thoughts: Foundation

“To succeed, planning alone is insufficient. One must improvise as well.’ I’ll improvise.”
-Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov is one of the most well known science fiction authors of all time. The period in which he wrote became known as the golden age of science fiction, due to the quality and progressiveness of his novels, along with the work of a few other renowned authors: John W. Campbell, Kurt Vonnegut, and Robert A. Heinlein to name a few. 

In was during this period that Asimov produced his most well known work, the Foundation series. Originally published in the 50's as a trilogy of novels, the series was later expanded, some 30 years later, to encompass 4 more novels; bringing the total to seven novels published over the course of four decades. Asimov also had a PhD in biochemistry, and he was a professor at Boston University (he eventually stopped teaching to pursue writing full time). Evidently, his academic background and high level of education convinced everyone that his books should be classified as a more legit version of science-fiction, and thus they are normally categorized under a genre referred to as hard science-fiction. How is it different than regular SF? As far as I can tell, it sounds like when your invented science and technology is believable enough, your work gets to be classified as hard science-fiction. Precisely who gets the privilege of deciding which sub-genre your science fiction belongs in, I am not sure.

I just finished reading Asimov's first hard SF novel, Foundation. It was recommended to me by my roommate Sam, so right away I knew it was probably going to be shit..but alas, even a broken clock makes good book recommendations twice a day.¹ I quite enjoyed Foundation, despite not experiencing the same sort of emotional engagement I do with other good sci-fi and fantasy novels. This is mainly because the book is actually structured as a number of unconnected (or loosely connected) stories, taking place in chronological order but involving mostly different characters and different places. As such, I wasn't able to invest as much into the characters when their development was limited to 30-50 pages or so.

The upside, however, is that this different sort of book structuring is one of the main reasons I liked it. I don't think I've ever read a SF novel like Foundation. The scale of time over which the story takes place and the multiple jumps in time to different eras should make it more difficult to feel any sort of plot continuity or momentum within the story, especially since many of the characters die within the time span covered. But it works because you are interested in a cause not limited or pursued by one singular individual, but a cause being pursued by generations of individuals - the establishment of a galaxy-wide empire! It is a really unique concept and it raises different sorts of questions and ideas than your typical hero-centric SF novel might.

The idea I thought about a lot is the concept of determinism in Foundation. Determinism is the notion that our actions and decisions are not of our own volition; instead they have already been predetermined and our future is already set in stone, it just hasn't happened yet. The rationale behind this line of thinking could be based in either science or religion (or in a bowl of alphagetti for that matter), but the psychological consequences are the same. 

From a religious perspective, Christian theology to be specific, the evidence for determinism is certainly indirect - as in God never out right said he already decided everything for you, but you can still find some pretty suggestive passages from the good ol' Holy Textbook:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
Jeremih 29:11

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.
Proverbs 16:9

Now, these are obviously quite subjective, and you could make a case that even if The Big Guy has set out a plan for you, you are not destined to follow it. But if we also take into account that God is said to be omnipresent and omniscient, i.e He exists at all points in time and is not temporally bound, then it's hard to logically reconcile this idea with the notion that we still have free will and the autonomy to change our futures. I haven't decided what I'm going to have for dinner yet, but God, in principle, should be able to tell me using his omniscient superpowers.

There is also an argument to be made for determinism from a scientific basis. It is based on the assumption that our brains are constrained by the same causal relationship that all physical matter is grounded in, in other words that our decisions are an effect of a set of preceding causes, and thus can be predetermined. As far as I understand the argument boils down to these assumptions:

1. Our brains, and by extension our minds, are governed solely by the laws of physics and our decisions are the result of an insanely complex interaction of chemical, electrical, and physical forces
   
2. The entire universe and all things within it are bound by the laws of physics.
3. The universe started from an initial point in time with a specifically defined set of conditions (big bang)
4. The laws of physics are objective, deterministic, and can be mathematically described

∴ The entire state of the universe can be calculated at any point in time, given a sufficiently powerful calculator.

Basically, the same way we can calculate the trajectory of a flying projectile, given its initial position and velocity, we could also calculate what I'm going to decide to have for dinner tonight if we knew: the laws of physics perfectly (which is possible according to assumption 4) and the complete initial conditions during the big bang (assumption 3).

Now I'm quite sure that the discovery of quantum mechanics and it's probabilistic nature has taken the wind out of determinism's sails - but my point is that the theory of determinism is an old concept, and one not completely without merit.  It has some interesting philosophical consequences, and I think that Asimov was trying to touch on some of these ideas when writing Foundation. I found that the story is very much thematically rooted in determinism, in a way. 

The basis for a deterministic universe in Foundation is the existence of a branch of science called psychohistory. Psychohistory is basically social statistics on steroids. By examining the state of society and various "forces" in motion, psychohistorians are able to mathematically make predictions about the future with extraordinary accuracy. Granted, psychohistory is not able to make accurate predictions about an individual's actions, as the science is still statistically based and deals with masses of humans. It follows the law of large numbers, so the bigger the population under analysis - for example the population of an entire galaxy - the more accurate the results will be. Asimov describes psychohistory in Foundation thus:

Psychohistory was the quintessence of sociology; it was the science of human behavior reduced to mathematical equations. [—] The individual human being is unpredictable, but the reaction of human mobs, Seldon found, could be treated statistically. The larger the mob, the greater the accuracy that could be achieved.

In the story, Dr. Hari Seldon is the greatest and most important contributor to the science of psychohistory ever, and he plays a central role in the novel's plot. So how is this the same as absolute determinism? Its not, technically, but I think it has similar psychological repercussions on the characters who understand and know of it. That's what I found quite interesting in the story - the actions of characters who are fully aware of the future course of events. They act in accordance with this knowledge to support the realization of these predictions, and I wonder if that is born out of a sense of obligation, or because they believe it is inevitable, or possibly because it fulfills them with a sense of purpose?

To provide some context, at the start of Foundation we meet the previously mentioned Hari Seldon, a psychohistorian working at the University of Trantor, on the planet of Trantor, which is the capital of the galactic empire. Seldon is unshakably sure in his prediction that the empire will collapse within 300 years, and his attempts to prepare for this situation are seen as treason in the eye's of the empire, and because of the public nature of his predictions, they decide to arrest him. As the result of a somewhat but not really judicious trial, the empire decides to send Seldon and his associates, who number in the tens of thousands, to a planet to work on their preparations (of course Seldon actually manipulated those in charge of sentencing into reaching this desired decision). This planet, named Terminus, happens to be at the farthest reaches of the galaxy, and their "preparations" are, by Seldon's insistence, the development of an encyclopedia with the entirety of the galaxy's collective knowledge within it, and definitely not the organization of an anti-imperial army to overtake the galaxy.

After the resolution of Seldon's trial, the story jumps to 50 years later on the planet Terminus. Seldon has died, yet before he did he established a way of communicating messages to his followers at predetermined intervals in the future, in order to relay additional guidance and information. It is here that the "encyclopedists" as they are called, hear Seldon's first postmortem message, and we find out that his plan all along was to organize an anti-imperial army to overtake the galaxy.  Seldon also describes how much their decisions have already been determined by him: 

To that end we have placed you on such a planet and at such a time that in fifty years you were manoeuvred to the point where you no longer have freedom of action. From now on, and into the centuries, the path you must take is inevitable. You will be faced with a series of crises, as you are now faced with the first, and in each case your freedom of action will become similarly circumscribed so that you will be forced along one, and only one, path.

So after all that time, we find out the encyclopedia was merely a ploy, and all the men involved with its development over the past 50 years had the pleasure of hearing that first-hand from Seldon's holographic voice. I can't imagine what they must have said when they went home and their wives asked them how their day was. 50 years. 50 years of your life dedicated to something, and then a hologram of a dead old man appears and tells you he was just kidding.

The story of Foundation encompasses such a grand timescale and scope that it's easy to not pay attention to these small details, or the absence of them. I think its interesting though that Hari Seldon is portrayed in a god-like way in the story. His word is law, because he can "see" into the future, despite being dead for most of it. This brings me back to my main point about determinism, in that the characters in the story know about Seldon and of their role in his great plan to bring about a new galactic empire. They also are aware of its approximate completion date, which is 1000 years, which means they know they will be long dead before the plan is fully realized. So I'm curious as to the main motivation that drives these generations and generations of individuals to continue working in the name of Seldon, despite all of them playing such a cosmically insignificant role in its progression.

Now the main counter-argument to this might be that if you look at the actions and decisions of the "main" characters in the story, it would seem that their actions did have significant repercussions on the fate of Seldon's predictions. However, I still consider these actions trivially meaningful because, according to Seldon, psychohistory predicts outcomes for large masses, and due to its statistical nature the outcomes cannot, by definition, depend upon the actions of any individual. In other words these developments were inevitable and there were larger forces working to bring the events to fruition. Just because Salvor Hardin happened to be the one to overtake the scientists in charge of Terminus and lead the Foundation into its first militarized era, and just because Limmar Ponyets happened to be the trader that brought nucleic technology to planet Askone, this doesn't mean that their actions were pivotal and essential to the progression of the Foundation's fate which Seldon planned. The only way Seldon's predictions could be so accurate is if these events, or ones with similar consequences, were likely to happen anyways. If you line 1000 people up the same distance from a red button and tell them whoever presses it first will get $5, it doesn't matter who touches it first, but you can be quite certain before they start running that the button will be pushed. 

Given this, I think the real question becomes, if these characters are intelligent and rational actors with knowledge of psychohistory and it's nature, they could come to the same conclusion I just described, and realize that their efforts in the name of Hari Seldon's plan are not actually necessary to its success. They could cease to exist completely and the new empire would continue to progress and grow. With this in mind, why do they still devote their lives to the advancement of Seldon's grand cosmic predictions? Maybe it's because, as I alluded to with the red button analogy, there is personal gain to be found in being the individual who pushes the red button, or leads the Foundation into a militarized era, or brings nucleic technology to the outer reaches of the galaxy

It's hard to really say whether the knowledge of these grand plans, or rather predictions I should call them, really have much effect on the motivations and decisions of all the individuals that are involved in their realization throughout. According to Hari Seldon, one of the basic tenets of psychohistory is the assumption that the populations being analyzed are not aware of the results of such analysis, otherwise it may alter the predictions, the assumption is that "the human conglomerate be itself unaware of psychohistoric analysis in order that its reactions be truly random".

