What I've Been Reading: November 2012 to March 2013

Over the past few months I haven't gotten quite as much reading done as I might normally like, in part because I haven't been able to devote all my commuting time to reading like I did in the past. However, I have still managed to read quite a few books in the five months since I last did a post on the subject. Several of these books I thought were excellent and even the ones I had somewhat more mixed opinions about had their share of good points. But though some of these books deserve an in-depth analysis, I have a lot of other things to work on at the moment, so I have limited myself to brief comments on each.

Acacia: The War with the Mein by David Anthony Durham
This was a decent fantasy epic, but not really exceptional. I thought it was much better than the Dark Elf trilogy and it had fairly good characterization (also one of the strong points of Durham’s historical novel on Hannibal of Carthage, which I read a few years ago), but it somehow didn’t feel real much of the time, whereas the best novels, regardless of genre, always do. The story was sufficiently gripping, with at least one surprising plot twist, and I liked how he made use of his knowledge of the conflict between Rome and Carthage to introduce a version of the Roman corvus into the story at one point. But while I enjoyed the book well enough, I probably won’t go out of my way to get the sequel, though I might pick it up if I see it at a bargain price.

Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne
While Jules Verne is often seen as one of the first science fiction authors, and some of his books certainly do belong in the genre, Around the World in Eighty Days is a travel story rather than science fiction. It has the same sort of distinct 19th century feel that a Sherlock Holmes story has, and it moves along at a good pace, keeping the reader’s interest as protagonist Phileas Fogg races around the world on a bet. The descriptions of the various locations Fogg and his servant Passepartout travel through are quite interesting in that some places seem to have changed little since Verne’s day, whereas others are very different (unfortunately, the jungles of India have far less in the way of wildlife than they did even a century ago). As for colonial attitudes, while there are occasional stereotypes, Verne on the whole seems to display a fairly liberal attitude for his time, making a number of critical remarks about the actions of the British in places such as China (of course, criticizing the British may have come somewhat easier for Verne, as he was French himself). Fans of Farrokh Bulsara may note that the Parsis (or Parsees as the name is spelled here) of India are mentioned favorably and one is a major character.

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
This is a classic novel dealing with the difficulties faced by African-Americans in a very racist America in the period following World War II. Ellison’s prose is highly literary without being unreadable. The protagonist, who is never named, is a highly intelligent, well-read young man (unlike the protagonist of his friend Richard Wright's novel Native Son), but despite his great potential, he finds obstacles wherever he turns. It seems that Ellison deliberately put his protagonist into as many different kinds of situations and environments as possible, ranging from the rural South to New York City and from school to factory work to activism, but the only episode that seems slightly incongruous is the electroshock treatment he undergoes in the factory hospital. Overall, the reader comes away with a much greater appreciation of how terrible the problems black Americans had to deal with in those days were.

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
This is an excellent post-apocalyptic novel that is told through the eyes of a character who calls himself Snowman. Parts of it take place in the “present”, that is to say after the disaster – the nature of which is revealed in bits and pieces – and parts of it are Snowman’s reminiscences about the time leading up to the apocalypse, beginning with his childhood, when he was known as Jimmy (it is in these parts that we are introduced to Crake and Oryx). The post-apocalypse parts brought to mind novels like Earth Abides and The Road, while the parts about the pre-disaster society reminded me in some ways of Olivia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. The picture Atwood paints is not very pretty (and it is made even less so when the reader realizes that many of the things she describes actually exist in the real world), but the story is compelling and thought-provoking. Immediately after reading it I bought a used copy of a more recent Atwood novel that apparently shares the same background setting. It will probably be some time before I get around to reading it, but based on this one, I’ll be looking forward to it.

The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells
At first glance this looked it might be a generic fantasy novel, but actually it was very good. Two things in particular set it apart: good characterization and an interesting, very realistic setting (apparently Wells studied anthropology, which may have helped her when it came to world design). The world is not a typical fantasy world; the city is lit by gas lamps and weapons include not only swords but pistols as well. It bears some resemblance to the London of Charles Dickens (though for some reason it also brought to mind Italian cities like Venice), except for the existence of sorcery and fairy beings known as fay (the former plays a very large role in the story, while the latter are mostly background). There are even a pair of characters who bear a little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The plot is complicated but interesting, keeping the reader’s attention through all the twists and turns. While a few elements of the story could be guessed at (for example, it was not hard to predict that Valiarde and Ronsarde would get thrown together in some way), there were also quite a few surprises. The combination of the well-drawn characters and the detailed setting make this one of the most realistic fantasies I’ve read, on par with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Gideon’s Wall, and China Miéville’s novels.

A Case of Conscience by James Blish
An interesting novel about a Jesuit priest who, in his capacity as a biologist, is a member of a team of scientists sent to investigate a world inhabited by intelligent, reptilian aliens. Their society seems perfect, but the protagonist starts to wonder if it’s all a set-up. I had some difficulty with some aspects of the story; for example, two of the other scientists strike me as rather unscientific, not so much in their biases and prejudices, but in their anti-intellectual attitudes. Also, the protagonist seems not to believe in evolution, which seems rather improbable for a biologist (and for all its faults, I don’t think even the Catholic Church denies the reality of evolution). Nevertheless, the philosophical questions the novel poses are interesting, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether the protagonist’s ideas about the aliens are actually correct. As a side note, it was an interesting coincidence that just after I finished this novel, the Catholic Church chose a Jesuit to be Pope, the first ever to hold the position.

Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
In this book, physicist and futurist Michio Kaku makes predictions about developments that will take place in the 21st century in fields such as computers, medicine, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, energy, and space travel, as well as changes that will take place in our concepts of wealth and in our society in general. Not surprisingly, many of the possible future inventions and advances he discusses are amazing, and it will be interesting to find out how many of them we will live to see. My initial impression was that Kaku was perhaps a little too positive, as he seemed to neglect the possible negative consequence of some of the developments he talks about; for instance he doesn’t talk much about the privacy issues that might arise from further advances in computers, and he seems at times to assume that people will make the best possible use of some of the new technologies. However, he does mention a number of negatives, such as why climate change is a serious issue and the major difficulties that we face in the fields of artificial intelligence and space travel, and he does at times point out how negative aspects of human nature may result in misuse of technology (for example in the case of nuclear power). Of course some of his predictions will no doubt turn out to be either too optimistic or too pessimistic. How close to reality his picture of life in 2100 will turn out to be is something that at least some of the children alive today will have a chance to discover.

Hugo Chávez: Champion of the Poor or Megalomaniacal Autocrat?

The death of Hugo Chávez, the long-time president of Venezuela, last week gave rise to many retrospectives on his life and discussions of his legacy. Those two articles from the BBC touch on the widely contrasting views that critics and supporters of Chávez have had over the years. His supporters and followers viewed him as a champion of the poor and downtrodden, as well as one of the few leaders with the backbone to stand up to the mighty United States. His opponents and critics claimed he was a demagogue and a autocrat with tendencies toward megalomania and paranoia, particularly with respect to the US. So which was the truth? While I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about Chávez's record, my own impression, based on what I do know, is that both his supporters and critics were right, at least to some degree.

I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.

Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.

The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.

So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.

For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.