I really enjoyed The Canon. Enough that I listened to it twice. Enough that I intend to acquire a printed copy, so that I can study some passages at leisure. Enough that Nicole & I sent a printed copy to a nephew as a birthday gift. I think I get my point across. I don't know of a better general introduction to the current state of scientific knowledge and, more importantly, to science as a method of thought.
After I finished that book, I switched to fiction -- Robert A. Heinlein and Spider Robinson's Variable Star. This isn't, as it is sometimes marketed, a "lost," "new," or "unfinished" Heinlein. It is a novel written by Spider Robinson from an incomplete outline and story notes of Heinlein's. Having said that, the flavor is strongly Heinlein, especially the opening and the structure of the ending. More to the point, it is good. I actually have a printed copy, and had read it twice before I found the audio-version. I wanted to hear it mostly because it's read by Spider. I usually enjoy hearing a work read by the author, especially an author with a very strong "voice" in print. Speaking of which, I was surprised by Spider's voice. I hear something like a young Carl Kasell, with occasional hints of Frank DeFord. I learned stuff, listening to Spider read. There were a few places where I thought, "Aha! That's what that meant." Nothing earth-shaking, but a better understanding of his intent in those passages. Well-worth the price of admission. I listened to it twice.
Back to non-fiction, for David Shenk's The Immortal Game. The game of the title is both a specific game and chess in general. The author states that Chess has undergone 4 phases: Romantic, Scientific, and two other very recent phases that he names but doesn't explain. Everyone begins as a romantic-style player. Yer buckles on yer swash, briefly contemplate the concept of "strategy," and "have at you!" It's all about being clever, deceptive, tactical, sneaky, and smarter than the other guy. The Immortal Game is generally considered to be the epitome of romantic play. The winner sacrificed a Bishop, both Rooks, and the Queen. He was clearly losing, right up to the point where he won. The book is an analysis of that game, a history of chess, and a history of the author's involvement with chess. All three are interesting. The author, like most of us, never made the transition from romantic-style play to studying the game. Thus, he isn't and can't be a "good" player (meaning ranked and taken seriously). The book ends with him struggling with his desire to play chess, but strong aversion to the mind-bending (perhaps breaking) study needed to be competitive. Finally, he realizes, through New York City's chess-in-the-schools program, that the game isn't just about competition. It's as much about mental exercise, focus, and disciplined thought as it is about winning. And that insight allows him to shift his mental perspective and stop worrying about being "competitive" and just play.
The current book is Legacy of Ashes. It's a history of the CIA. Gah! If even 1/4 of what is in this book is accurate, then the Agency hasn't gotten nearly the abuse it deserves. Truman wanted a newspaper. The agency responded with something along the lines of, "Right. Of course. So -- what do we blow up today?" Populated by former OSS wartime operatives, they just didn't get the idea that "intelligence" doesn't equal "covert operations." Presidents either ignore the agency ("Why can't you tell me something that isn't in Time magazine?") or despise it (Nixon thought he lost the famous TV debate against Kennedy because the CIA secretly briefed Kennedy's campaign). At the same time, Presidents desperately wanted covert operations, because the alternatives were open war or doing nothing. End result, the only way the agency received any sort of positive attention was when it did something simultaneously covert and spectacular (e.g. overthrowing Iran). Needless to say, those projects did nothing to further the agency's actual intelligence activities. Plus, the agency is notoriously bad at analysis -- they missed Sept. 11, they missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, they insisted, until after the invasion was fact, that the Soviets wouldn't invade Afghanistan. The only major publicly-acknowledged success was the Cuban missile crisis, which wasn't really a success because Kennedy failed to listen when his DCI warned him the Soviets might be putting ballistic missiles on the island. Mess. Glad they ignored my resume.
After I finished that book, I switched to fiction -- Robert A. Heinlein and Spider Robinson's Variable Star. This isn't, as it is sometimes marketed, a "lost," "new," or "unfinished" Heinlein. It is a novel written by Spider Robinson from an incomplete outline and story notes of Heinlein's. Having said that, the flavor is strongly Heinlein, especially the opening and the structure of the ending. More to the point, it is good. I actually have a printed copy, and had read it twice before I found the audio-version. I wanted to hear it mostly because it's read by Spider. I usually enjoy hearing a work read by the author, especially an author with a very strong "voice" in print. Speaking of which, I was surprised by Spider's voice. I hear something like a young Carl Kasell, with occasional hints of Frank DeFord. I learned stuff, listening to Spider read. There were a few places where I thought, "Aha! That's what that meant." Nothing earth-shaking, but a better understanding of his intent in those passages. Well-worth the price of admission. I listened to it twice.
Back to non-fiction, for David Shenk's The Immortal Game. The game of the title is both a specific game and chess in general. The author states that Chess has undergone 4 phases: Romantic, Scientific, and two other very recent phases that he names but doesn't explain. Everyone begins as a romantic-style player. Yer buckles on yer swash, briefly contemplate the concept of "strategy," and "have at you!" It's all about being clever, deceptive, tactical, sneaky, and smarter than the other guy. The Immortal Game is generally considered to be the epitome of romantic play. The winner sacrificed a Bishop, both Rooks, and the Queen. He was clearly losing, right up to the point where he won. The book is an analysis of that game, a history of chess, and a history of the author's involvement with chess. All three are interesting. The author, like most of us, never made the transition from romantic-style play to studying the game. Thus, he isn't and can't be a "good" player (meaning ranked and taken seriously). The book ends with him struggling with his desire to play chess, but strong aversion to the mind-bending (perhaps breaking) study needed to be competitive. Finally, he realizes, through New York City's chess-in-the-schools program, that the game isn't just about competition. It's as much about mental exercise, focus, and disciplined thought as it is about winning. And that insight allows him to shift his mental perspective and stop worrying about being "competitive" and just play.
The current book is Legacy of Ashes. It's a history of the CIA. Gah! If even 1/4 of what is in this book is accurate, then the Agency hasn't gotten nearly the abuse it deserves. Truman wanted a newspaper. The agency responded with something along the lines of, "Right. Of course. So -- what do we blow up today?" Populated by former OSS wartime operatives, they just didn't get the idea that "intelligence" doesn't equal "covert operations." Presidents either ignore the agency ("Why can't you tell me something that isn't in Time magazine?") or despise it (Nixon thought he lost the famous TV debate against Kennedy because the CIA secretly briefed Kennedy's campaign). At the same time, Presidents desperately wanted covert operations, because the alternatives were open war or doing nothing. End result, the only way the agency received any sort of positive attention was when it did something simultaneously covert and spectacular (e.g. overthrowing Iran). Needless to say, those projects did nothing to further the agency's actual intelligence activities. Plus, the agency is notoriously bad at analysis -- they missed Sept. 11, they missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, they insisted, until after the invasion was fact, that the Soviets wouldn't invade Afghanistan. The only major publicly-acknowledged success was the Cuban missile crisis, which wasn't really a success because Kennedy failed to listen when his DCI warned him the Soviets might be putting ballistic missiles on the island. Mess. Glad they ignored my resume.