In Foundation, it is never made explicitly clear how much the general public of Terminus knows about the course they are on, but it seems that only a select few high-ranking members of the Foundation are privy to the details of Seldon's predictions. Certainly anyone on planets other than Terminus (where the "Foundation" is established) do not have the slightest inkling of this future course of events, and my guess is that the small number of informed persons will not have a detrimental effect on the probability that the predictions are accurate. This raises an interesting point that actually contradicts my previous reasoning where I concluded, due to the statistical nature of psychohistory, that no individual could have a significant effect on the probability that a psychohistoric prediction is realized because all individuals are equally powerless to oppose the "forces" that are factored into psychohistoric analysis. However, if you had knowledge of accurate psychohistoric predictions for the future, you would be in a far better position to affect it than an uninformed individual would. This would support the notion that the actions of the characters we meet in the story have significance and non-trivial effects on the future course of events. 

 

 Regardless of the philosophical implications on the psyche's of the characters, the strange science of psychohistory made for an interesting element in the world of Foundation. I think it was a really novel concept to base a science-fiction around, and I can see why it is such a recognized and lauded series. It clearly made me think, and even now I don't think I have fully fleshed out my thoughts on psychohistory, maybe I should read the rest of the series before attempting to dissect is philosophy any more. 

I enjoyed Foundation because it introduced me to an extremely rich and detailed world that Asimov invented. The story, although structured differently than a typical science-fiction novel, was thoroughly intriguing and I am curious to find out what happens in the next novels. 

Foundation

Fiction Scoring
Imagery: 4 / 7
Entertainment: 5.5 / 7
Writing: 4.5 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: slow-roasted braised beef au jus on a fresh baguette

¹ just kidding bby :)

highlights: Everything and More

Everything and More is a non-fiction novel about the history and understanding of infinity in mathematics. It is written by renowned post-modern novelist David Foster Wallace, the author of two novels I've previously read: Infinite Jest and The Pale King. Everything and More was part of a series of novels about science and mathematics, commissioned by the publisher, W.W Norton, called "Great Discoveries" - the intention of which was to allow contemporary fiction writers to take on such subjects. I have not read any of the other books in the series, but if Everything and More was any indication, they probably should have left the technical writing to the experts. 

David Foster Wallace is well known for his literary style and distinctly post-modern writing techniques; this includes the rampant use of acronyms and abbreviations, footnotes, and what I would call "flexible prose", i.e the use of unique words and phrases, non-conventional syntax and semantics, liberal re-purposing of punctuation and run-on sentences like this one. Basically his writing intends to make the reader put in some effort so as to not be spoon fed the important information. I can appreciate the merit of writing in this style - it pushes the boundaries of writing and also engages and challenges the reader. However, it is unfortunate that Wallace decided that writing a non-fiction novel about an immensely complex and intricate subject was no reason to change this style.

The goal of a book like this should be to confer a greater understanding of the subject matter, and hopefully illuminate the significance and value of the subject  to the reader. By not sacrificing his artistic integrity for the sake of clarity, I feel that DFW has lost on both fronts in this case. I would have probably gained more from reading a more conventional text on infinity in math, of which there seems to be a multitude.  That's not to say I regret reading Everything and More, in fact I thought I learned quite a bit about the history of infinity as a concept, and it was taught through the words of one of my favourite writers. Although I wouldn't advocate for DFW to write any math textbooks, his writing is nonetheless very colourful and expressive. 

I feel like I may be in a better position than most to have enjoyed this book, seeing that I was exposed to some pretty advanced math during my undergraduate studies, therefore a lot of the concepts and arguments Wallace talked about were familiar to me. For someone with little math background, I can imagine it would be somewhat of a nightmare trying to comprehend the math while having to deal with parsing Wallace's writing as well. Which leads to my other advantage in that I've read a bit of DFW before, which if expressed as a Venn diagram in conjunction with my semi-advanced math background I would guess the overlap would be quite narrow. Therefore, as much as I didn't very much enjoy the book, I am confident most readers would enjoy it much less.

I don't have too much else to say about Everything and More. Despite learning about some of these mathematical concepts in school I am by no means in any position to critique the veracity of Wallace's proofs and explanations. However, from reading a couple reviews[LINKS] of the novel by people who are in such a position, it sounds like there are quite a few mathematical inaccuracies; both reviewers were also in agreement that the writing comes off as unnecessarily confusing - both were quite negative overall.

One of my favourite parts of the book was the introduction actually, written by science-fiction writer Neal Stephenson. It was a light-hearted and intriguing explanation of Wallace's character and how it was influenced by the nature of his upbringing. Stephenson describes the cultural identity of a MACT - a Midwestern American College Town, which is where both he and Wallace grew up:

"The premise of this introduction, which will be nailed to the mast very shortly, is that in Everything and More David Foster Wallace is speaking in a language and employing a style of inquiry that might strike people who have not breathed the air of Ames, Bloomington-Normal, and Champaign-Urbana as unusual enough to demand some sort of an explanation. And that, lacking such background, many of DFW’s critics fall into a common pattern of error, which consists of attempting to explain his style and approach by imputing certain stances or motives to him, then becoming nonplussed, huffy, or downright offended by same. It’s a mistake that befuddles MACT natives who see this book as simply what it is: one of the other smart kids trying to explain some cool stuff."

The first half of the introduction is essentially a look into the characteristics and peculiarities of a MACT, and how this is evident in both Wallace's persona and his writing. The second half is an analysis of the category that a book like Everything and More would belong to; unique in that it's a heavily technical non-fiction book, written with a causal slang-laden style by a fiction novelist with no technical background. Stephenson writes,

"To begin with, DFW was arguably a science fiction writer (Infinite Jest), although he probably would not have classified himself as such. Of course Everything and More is not SF, or even F, at all, pace some of its detractors, but the mere fact of DFW’s having been an SF kind of guy muddies the taxonomic waters before we have even gotten started. Novelists—who almost by definition hold motley and informal credentials, when they are credentialed at all—make for an uneasy fit with the academic world, where credentials are everything. And writers who produce books on technical subjects aimed at non-technical readers are doomed to get cranky reviews from both sides: anything short of a fully peer-reviewed monograph is simply wrong and subject to censure from people whose job it is to get it right, and any material that requires unusual effort to read undercuts the work’s claim to be accessible to a general audience. So in writing a book such as Everything and More, DFW reminds us of the soldier who earns a medal by calling in an artillery strike on his own position, with the possible elaboration that in this case he’s out in the middle of no-man’s land calling in strikes from both directions."

As for the actual text, Wallace does a fair job of exploring the history and progress of infinity as a concept throughout time. I learned a lot about the problems that philosophers and mathematicians alike have grappled with in the past as the definition of infinity has changed and been refined. Heavyweights like Aristotle, Pythagoras, Kant, and others have all had their hand at trying to rationalize and rigorously define infinity, but most ended up either shoehorning it into the existing axiomatic systems of math, or just hiding it's existence using words. For example, summarizing Aristotle's viewpoints from his Metaphysics, Wallace writes:

"The distinction is between actuality and potentiality as predicable qualities; and Aristotle’s general argument is that ∞ is a special type of thing that exists potentially but not actually, and that the word ‘infinite’ needs to be predicated of things accordingly, as the Dichotomy’s confusion demonstrates. Specifically, Aristotle claims that no spatial extension (e.g. the intercurb interval AB) is ‘actually infinite,’ but that all such extensions are ‘potentially infinite’ in the sense of being infinitely divisible."

It's only as this historical tour of infinity reaches the 19th and 20th centuries that Wallace's explanatory coherence begins to wane. Perhaps it's because the arguments of Cantor and Weierstrauss and Dedekind were too complex and technical for Wallace to explain them concisely. Or maybe they are too advanced for me. Either way, I found the last few sections rather tedious to get through, which is unfortunate as the ideas Wallace introduced were described as being solutions to the centuries-old intractable problems that had plagued infinity. Cantor's Set Theory finally provided a rigourous proof of the infinitely dense, continuous nature of the number line, which had been an underlying assumption of calculus but had never been officially proven until then. It was especially important for justifying the use of differentials, i.e the little "dx" you see sprinkled throughout calculus problems, which has some strange arithmetical properties like dx*y/dx = y and y + dx = y

Cantor proved, by deduction from first principles, that the set of "real" numbers (rational + irrational) comprise a type of infinity which is greater than the infinity of the "natural" numbers (only rational numbers). This proof put the assumptions about continuity and motion, as formulated in calculus, on solid footing for the first time. In my mind I think of it as the irrational numbers providing the "glue" which bridges the rational numbers, as there are an infinity of irrational numbers in between any two rational numbers. That is pretty mind blowing if you think about it. Irrational numbers are essentially unending sequences of numerical specificity (3.14159...), so I imagine this property, which prevents them from ever being precisely "located" at a zero-dimensional point is what allows them to connect their rational neighbours. Of course this explanation is entirely unsubstantiated, but I think it is decently intuitive, and provides somewhat of an answer for why the existence of irrational numbers is so necessary.

All in all, Everything and More wasn't awful. I suspect it'll probably end up being my least favorite book DFW ever wrote, but that's okay because now I know. I'm still going to read the rest of his stuff. The subject matter and tone was similar to that of Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, which is one of my favourite books of all time, so it was definitely nice to delve into these ideas again. Unfortunately Wallace did not deliver the same level of insight and depth that Hofstadter managed to. Oh well. I'll end my review of Everything and More with its own final words:

If you’re interested, Gödel’s own personal view was that the Continuum Hypothesis is false, that there are actually a whole ∞ of Zeno-type ∞s nested between  and c, and that sooner or later a principle would be found that proved this. As of now no such principle’s ever been found. Gödel and Cantor both died in confinement bequeathing a world with no finite circumference. One that spins, now, in a new kind of all-formal Void. Mathematics continues to get out of bed.

