theory of infinite universes.
It brings the excitement of the average pop sc-fi book without the shallowness.
It explores what it would be like if we could enhance humans beyond current limitations in physical and cognitive ability. Unlike the movie which shares the same name as this book, it is not just a straight up high tech Rambo beat 'em up story. The book does have its moments in that regard of course, but it explores much more.
It focuses primarily on the ethics of deploying these genetic enhancements across the board for our species. Showing that no matter how good the intentions are, the unpredictability of the outcome could make for an existential and unintended catastrophe. Though what does that matter if you do nothing with your power to invoke unique and profound change if a different and definite existential risk exists all the same?
I don't quite recall if Dark Matter did have its own moral undertones tucked within in, though Upgrade does and they are quite compelling. It also is grounded in a more near future technological quandary rather than the ever fun theory of infinite universes.
It brings the excitement of the average pop sc-fi book without the shallowness.