Non-Fiction Scoring
Value: 2 / 7
Interest: 3 / 7
Writing: 4 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: Tuna salad mixed with egg salad mixed with potato salad on toasted multigrain bread

thoughts: The Alchemist and Siddhartha

Meaning and being did not lie somewhere behind things; they lay within them, within everything

- Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha 

I just finished The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, a Brazilian writer most known for said book after it became an international hit. After receiving a modest level of acclaim in his home country of Brazil, it was translated into English and picked up by an American publisher. Its popularity grew significantly after receiving endorsements by several notable figures, including the President at the time (Clinton). I decided to read it because one of my favourite musicians said in an interview that it was his favourite book. The musician is Anderson .Paak, and he makes some pretty great music if you've never heard of him before, imaginary reader of my blog.

So The Alchemist. I didn't like it. I think this would be the first book I'd have written a negative review for. But as it turns out I've decided not to do that, instead I'm going to write a comparative analysis between The Alchemist and another book I've read in the past 12 months, Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. I decided to do this firstly because they are both fairly short books, and secondly because I found them to be quite similar in theme and plot, yet I enjoyed Siddhartha much more; I am going to try to figure out why.

Both The Alchemist and Siddhartha follow the life of a boy who leaves home at a young age to follow some sort of dream, seeking personal fulfillment. In the Alchemist, the dream is literally a prophetic dream about treasure. While in Siddhartha, the protagonist is seeking enlightenment and spiritual self-discovery. In essence though, both stories are about destiny and the journey of man. I say man specifically, even though the lessons and themes within both these books do not exclusively relate to males, however I think the prototypical story of someone on a individual quest to find meaning and personal success seems to resonate deeply with young males like myself. I don't know if perhaps this is due to cultural stereotypes shaped by the numerous instances of this parable in books, movies, and other media. Or maybe it is simply that our self-indulgent illusions of grandeur and purpose are natural and intrinsic aspects of the male psyche. It's probably a bit of both. Regardless of the reader's gender, I think mostly everyone believes, at some level, that they are awesome and meant to accomplish great things. So stories that revolve around this idea invite us to project ourselves onto the protagonist, in the hope that we may learn something we could apply to our lives. The success that follows very much depends on how much truth the lessons actually contain.

Where the two novels differ most greatly is in the message each author was trying to convey to the reader. I think Coelho and Hesse had differing viewpoints on the plight of man, and where one should look to find their purpose and happiness. Hesse's Siddhartha, which takes place in the ancient city of Kapilavastu (located somewhere in Northeastern India), is influenced thematically by Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, while Coelho's Alchemist aligns more so with modern Western ideologies, especially capitalism. Both novels are trying to answer the same question though - how does one find meaning in their life in a world with infinite possibilities?

The Alchemist begins with the introduction of a young boy named Santiago, who some time ago decided to move away from his parent's home and become a shepherd so that he may roam the countryside and see new places. His decision was met with little resistance from his father, whom had initially wanted him to become a priest. The boy recalls, 

“The people who come here have a lot of money to spend, so they can afford to travel,” his father said. “Amongst us, the only ones who travel are the shepherds.”
“Well, then I’ll be a shepherd!”
His father said no more. The next day, he gave his son a pouch that held three ancient Spanish gold coins.
“I found these one day in the fields. I wanted them to be a part of your inheritance. But use them to buy your flock. [..] And he gave the boy his blessing.

Now contrast that with the beginning of Siddhartha, where the main character, Siddhartha, also wanted to leave home at a young age to pursue a dream. Siddhartha wants to become a member of the Samanas, a nomadic group of ascetics who attempt to achieve nirvana through the rejection of physical dependencies and temptations. They seek to separate the mind from it's imperfect and material body. They eat once a day by means of alms given to them from whichever town they are closest to. Although no less noble and with about the same prospects for becoming wealthy as being a shepherd might, Siddhartha's decision was met with much more resistance from his father,

Said Siddhartha, “With your permission, my father. I have come to tell you that it is my wish to leave your house tomorrow and join the ascetics. I must become a Samana. May my father not be opposed to my wish.” [...] the father said, “It is not fitting for a Brahmin to utter sharp, angry words. But my heart is filled with displeasure. I do not wish to hear this request from your lips a second time.”

 His father initially forbade him completely from pursuing this goal, so Siddhartha went to great lengths to persuade him otherwise. Siddhartha proved his dedication to his decision through a self-sacrificial act of physical and mental endurance,

And in the last hour of night before day began, [Siddhartha's father] got up once more, went into the room, and saw the youth standing there; he looked tall to him and like a stranger.
“Siddhartha,” he said, “why do you wait here?”
“You know why.”
“Will you remain standing here, waiting, until day comes, noon comes, evening comes?”
“I will remain standing here, waiting.”
“You will grow tired, Siddhartha.”
“I will grow tired.”
“You will fall asleep, Siddhartha.”
“I will not fall asleep.”
“You will die, Siddhartha.”
“I will die.”
“And you would rather die than obey your father?”
“Siddhartha has always obeyed his father.”
“So you will give up your plan?”
“Siddhartha will do as his father instructs him.”
The first light of day fell into the room. The Brahmin saw that Siddhartha’s knees were trembling quietly. In Siddhartha’s face he saw no trembling; his eyes gazed into the distance straight before him. The father realized then that Siddhartha was no longer with him in the place of his birth. His son had already left him behind.
The father touched Siddhartha’s shoulder.

Siddhartha was so committed to his choice that he stood silently, without moving for an entire night in order to receive his father's permission.

Right away, I think these two beginnings mark a clear contrast between how each author chose to present life and reality. Siddhartha's actions towards his goals are a struggle. He must fight and overcome great challenges before he has even left his home. Hesse is reminding us of the struggle and suffering that pervades all existence. Life is uncomfortable, and action is intrinsically harder than non-action. 

Paulo Coelho, on the other hand, presents the world as a limitless selection of opportunities. Your destiny is within your control as long as you make the right decisions to progress towards it. In the Alchemist, Santiago meets an old man who claims himself to be a king. The king provides Santiago with essential information that will direct the remainder of the boy's journey and lead him to Africa in search of treasure. He introduces the concept of a Personal Legend™ - something everyone has in life but most people never achieve. The king claims it is your "mission on earth", and you will never be truly satisfied unless you fulfill your Personal Legend™. Before parting ways, the king provides the boy with some additional wisdom,

To realize one’s Personal Legend is a person’s only real obligation. All things are one.
“And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.”

An optimistic perspective indeed - comforting to know that the entire universe will help you along on the way as you work towards your goals. This concept will become the major motif throughout the rest of the novel. Around every corner, Santiago is greeted with a helping hand that allows him to progress closer and closer towards his goal. His only real obstacle throughout the novel is his own self-doubt and trepidation. That's not to say he had no part in his success; when Santiago arrives in Africa he is robbed of all his money, so he then decides to work in a crystal shop at the top of a hill to make his money back. Santiago has many great ideas to increase sales, and despite initial hesitation from the old crystal shop owner, his ideas are all put into practice. Within a year of working there, the shop is selling more than ever and Santiago has made enough money to continue his journey. So although his success is due to his effort and ingenuity in this case, he still does not have to feel failure. In fact, Santiago does not experience any sort of set-back or failure throughout the whole story. This level of fortune and favour makes for an exciting story, but I feel like it is unrealistic and emotionally manipulative towards the reader.

Siddhartha, on the other hand, experiences much failure and misfortune as he progresses towards his goal. Granted, this novel encompasses a much larger time span, almost the entirety of Siddhartha's life, but I still think it's a valid contrast. For many years, Siddhartha abandons his life as an ascetic and becomes obsessed with materialism and carnal pleasures. He becomes a successful merchant who loves making money and gambling, and he also develops a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman. None of these things are inherently bad, but in the context of Siddhartha's desire for spiritual enlightenment, his actions were bringing him farther and farther away from this goal. Siddhartha realizes this one day - he had become a slave to his desires. He had nearly forgotten who he was due to the distractions of his consumption and physical comforts. He posits,

He noticed only that the bright and certain inner voice that once had awoken within him and accompanied him unceasingly in his days of glory had fallen silent.
The world had captured him: voluptuousness, lust, lethargy, and in the end even greed, the vice he’d always thought the most foolish and had despised and scorned above all others. Property, ownership, and riches had captured him in the end. No longer were they just games to him, trifles; they had become chains and burdens. A curious and slippery path had led Siddhartha to his latest and vilest form of dependency: dice playing. [...] That fear—that terrible and oppressive fear he felt while rolling the dice, while worrying over his own high stakes—he loved it. Again and again he sought to renew it, to increase it, to goad it to a higher level of intensity, for only in the grasp of this fear did he still feel something like happiness, something like intoxication, something like exalted life in the midst of his jaded, dull, insipid existence.

So he decides to leave everything behind and journey back where he came from, trying to undo what he had become. He comes across a river he had crossed many years ago and is greeted by the same ferryman who had carried him across the river then. Siddhartha, realizing this ferryman was wiser than he looked, decides to stay with him. Siddhartha learns much from the ferryman, and much from the river as well. The river teaches him of the oneness and infinitude of all things, and how life is also like this,

The river is in all places at once, at its source and where it flows into the sea, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the rapids, in the ocean, in the mountains, everywhere at once, so for the river there is only the present moment and not the shadow of a future [..] And once I learned this I considered my life, and it too was a river, and the boy Siddhartha was separated from the man Siddhartha and the graybeard Siddhartha only by shadows, not by real things. Siddhartha’s previous lives were also not the past, and his death and his return to Brahman not the future. Nothing was, nothing will be; everything is, everything has being and presence.”

Siddhartha understands that overcoming the suffering and hostility of the world is achieved through overcoming time. He learns of the essential balance in all things; for every thing that is true, the exact opposite is also true. He achieves enlightenment after seeing that all that exists is perfect and balanced; the distance between "world and eternity, between suffering and bliss, between evil and good" is only an illusion. Siddhartha finally realizes that his whole life was essential to achieving this understanding, including his time as a boy, as a Samana, and even as a gambling merchant,

The sinner who I am and who you are is a sinner, but one day he will again be Brahman, he will one day reach Nirvana, will be a Buddha—and now behold: This one day is an illusion, it is only an allegory! The sinner is not on his way to the state of Buddhahood, he is not caught up in a process of developing, although our thought cannot imagine things in any other way. No, in this sinner the future Buddha already exists—now, today—all his future is already there. In him, in yourself, in everyone you must worship the future Buddha, the potential Buddha, the hidden Buddha. The world, friend Govinda, is not imperfect, nor is it in the middle of a long path to perfection. No, it is perfect in every moment; every sin already carries forgiveness within it, all little children already carry their aged forms within them, all infants death, all dying men eternal life.

Sure, I totally understand that this all sounds like Buddhist mumbo-jumbo. But taking the lessons out of the context of the story will strip away some of their meaning. Hesse even comments on this apparent inability to transmit wisdom perfectly, a little later on:

Words are not good for the secret meaning; everything always becomes a little bit different the moment one speaks it aloud, a bit falsified, a bit foolish

If I could put it in my own foolish words, I think the main take-away is the importance of acceptance. Acceptance of every aspect of your life as essential to your existence. There are no inherently wrong actions or decisions in the grand scheme of things. Regret of the past can be poisonous, and obsession with the future can also be poisonous. The present is all you can affect. That's what I learned by reading Siddhartha.

I'd say The Alchemist has a more easily digestible ending. Santiago eventually does reach the pyramids, where his prophesied treasure was to be found. Instead of finding it however, he instead learns that the treasure is actually buried underneath a sycamore tree in an old abandoned church back in the hills of Andalusia. This miraculously turns out to be the exact same church that Santiago slept in as a shepherd, and also where he first dreamt of treasure. This ironic twist of fate leaves the reader amazed and delighted as they realize that Santiago was literally sleeping under his treasure the whole time, and that he never had to travel to Africa and go through all he did for it. But of course, the lesson here is that finding the buried treasure was not Santiago's actual destiny, it was the journey itself that defined Santiago's Personal Legend™. Santiago realizes this as well and is quite well-humoured about the whole thing actually. Of course he does go back and get the treasure though, and he also makes the decision to then go to Egypt and be with the woman he fell in love with during his journey. Happy ending.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a happy ending. The Alchemist was an entertaining story and I can see why people would like it. My main gripe with it was the underlying message it conveys. It is meant to be an allegorical story about achieving one's dreams, but I feel like it falls flat on delivering any useful advice. Like I said previously, Santiago experiences little to no actual turmoil or conflict on his way to his treasure, and I felt like the novel was trying to sell this as reality. It is also sprinkled with tons of repetitive phrases and vague concepts like Personal Legend™, good and bad Omens, Language of the World, Soul of the World, and others that makes it feel like more of a self-help guide than an actual story. All in all though, I personally liked Siddhartha much more and would recommend that first for sure.

Maybe it's because I think most people would be better off reading and learning from stories like Siddhartha rather than stories like The Alchemist. I think it would be hard to find a real tangible lesson, one that could apply to seven billion people, in a story about a boy serendipitously finding buried treasure by receiving help from a multitude of strangers, including literally the Sun and God himself. Statistically, not everyone is going to achieve their dreams, no matter what they read. That's why I think instead it may be more beneficial if we thought about the lessons that Hesse is trying to convey in Siddhartha: Materialism can be a drug. Our infatuation with personal success is a biased and narrow-minded perspective. We exist as part of a infinite interconnected system of forces, and understanding your place and context gives you the power to accept it, and I think acceptance is the best tool we have at finding happiness.

Siddhartha
Fiction Scoring
Imagery: 5 / 7
Entertainment: 4 / 7
Writing: 6.5 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: single grain of rice


The Alchemist
Fiction Scoring
Imagery: 3 / 7
Entertainment: 3 / 7
Writing: 4 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: Subway 6-inch meatball sub

highlights: A Mind at Play: How Claude Shannon Invented the Information Age

Modern man lives isolated in his artificial environment, not because the artificial is evil as such, but because of his lack of comprehension of the forces which make it work—of the principles which relate his gadgets to the forces of nature, to the universal order. It is not central heating which makes his existence “unnatural,” but his refusal to take an interest in the principles behind it. By being entirely dependent on science, yet closing his mind to it, he leads the life of an urban barbarian.

- Arthur Koestler (1969). “The Act of Creation” 

A willingness to learn and understand how the world around you works is important, not only because of the personal benefit you gain, but also because it is a sign of respect to those whose ideas and effort built the world around us. I don't mean to say we should strive for complete understanding of every technology that we use in our daily lives, as this is impossible. However, it is not an understatement to say that our modern existence is largely a result of the work of a handful of great minds. I find it enriching to gain some level of understanding behind the ingenious ideas that have propelled us to these great heights of prosperity.

If nothing else, I think the men and women behind these ideas would be grateful that those who benefit from them make the effort to understand their inception. As humans we all want to be remembered and recognized for the impact we've had on the world around us. However, I think it is also common for those responsible for such important accomplishments to yearn for more than just recognition. Fame, wealth, awards and prestige are all fair to expect if you are the individual behind an important breakthrough or invention. This is what makes Claude Shannon's indifference to all those aspects that come with the territory of being such an accomplished scientist so interesting. He had no desire for the spotlight, because he did not solve the problems he did for recognition; he simply was a curious mind that wanted to understand and formulate the underlying patterns of the world around him.

A Mind At Play is a biography of Claude Shannon's life. It was authored by two individuals, Jimmy Soni and Rob Goodman - both of whom have no formal technical background. They were inspired to write the book after learning about Shannon from a friend, and they found it intriguing someone considered one of the founding fathers of today's digital age, and the inventor of the most important theory in communications is largely unknown to the general public. Although his impact is arguably comparable to the likes of Einstein, Tesla, and Von Neumann, he is normally not included in this scientific pantheon. I myself had not heard of him before hearing of this book, so it goes without saying that I was certainly interested after hearing of his accomplishments. As the title suggests, Shannon is most known for ushering in the era of digital communication due to his groundbreaking thesis, A Mathematical Theory of Communication. His theory, commonly referred to as Information Theory, completely revolutionized how scientists and engineers viewed communication.

Claude Shannon's paper accomplished two important things that would eventually revolutionize communications. Firstly, he formalized an abstraction which can be used to describe ANY type of communications medium. And secondly, Shannon devised an ingenious schema (with proofs to support it) that allows for ANY message to be sent without error, no matter how noisy the transmission channel is.

His first accomplishment provided the ability to talk about any transmission medium using the same language. This includes telegraphy, telephony, TV, radio, human speech, and anything which involves the transfer of information from a source to receiver. The features that Shannon decided are the integral components of communication are illustrated in the block diagram below, taken from his original paper:

These components would serve as the base from which Shannon would introduce his new theory of information, and would also become the standard vernacular for all communications in the years to come. 

As part of this abstraction, Shannon needed to rigorously define what was meant by "information", and how to quantify it. This actually proved to be one of his most astounding leaps in ingenuity, because before him it was assumed that the amount of information in a message is tied to the meaning of the message. Shannon showed that it is only based off the encoding with which you use to send it; it is simply the content of the message which determines the amount of information it contained, not how the receiver is to interpret it. This may sound quite obvious to our modern ears, but you should understand that our abundance of information technologies, and their agnostic nature to the type of information they manipulate, has shaped our intuitions much differently than in Claude Shannon's era. In his own words, information is the "resolution of uncertainty".

In other words, sending a letter from a set of 26 possible letters is objectively more information than sending a binary digit (choosing from only 0 or 1). Furthermore, in the context of transmitting English writing, the sending of the letter "Q" provides more information to the receiver in contrast with sending an "S". This is because Q is much less likely to appear in English text than S, so a Q tells the receiver more. To illustrate this better, imagine receiving the following message from someone :

I hid the keys underneath the [S|Q]...

where the final letter is either an S or a Q. If for some reason the end of the message was cut off before you could receive the rest, your chances of finding the hidden keys would be much different depending on what that final letter received was. Since there are far more words which start with the letter S than with the letter Q¹, you would actually have received  more information if the final letter was a Q. I can think of only a handful of things you may find in a house which begin with a Q (Quilt, Qur'an, Quiche), but I definitely would not want to begin checking underneath everything in my house that begins with an S for the keys. 

Similarly, say the letter was a Q but you actually received one more letter of the word after that - would you be able to guess what it is? Of course you would because nearly every occurrence of the letter Q in the English language is followed by a "U". Because of its predictability, it is also fair to say that the "U" carries very little information with it. These patterns of redundancy in English are very common, so much so that Shannon once estimated that as much as 80% of all English text on earth could be stripped away without us losing any information! As I will explain shortly however, in the communications realm this redundancy serves an important purpose.

With the basic components of communication as well as a new, more useful definition of information at his disposal, Claude Shannon could now solve two important problems that has plagued the transmission of information up until then. The first was, how do you transmit information through a limited bandwidth channel in the most efficient way possible. The advantage of knowing such a solution I believe are quite obvious, especially for Shannon's employer at the time and the owner of the largest telephone infrastructure network in America, Bell. The second problem he solved was how can you ensure a message will be received accurately over a noisy channel, essentially limiting the rate of error to be as arbitrarily low as desired. This was an enormous achievement in the field of communications, providing accuracy to noisy channels such as Trans-Atlantic undersea cables which had not had much success up until that point, or even the millions of kilometres of open space which separate Earth and a voyaging spacecraft.

As it turns out, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Or more directly, you can't have perfectly efficient information transfer without (the risk of) errors too. As it is with most technologies, desirable qualities usually come at a trade-off. It is not a mutually exclusive trade-off however, as a transmission encoding can still utilize Shannon's theorems and see gains in both efficiency (or "speed") and accuracy.

I won't get into the technical details in this review, mostly because I don't know them, and I'm also on a subway right now so I can't look them up. But I'll explain what I understand of these ideas from a high-level.

To achieve the most efficient transfer of information possible,  you must first understand the domain of information that you want to transfer, and how you want to represent that information in a finite set of symbols. You must then determine how often the symbols appear on average, which is the tricky part as information transfer is a stochastic process, which means it is partly random and partly deterministic. The better you can predict these frequencies, the better your encoding scheme will be. 

For example, if you want to develop an encoding for English text, your set of symbols would consist of the alphabet, plus maybe digits and punctuation too. The next question you ask is how do I transform these symbols into units of information (most likely sequences of bits) for transfer over a physical channel. Well you may start with letter frequencies and determine that you should use the least amount of bits to represent an "E" and more bits to represent rarer letters like "Q". This will guarantee better transmission rates. The exact procedure for making these codes was first proposed by Shannon in his paper, and later improved by Robert Fano and then David Huffman.

The hard part is optimizing your encoding scheme, because as you optimize it more and more you begin a trade-off with error likelihood. As an example, suppose you notice that even certain words appear far more often than the rare letters, like "the" or "to" - so you may consider assigning them shorter bit sequences than those rare letters, essentially expanding your set of symbols which you use to represent the information. What could be wrong with that? 

Well,  nothing is wrong with that technically. If you extend this idea further, there is essentially nothing wrong with using single symbols to represent entire sentences and paragraphs! If you can identify these common patterns and assign them unique encodings which are shorter than their corresponding encodings would have been with our original letter symbols, you will certainly become more efficient.

The problem arises when you consider that encodings composed of discrete sequences of information units (think "bits"), and there is only a finite domain of possible permutations of these units. So as you begin to utilize this domain more the symbol encodings begin to back onto one another, or rather they become quite similar to each other perhaps only differing by a single bit. At this point your über efficient encoding scheme is now vulnerable to errors! 

Every physical transmission channel is subject to some amount of noise. If you are in a loud room speaking right beside a friend, your conversation is still (literally) subject to noise and the chance of a misunderstanding is definitely non-zero. Some channels are inherently noisier than others, but what is a tolerable error rate is based on the application and context. How do you reduce it though? The answer is you get rid of those silly encodings for entire sentences and you instead move in the opposite direction, you add bits to your encodings! 

Figuring out what sort of encodings reduce error is where mathematical rigor is really going to help the most. As far as I know, there are two main strategies, the first being simple redundancy. Repeating yourself will inherently protect your information from failing due to single transient errors, and that shouldn't be too hard to grasp. The second strategy involves how you actually design your encoding scheme and how much "distance" you have between different codes. Some really smart people took Shannon's ideas and formalized this strategy, in particular another Bell Labs alumnus, Richard Hamming, invented a generalized family of linear-error detecting and correcting codes called Hamming codes. These sorts of codes can be "resistant" to a certain amount of error; they can be single-error tolerant, double-error tolerant etc.

And that's basically it - as far as my understanding of Shannon's information theory goes. I think the really important consequence of Shannon's thesis was that he showed everything can be digitized, every communication, every type of information.  This was a groundbreaking revolution in what was still largely an analog world at that time. He laid the first stone in what would eventually become the vast digital landscape we find ourselves in today.

How about the book? I normally write about the book but I think I've mostly tried to explain information theory so far, which I'm hoping turned out somewhat coherent. Anyways, I found A Mind At Play to be a pretty interesting read. I think that's largely in part due to my interest in the subject as well as the type of person Claude Shannon was. I enjoy reading about extraordinary individuals and their personalities. I found a lot to admire about Shannon, especially his indifference to fame and wealth. By all accounts it seems like Shannon was driven by his curiosity in how things work; he couldn't live with a problem and not knowing the solution. That's the sort of motivation I aspire to attain and maintain throughout life. Shannon's other defining characteristic was his playful nature and his fascination with toys and games. What was remarkable was when these two qualities intersected. Shannon would do things like write papers and build machines to explore the games he was interested in. I actually decided to build a chess engine after reading his 1965 paper about how one would go about programming one, long before it was possible to do so. His explanation seemed so clear and simple that I decided to give it a try. 

The book itself wasn't the greatest non-fiction I've ever read, nor even the best biography I've ever read. I enjoyed Steve Jobs biography more, I think it did a better job of exploring his character. A Mind At Play felt a little too encyclopedic at times, maybe spending too much time on details that don't tell you anything new about Claude Shannon. This might be because it is a postmortem biography, and most of Shannon's life occurred half a century ago. Overall though, the book kept me entertained and engaged throughout its entirety. If you are interested in technology at all I'd definitely recommend it.

In keeping with tradition for my non-fiction reviews, I'll highlight a few of my favourite quotes.

From the God’s-eye view, there is a law of tides; from our earthbound view, only some petty local ordinances.

Nice way of expressing the idea of perfect information and the deterministic nature of the universe. I think of the complexity of forces and interactions which govern the movement of the oceans, and how it would be impossible to model it perfectly, yet we see the microscopic results of these enormous forces in every wave and small ripple that rolls towards shore. The "law of tides" are the aggregate effects of every law of physics acting on the particles of water at all times, something we can know in totality, yet something we can approximate with our "local ordinances". Our laws cannot predict the motion of each wave rolling in to every beach on earth, yet their existence is proof of their obedience to all these forces acting upon them.

At the same time, Bush’s influence in the engineering world won Shannon’s thesis the unfortunately named Alfred Noble Prize (unfortunately named, because this is the point at which every writer mentioning it points out that it has no relation to Alfred Nobel’s much more famous prize).

This is hilarious.

I’m a machine and you’re a machine, and we both think, don’t we?

Asked in 1989 whether he thought machines could "think," Shannon replied with the question above. Shannon's stance towards artificial intelligence seemed to shift throughout the years, from optimism to a sort of indifferent misanthropic view. He stated that if machines were meant to take over control of humanity, then they should, and he even listed some of a machines better nature's which would make them better leaders than us. Besides this slightly depressing take on the future of AI, it is still interesting to note that one of the founding fathers of our digital age was very certain of not just the possibility, but also the eventuality of the existence of thinking machines. He held this mindset over half a century ago no less.

  Years earlier, Shannon had set his mind to the question of this funeral—and imagined something very different. For him, it was an occasion that called for humor, not grief. In a rough sketch, he outlined a grand procession, a Macy’s–style parade to amuse and delight, and to sum up the life of Claude Shannon. The clarinetist Pete Fountain would lead the way, jazz combo in tow. Next in line: six unicycling pallbearers, somehow balancing Shannon’s coffin (labeled in the sketch as “6 unicyclists/1 loved one”). Behind them would come the “Grieving Widow,” then a juggling octet and a “juggling octopedal machine.” Next would be three black chess pieces bearing $100 bills and “3 rich men from the West”—California tech investors—following the money. They would march in front of a “Chess Float,” atop which British chess master David Levy would square off in a live match against a computer. Scientists and mathematicians, “4 cats trained by Skinner methods,” the “mouse group,” a phalanx of joggers, and a 417-instrument band would bring up the rear.
This proved impractical. And his family, understandably, preferred a tamer memorial. Shannon was laid to rest in Cambridge, along the Begonia Path in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

Reading about Shannon's wishes for his funeral procession shows the type of he was, in a weird ironic way. Shannon was consistently averse to any sort of extravagence and celebrity when it came to him and his work. Shannon had no desire for fame and adulation from anyone for what he accomplished, even though he most certainly deserved it. Which is why it is hilarious to me that he desired the most over-the-top pompous circus of performances to accompany funeral procession. His written explanation was that he wanted the occasion to call for "humour", not grief, and that essentially he just wanted everyone to have a good time. I think this is probably partially true, but I also think Shannon had a dark humour, and deep-down he understood the needless overtures and traditions we use to remove ourselves from our mortality, but that this is also very much an expression of our human nature. We shy away from death and treat funerals with such delicacy that I think Shannon sought to "break the ice" with regards to his own funeral anyways with a loud, colourful display of outrageous proportions.

Non-Fiction Scoring

Value: 5 / 7

Interest: 4 / 7

Writing: 3 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: Montreal-style bagel with cream cheese and smoked salmon

¹http://funbutlearn.com/2012/06/which-english-letter-has-maximum-words.html

thoughts: The Pale King

"How odd I can have all this inside me, and to you it’s just words."

- The Pale King p. 758

The Pale King was a posthumously released novel and the last work to be published under David Foster Wallace's name. It was released in 2011, 3 years after Wallace committed suicide in the garage of his home in Southern California. The novel was technically unfinished at the time of his death, so its compilation, organization, and editing were the efforts of Wallace's long-time friend and editor at Little Brown Books, Michael Pietsch. Pietsch was encouraged to complete the novel from members of Wallace's family, including his wife, Karen Green. Even though The Pale King can't really be considered a "competed" novel in relation to the rest of Wallace's bibliography, I think it is still a blessing that this writing was shared with the world. Better that the writing became an accessible text for all his fans to enjoy, as opposed to it being sent to a university or archive somewhere. Wallace was working on this novel for close to 10 years apparently, so I find think it is important that his efforts were not wasted. It seems like the most fitting tribute to a prolific author would be to publish whatever writing they left behind. Truly great writers do not come around often, and as such their body of work is valued greatly.

David Foster Wallace is a member of this class of great writers. His writing has been highly praised and regarded as progressive literature, in both his reader base as well as in the literary community as a whole. His body of work is considered some of the best post-modern fiction of the last century, and his magnum opus, Infinite Jest, is touted as one of the greatest novels of all time. His work has inspired and enriched the lives of many people, and I believe he had much more to share with the world. One listen to his 2005 Kenyon College commencement speech makes it clear that his words had the power to reveal the beauty and abundance of life around us, while also providing a sense of clarity to our place within it.

Wallace suffered from depression for much of his adult life, and it is likely he battled with addiction and substance abuse at times as well. These are prevalent themes in many of his stories; it seems like Wallace wrote these traits into the characters he created as a way of dealing with his own feelings (and in the process providing a sense of therapy for readers who are afflicted by similar troubles).

My prior relationship with DFW's work - I read Infinite Jest in 2015, and it took me nearly the whole year to complete it. I decided to read it due to its reputation mostly, I can't say I am much of a contemporary fiction aficionado in general. Reading Infinite Jest was a very unique personal experience; it took me awhile to understand the direction and purpose of the novel, if I can even call it that. Wallace's writing is as important to the novel as the story itself, and at times it feels like the story's plot is almost a subterranean layer, meant to be impressed upon rather than spelled out for the reader. Not that the plot may matter much anyways, Wallace was not one to ruin a good story for the sake of including a tidy, satisfactory ending. Which is another reason why it is not too important that The Pale King wasn't completely finished, an ending is not a requirement in Wallace's writing.

Truthfully, I think Wallace's novels are an example of the idiom "it's about the journey; not the destination", because what you should appreciate while reading is the clever prose, dark humour, and expressive imagery that is woven into every sentence and page he has written.
In addition, I think what makes DFW's work so highly regarded amongst literary circles is that he respects the readers intelligence. He does not waste space spoon-feeding the reader obvious plot points and character motivations that could instead be learned tangentially. His array of unique syntactical flourishes are also provocative and memorable; he is effective at taking reader's of all skill levels out of their comfort zone. It definitely requires focus, but the trade-off in the end is a more interesting and immersive reading experience, in my opinion.

On the other hand, this sort of rationalization may just play into a reader's ego and make them feel more intelligent that they can decipher this unconventional writing style, which then creates a motivation to ensure the novel receives praise and is highly regarded by others so that the reader may feel they have superior literary taste as well as the sense that they belong to an exclusive group that actually can understand and appreciate the book. 

Or maybe that's just being cynical.

...I do totally feel all those feelings though. 

Anyways, I felt like The Pale King was a bit more approachable than Infinite Jest. I feel like the prose was less experimental than IJ and more coherent in certain ways. But from a macro level, it was similar structurally and definitely still very Wallace-esque. By that I mean there isn't really a linear narrative to the story; most chapters are essentially isolated from each other and should really be treated as short vignettes. This might be in part due to the fact that the book was never finished, so Michael Pietsch had to work with the drafts and notes that were available and try to construct a coherent a story as possible. So there is always the possibility that Wallace had intended to fill in a lot of the gaps in the story (or maybe even pare off some of the more sprawling, laborious tangents eventually) . We will may never know, but if this excerpt from the forward written by Pietsch is any indication, it seems like many gaps are there by design:

"Some notes among David’s manuscript pages suggest that he did not intend for the novel to have a plot substantially beyond the chapters here. One note says the novel is “a series of setups for things to happen but nothing ever happens.” Another points out that there are three “high-end players… but we never see them, only their aides and advance men.” Still another suggests that throughout the novel “something big threatens to happen but doesn’t actually happen.” These lines could support a contention that the novel’s apparent incompleteness is in fact intentional."

Its somewhat relieving to know that the buildup and indicators in the last few chapters that some dramatic event was set to occur in real-time in the story may not have actually resolved even if Wallace had competed the novel.

What was the purpose of this story? What was Wallace trying to convey through The Pale King? Pietsch's remarks on this subject from the forward:

Even unfinished, it is a brilliant work, an exploration of some of life’s deepest challenges, and an enterprise of extraordinary artistic daring. David set out to write a novel about some of the hardest subjects in the world—sadness and boredom—and to make that exploration nothing less than dramatic, funny, and deeply moving.

It is evident after reading The Pale King that the recurring themes throughout the novel were boredom, monotony, loneliness, focus, and discipline - how these feelings and concepts relate to each other and the various forms they take within our lives.
I can't say confidently that I found a coherent idea or "lesson" to extract from the story that relates to those main themes. I don't know if that's because Wallace never finished it, or if I just have not realized it. However I found many interesting insights into the nature of these feeling when reading certain chapters. But that's not to say that Wallace only wrote about dullness and boredom, there is a wide range of topics, voices, and themes explored in the 30 chapters that make up The Pale King. Some of these chapters I'd consider amongst the best writing I've ever read.

My favorite chapter, or "vignette", in the whole book was chapter 6, and like a lot of the chapters it really had no connection to the rest of the story except for one character from the chapter reappearing later. The chapter describes an early morning scene at a park somewhere. A young man and woman sit on a picnic table beside a pond, not talking but it is made clear that there is tension between them, and something important has either happened, or is going to happen.

The chapter is told from the perspective of Lane Dean Jr., the young man, in a third person kind of way which Wikipedia tells me is called Limited Third-Person Subjective narration. Lane Dean, the subject, is feeling subjectively anxious, and he is also experiencing some deep internal conflict, which is why he is barely speaking. He is so conflicted that he cannot even look at the young woman; Wallace spends much of the time describing the scenery at the park to evoke a distracted feeling in the reader, analogous to how Lane Dean is trying to distract himself away from the focal point of the scene.

The subject of this conversation is gradually revealed (again, implicitly) throughout the chapter. I believe Wallace was especially careful in writing it this way to make you feel the same aversion to the topic that the two characters are feeling. A sort of elephant-in-the-room dynamic. Although the word abortion is not used once in the whole chapter, you begin to realize this is the topic of conversation as Wallace remarks:

One thing Lane Dean did was reassure her again that he’d go with her and be there with her. It was one of the few safe or decent things he could really say. [...] Where he’d be was the waiting room, she said. That he’d be thinking about her and feeling bad for her, she knew, but he couldn’t be in there with her.

 But this is really the most direct that the chapter gets in terms of the details of the situation. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to Lane Dean's thoughts and struggles.

What I loved about this chapter, and in general what makes Wallace such a great writer, is how he immerses you into a complex situation in a way that reveals the nuances and details in such vivid and emotional language. The way he describes the internal conflicts of Lane Dean invites you to feel the emotional weight of the potential actions and decisions that he considers. It is very moving writing; I feel I learned something after reading it.

The crux of the issue is the fact that both of them, Lane Dean Jr. and his girlfriend Sheri Fisher,  are Christians, and they are also only high-school seniors. What we learn from context is that they have both known about the pregnancy for some time, and that they had reached a previous consensus for Sheri to receive an abortion, which is scheduled for later that day. However, Sheri showed up at his home early that morning because she wanted to talk, and this talk is the scene which is presented to the reader.

Lane Dean's struggle stems from the incongruity between his desires and his moral beliefs. The first conflict is with his faith, of which Wallace does not treat as some simple character trait or stereotype. Wallace's paints Lane Dean's relationship with his religion in a more realistic way I felt, his faith is a dynamic part of him, and it is clear that this moment will affect his future stance towards his religion just as its currently affecting his decision. He feels he finally understands the reason why the act that caused the pregnancy is a sin (out of wedlock). He says:

"He so fervently wished it never happened. He felt like he knew now why it was a true sin and not just a leftover rule from past society. He felt like he had been brought low by it and humbled and now did understand and believe that the rules were there for a reason. That the rules were concerned with him personally, as an individual. He’d promised God he had learned his lesson. But what if that, too, was a hollow promise, from a hypocrite who repented only after, who promised submission but really only wanted a reprieve? He might not even know his own heart or be able to read and know himself. He kept thinking also of 1 Timothy 6 and the hypocrite therein who disputeth over words. He felt a terrible inner resistance but could not feel what it was it so resisted. This was the truth."

He is remorseful, yet feels like he cannot reconcile his feelings and pull apart what he is actually guilty about.

His second conflict is his feelings towards Sheri; he has never told her he loves her, yet he has also never told her he doesn't love her. He knows that saying either will be the decision-maker for her, and he does not want to be the "salesman of it". Anything he says will affect her, which is why he is so stricken and afraid to say anything substantial. I really loved Wallace's writing here - he captured something very poignant about relationships that I had not considered before. 

The scene described in chapter 6 didn't really fit into, or reinforce, any of the main themes of the book directly. This was not about boredom or loneliness, it was about battling internal conflicts and overcoming yourself. Although in a way, the decision Dean made was one that would lead him down a path of tedium and monotony that would eventually land him a career at the IRS to support his young family, a decision which definitely has parallels in other chapters.

The book is structured as a series of independent character arcs which serve to illuminate how these characters all came to begin work at the IRS Regional Examination Center in Peoria, Illinois on the same day in 1985. I think the point was to emphasize the different paths and motivations that all led these individuals deciding to cosign themselves to this type of career. A career marked by excruciatingly dull paperwork combined with constant boredom. Boredom so pervasive it becomes a existential threat, so intense that those that work at the IRS are prone to hallucinations and visions of ghosts. This was one point I believe Wallace was trying to make: that accepting tedium and boredom as a way of life is not as simple as a personality trait. How one perceives and rationalizes the acceptance of these feelings in their daily life can vary greatly. Some may view them as akin to nothing less than torture, while others may find comfort or take pride in the ability to carry out tedious, repetitive tasks every day.  During a story of a man's path of finding purpose during his early adulthood revolved around an advanced accounting lecture he accidentally sat in on one day. The lecture resulted in an almost religious-type epiphany for him, the words and mannerisms of the professor were so impressive that this became a turning moment in his life, in which he later joins the IRS. The lecturer descries the accounting profession as a sort of heroic self-sacrifice:

"Gentlemen, here is a truth: Enduring tedium over real time in a confined space is what real courage is. Such endurance is, as it happens, the distillate of what is, today, in this world neither I nor you have made, heroism [...] actual heroism receives no ovation, entertains no one. No one queues up to see it. No one is interested."

I feel like this definition of heroism could be used to describe David Foster Wallace deciding to write a novel about the tax profession. Tackling a a very intimate, personal topic that everyone experiences, but one that I don't think most people would choose to read a novel on. In the end though, I was thoroughly engrossed while reading this novel, which I think is a true testament to Wallace's ability to extract something important from almost any topic. He observed the world in a much different way than most of us - and we are lucky to get to experience this perspective through his writing.


Fiction Scoring
Imagery: 6 / 7
Entertainment: 3 / 7
Writing: 6.5 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: bologna on sliced white bread

highlights: The Better Angels Of Our Nature

It can be quite difficult to stay focused while reading a relatively long book, especially with regards to maintaining the coherence of the story, or the overall thesis in the case of non-fiction. The challenge is obviously heightened when reading less frequently. When I read infinite jest, which clocks in at 1,079 pages, it took me close to 6 months at the rate I was reading. This definitely affected my overall experience with the novel, which although was still positive, I feel like I lost sight of the overarching thematic elements at times. It feels like at some point you are just trying to consume pages to get you closer to completion, without really appreciating or thinking about what you are reading. This sort of reading is not how I want to enjoy books, so I'm glad I have carved out more time in my day for reading. I can more consistently progress through a novel and I feel like I am not rushing to finish as much as possible in each "session". This is why reading The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which is not a short story by any means, felt like a richer experience for me.

The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which henceforth I will refer to as "Better Angels", is a non-fiction book by Steven Pinker which explores the history of violence in humanity. It is certainly an expansive topic, with a multi-faceted and complex lineage. Pinker certainly does a fair amount of exploration over the course of 90X pages; the bulk of the book is a fairly chronological look at the role of violence and how it's changed throughout human history. Pinker makes stops along the way to investigate significant changes in society, technology, or psychology that he correlates with reductions in violence. He also attempts to define and describe the overall forces and processes which our human nature has been shaped by. And finally, Pinker examines what he believes are the "better angels of our nature" - unique features of the human condition which propel us towards peaceful benevolence.

All in all, I feel like Better Angels was informative, introspective, and safe from overreaching causal conclusions about violence in humans. I think Pinker presents a lot of data to the reader, yet does a fair job at not forcing too many conclusions on the reader. He certainly spends time discussing many possible relationships, but I felt like the language he uses is careful and he often presents counter-arguments too many ideas.

I have taken the time to read a critical review of Better Angels, because I think different perspectives are important on topics such as this. The author, Edward S. Herman, essentially posits that Pinker's work is apologist propaganda for Western (specifically American) violence and the military-industrial complex it's built on. One of his main criticisms is Pinker's frequent use of per-capita statistics to justify falling rates of violence, which Herman describes as "vague and misleading". I did not agree with much of what Herman wrote, mostly because I feel it was written with aggressive and condescending language   in order to coerce the reader into believing Herman's objections; on their own I don't think his arguments held much weight. Additionally, Herman is the author of various nightmare-inducing bedtime stories such as "The Terrorism Industry" and "The Politics of Genocide". To me, it seems like someone who may have a vested interest in having a thesis like "we are living in the most peaceful age in the history of humanity" proven wrong.

I feel like I've written quite a bit already, but with a book of this length I think I will benefit from writing a longer piece on it. As with all non-fiction reviews I've done so far, I've decided to just highlight some excerpts from the book I found interesting, thought-provoking, or just humorous, and talk briefly about them. Hence why this is called the "highlights" series. Without further ado...

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. With a world population of exactly four, that works out to a homicide rate of 25 percent, which is about a thousand times higher than the equivalent rates in Western countries today.

The first chapter of Better Angels  starts the examination of human history by looking at religious texts, especially the Bible. I wouldn't necessarily call it a scathing review, since Pinker is essentially just listing Bible passages that concern violence (of which there are numerous)  - it's pretty unfiltered however. There are undoubtedly some quite gruesome and horrific events described in the Holy Bible, that much I learned.

Despite the voracious subject matter, I think it's one of the more light-hearted chapters in the book, example being the passage describing Genesis above. I think because Pinker, along with most people, understand at this point that the Bible is very hyperbolic, and may not be the most accurate historic text to draw conclusions from.

 Institutionalized torture in Christendom was not just an unthinking habit; it had a moral rationale. If you really believe that failing to accept Jesus as one’s savior is a ticket to fiery damnation, then torturing a person until he acknowledges this truth is doing him the biggest favor of his life: better a few hours now than an eternity later.

This is from one of the following chapters, which was still mostly about religion, but from later years where one can look at the role religion played in society. The short answer is really that society WAS religion for most of modern history. Religion influenced every aspect of one's life, from government to dietary habits.  

Due to this tight integration of religion and life, people were much more invested in their particular faith as well as it's proliferation and long-term success. I also believe this is because humans in this period still held onto a stronger form of tribal mentality, which discouraged individualism and dissenting opinions. 

Thus, I found the quote above quite interesting in that it rationalizes torture performed in the name of religion, which to me always seemed hypocritical. But it really is a perfectly rational explanation, if you accept the premise of eternal happiness in heaven.

 

In his book The Selfish Gene, which explained the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology with genetics and game theory, Richard Dawkins tried to pull his readers out of their unreflective familiarity with the living world. He asked them to imagine animals as “survival machines” designed by their genes (the only entities that are faithfully propagated over the course of evolution), and then to consider how those survival machines would evolve.

Shoutout to Dawkins. I read The Selfish Gene last year and I found it extremely fascinating. Albeit it is easy to be overcome with feelings of existential nihilism while reading it. As pointed out in the passage above, Dawkins is essentially saying that we are merely subservient vessels designed with the sole purpose of propagating our genes through to the next generation. Like mushy organic luxury cars for DNA designed over the course of millions of years. Kinda sucks to think that we are only here to procreate for our gene's benefit. At least procreation feels good I guess.

It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct. - Sigmund Freud

So this is a quote of a quote, but I still liked it. I guess Pinker did too.  It's a nice succinct idea that expresses the apparent paradox of civilization. Why do we all choose acquiesce to this construct which seems to restrict our freedoms and autonomy? 

I mean, if you think about it for a little while it's easy to come up with a laundry list of reasons why organized society has made all our lives better. Free health care is pretty great - I wonder if Freud ever thought about the benefits of free health care.

If our first nature consists of the evolved motives that govern life in a state of nature, and our second nature consists of the ingrained habits of a civilized society, then our third nature consists of a conscious reflection on these habits, in which we evaluate which aspects of a culture’s norms are worth adhering to and which have outlived their usefulness. Centuries ago our ancestors may have had to squelch all signs of spontaneity and individuality in order to civilize themselves, but now that norms of nonviolence are entrenched, we can let up on particular inhibitions that may be obsolete.

This builds upon the idea Freud proposed in the previous highlight -  that society is a trade-off between our natural instincts and our collective quality of life. In similar words, Pinker asserts here that if our first nature is human instincts, then our second nature is the behaviors we've developed in order to coexist in a civilized society (a renunciation of our "first" instincts). 

Shifting forward into our modern day post-war society, Pinker believes we've now reached a third level, or abstraction, of our natural instincts. We have enough collective experience with these societal norms that we are now looking inwardly at our accepted behaviors and reflecting on their necessity. In a way, this is a form of feedback that is now allowing greater individualism and freedom of expression. 

I think that this is a fundamental and inevitable progression that is inherent to any human activity or skill that is practiced over many generations. Just as the son of the baker has a desire to build on the knowledge passed down to him, and to adapt and change to the environment around him -  all humans have a desire for continual improvement, and this includes what should be considered acceptable conduct within one's society or culture. 

I believe education is the core catalyst to this change and progression. Education teaches the self to ask "why", and to be a critical thinker. Societal norms should only be norms if they are beneficial to all, when adhered to by all. Otherwise, if their benefits are exclusive or if they impinge on the freedom of others, they have no place in a tolerant and educated society.

It began with a conceptual revolution. Instead of taking government for granted as an organic part of the society, or as the local franchise of God’s rule over his kingdom, people began to think of a government as a gadget—a piece of technology invented by humans for the purpose of enhancing their collective welfare. Of course, governments had never been deliberately invented, and they had been in place long before history was recorded, so this way of thinking required a considerable leap of the imagination. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, and Rousseau, and later Jefferson, Hamilton, James Madison, and John Adams, fantasized about what life was like in a state of nature, and played out thought experiments about what a group of rational actors would come up with to better their lives.

Again, this is a direct example of looking at the state of things and asking "why". Even if the creation of structured government was an organic change which had no forethought or planning, it does not mean it is infallible or unchangeable.

As Mueller notes, “No longer was it possible simply and honestly to proclaim like Julius Caesar, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’ Gradually this was changed to ‘I came, I saw, he attacked me while I was just standing there looking, I won.’ This might be seen as progress.”

This quote comes from a discussion of the changing perception of war in society, as well as the decline of certain related values like honour and glory. The romanticization of war had given way to the more realistic view that war was wholly destructive to all parties involved, win or lose.

The political scientist John Mueller summarized this new pacifist attitude using an alteration of the famous quote by Julius Caesar ("Veni, Vidi, Vici"). I found it funny.

go to the mountains and grow beards, or do nothing and stay a modern country.

I loved this quote. This is paraphrased from an interview with former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili after Georgia lost a violent five-day war to Russia in 2008 over control of two small territories along their shared border. It is the choice he made when deciding whether to organize an insurgency against the Russian occupation. In Saakashvili's eyes, the idea of organizing a costly military effort would have been a "tremendous national burden". However choosing to abstain would be a vote for the benefits of modernism in Europe. 

Pinker states that this is an example of the common choice governments in the developing world have to make.

The cognitive psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has estimated that in the year after the 9/11 attacks, 1,500 Americans died in car accidents because they chose to drive rather than fly to their destinations out of fear of dying in a hijacked or sabotaged plane, unaware that the risk of death in a plane flight from Boston to Los Angeles is the same as the risk of death in a car trip of twelve miles.

The payoff was not lost on Osama bin Laden, who gloated that “America is full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east,” and that the $500,000 he spent on the 9/11 attacks cost the country more than half a trillion dollars in economic losses in the immediate aftermath.

I found both of these passages interesting. After reading Thinking Fast and Slow, I learned that terrorism is effective because of a cognitive bias called "denominator neglect". Denominator neglect is the effect of weighing a low-probability event with a higher likelihood than it deserves - especially when the event involves a negative outcome, like being a casualty of a terrorist attack. Humans are not at dealing with extremely small probability events, and the presence of at least one example of an event in our mind will be given more attention in our decision making process than it may deserve.
This bias is amplified by a related effect called the "exposure effect" Our over-exposure to modern news and current-events has led to an inflation of the likelihood of extremely rare events like that of 9/11. The media circus that followed the events of 9/11 triggered an exaggerated response from both the actions of people and the decisions of government.
Avoiding flying and deciding to drive to your destination, which is statistically much more dangerous, is an example of the consequences of these effects.

The big marshals stood her on the curb and a jangle of jeering shrieks went up from behind the barricades. The little girl did not look at the howling crowd, but from the side the whites of her eyes showed like those of a frightened fawn. The men turned her around like a doll and then the strange procession moved up the broad walk toward the school, and the child was even more a mite because the men were so big. Then the girl made a curious hop, and I think I know what it was. I think in her whole life she had not gone ten steps without skipping, but now in the middle of her first step, the weight bore her down and her little round feet took measured, reluctant steps between the tall guards.

This is a description of Ruby Nell Bridges's first day of school. Bridges was the among the first four African-American children to attend a previously all-white school in Louisiana during the desegregation crisis of 1960.

I found it absolutely jarring when I thought about it. The idea that grown men and women would be so against the concept of black and white  children from attending the same school that they would take the time out of their day to come protest and threaten this little girl from entering the school. And not only that, parents unenrolled their children from the school, all teachers except one refused to teach Bridges all year, her father lost his job, her grandparents were stripped of their cropland, one woman threatened to poison the 7-year-old Bridges EVERY DAY on her way to school. Her safety was so much of a concern that four U.S grand marshals accompanied Bridges to school every day during her first year there.

I think of the scene outside that school's entrance that morning in 1960 and it seems so surreal. These men and women held such strong racist beliefs that they chose to become part of this nightnare- inducing scene for the smallest ,most innocent young girl, all because of her skin colour. We are truly capable of some heinous behaviour, especially when it is backed by a group of like-minded people.

Religious intolerance has been in steady decline as well. In 1924, 91 percent of the students in a middle-American high school agreed with the statement “Christianity is the one true religion and all peoples should be converted to it.” By 1980, only 38 percent agreed. In 1996, 62 percent of Protestants and 74 percent of Catholics agreed with the statement “All religions are equally good”—an opinion that would have baffled their ancestors a generation before, to say nothing of those in the 16th century.

In a similar vein to racism, religious intolerance has been perhaps the most violent of all prejudices and the greatest motivator behind both individual and group atrocities in all of history. As the excerpt above asserts, religious intolerance has fortunately been in decline over the past several decades. 

I find the final statistic the most intruiging, and also relieving personally. The fact that a good majority of both Protestants and Catholics agreed with the statement that "all religions are equally good" is a huge shift in mentality. It gives me greater hope that religion will be able to be more successfully integrated into post-modern society in the years to come. This sort of tolerance is absolutely needed if freedom of religion is truly going to be a virtue we want to uphold as a society. 

It is no small feat that this gradual change has started to occur at all, if you think about it. A religion's existence is dependent on the unshaking belief, or faith, it's followers put into its core values and theology. To accept that the theology of another religion is equally "good" is an admittance of one's own fallibility, and the acceptance that they may be wrong. 

I'm not sure exactly how a mentality like this has affected those who have shifted to this view, in terms of their relationship with their faith. I am not religious myself, so I have no direct experience to base an opinion on. Either way, my initial feeling is that this will be a good thing if this trend continues. Humility, and the acknowledgement that your faith is not more important than anyone elses, may make for a more tolerant and respectful global community. 

As long as your exaggerations are not laughable, your audience cannot afford to ignore your self-assessment altogether, because you have more information about yourself than anyone else does, and you have a built-in incentive not to distort your assessment too much or you would constantly blunder into disasters. It would be better for the species if no one exaggerated, but our brains were not selected for the benefit of the species, and no individual can afford to be the only honest one in a community of selfenhancers.

This comes from an assessment of self-exaggeration when speaking about ones qualities and accomplishments. Pretty much an example of the Lake Wobego LINK effect in that everyone thinks, or at least states publicly, that they are above average. And really, that distinction is the only part of the effect that is interesting to study. 

To state that everyone exaggerates to some extent when discussing one's qualities, skills, or accomplishments should come as no great surprise to most people. I feel it's not constructive to consider the rebuttals from those who assert that they do no such thing, since the point of contention is whether they lie or not...so it leads to some circular arguments.

Nevertheless, I think there is enough statistical evidence, of which a fair amount is presented in Better Angels, to warrant a strong likelihood of this being a fundamental component of the human psyche. With that in mind, the question is really whether we are consciously aware of this, or does our subconscious distort our perception of reality and skew our recollection of past experiences in our favour? 

There were some findings shared in Better Angels from studies that attempted to answer this question. Apparently the findings suggest that people do have an undistorted version of their memories available to them, for when they need to analyze the actual facts of a past experience. It is only when speaking on their involvement in such memories that we see this inflation of their positive qualities. Therefore these findings seem to suggest the former hypothesis, that we are consciously exaggerating for our own benefit.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma has been called one of the great ideas of the 20th century, because it distills the tragedy of social life into such a succinct formula.183 The dilemma arises in any situation in which the best individual payoff is to defect while the partner cooperates, the worst individual payoff is to cooperate while the other defects, the highest total payoff is when both cooperate, and the lowest total payoff is when both defect.

I've now read about the prisoner's dilemma in several books, sometimes cropping up in books I thought would have no relation to the concept at all. But I suppose that's what is interesting about the prisoner's dilemma - it's a condensed version of human nature, or more specifically human interaction. 

So much analysis, and so many conclusions have been drawn from the study of this relatively simple theory. However I think the more interesting and complex version to look at is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, because it more closely models real human interactions. In most scenarios, we do not simply interact with someone once and then never again. This makes the initial conclusion drawn from the one-off prisoner's dilemma invalid, as defection against your partner will be remembered, and therefore you may be held accountable on subsequent "interactions". 

So this concept of statefulness is much more intriguing as you can now ask questions like: "what's the optimal strategy in finite, or indefinite, iterated prisoner's dilemma scenarios?"

The answer is that there are many answers. Analysis and simulation has revealed numerous interesting strategies which are usually given anthropomorphic names to represent the human behaviour that the strategy evokes. Just that fact alone suggests that this concept is much more grounded in reality, as we can literally project human qualities onto the simple sets of rules which define the various strategies. 

The psychologist Paul Rozin has identified a syndrome of acquired tastes he calls benign masochism. These paradoxical pleasures include consuming hot chili peppers, strong cheese, and dry wine, and partaking in extreme experiences like saunas, skydiving, car racing, and rock climbing. All of them are adult tastes, in which a neophyte must overcome a first reaction of pain, disgust, or fear on the way to becoming a connoisseur.

I love a good verbose description for why I enjoy eating spicy foods. "Benign masochism" is a great term and I can't wait to use it in conversation regularly.

In many surveys it turns out that every student, questioned privately, thinks that binge drinking is a terrible idea, but each is convinced that his peers think it’s cool. 

This is absolutely hilarious and it doesn't even need any more context. 

Consider a different scenario. This time you are presented with a choice: you can lose your little finger, or a hundred million Chinese will be killed. Would you sacrifice a hundred million people to save your little finger? Smith predicts, and I agree, that almost no one would select this monstrous option. But why not, Smith asks, given that our empathy for strangers is so much less compelling than our distress at a personal misfortune

I call this the "Chinese Finger Trap Thought Experiement".

Jokes aside, I found this idea pretty enlightening in that it highlights something interesting about human character. Although I did not include the previous paragraph in this excerpt which really makes this intriguing, so I will explain it now:

If you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper (or on your Facebook feed more likely), that a gigantic earthquake struck mainland China and it is estimated that 100 million people have died, you would be pretty shocked. You would talk about it with coworkers regularly for days, or weeks, and you may even be compelled to donate some money toward relief. 

However, you still will go home that night and eat a nice dinner, maybe watch a comedy and then probably have a sound sleep. You get the point, it's not going to impact you personally.

However, if you woke up one morning and accidentally SLICED YOUR PINKY FINGER OFF, and then it fell down a manhole or something and you're never ever going to get it back...that would have a huge impact on your life! You would be very sad, probably in a lot of pain for at least some amount of time, you would have trouble doing a lot of regular things (especially if it was your dominant hand) and all in all it would definitely make some level of impact on the rest of your life.

So that's the context, now re-read the question posed in the excerpt from above, and think about why most people (I sincerely hope most people) would choose to lose their pinky finger to save those millions of people on the other side of the planet that they most likely will never meet.

I mean, yeah it's easy to say "empathy", or that we would expect them to do the same for you etc., but really if you subscribe to any level of belief in Darwinian concepts of natural selection, then this choice really doesn't jive with that theory.

At its core, I think it shows how much our species has matured past the point of survival of the fittest. Our "circle of empathy" has been allowed to expand so wide that we can truly account for the well-being of absolute strangers on the other side of the planet. And this fact was a central thesis of The Better Angels Of Our Nature.

Non-Fiction Scoring

Value: 5 / 7

Interest: 6 / 7

Writing: 4 / 7

If this book was a sandwich it would be a: Turkey Bacon Club