Användarprofil

Pre-code Biggles, as it were, is a weird no-man's-land. Not as annoyingly wholesome as later books would make him - impulsive, nervous, with judgment that's occasionally as poor as you'd expect of a teenager at war. But also served to us in bits and pieces that barely qualify as storytelling, more a serious of unconnected anecdotes that only occasionally treat the subject with the weight it must have had.

No, I don't expect to ever again enjoy these books the way I did at 11. But it's good to know they're still out there.

Torn about this, much like other KSRs I've read. Yes, his vision is incredible. Yes, his ideas are sometimes brilliant. Yes, when he digs into one aspect of this world, it's endlessly fascinating. Yet so often I find myself feeling like I don't get enough of either the macro nor the micro. He's so busy doing philosphy and theory of history that we don't get to sit in the actual storytelling often enough - especially when the history, as far as we can tell, doesn't really change beyond recognition. There's always a Columbus, always a Leonardo, always an Einstein, and KSR's utopianism feels like a teacher's edition a little too often.

And yet, when it is good, it's really good. This is one I imagine will stick in my head. I'll probably recommend it to people. Just with caveats.

I'm told this is Scalzi's magnum opus, and yeah, I can see why. Consistently entertaining and thought-out, both embracing and questioning the usual rah-rah Heinleinisms, with a cast of aliens that crosses Adams with Lovecraft. I'm not sure I'll jump on the sequels anytime soon, but I am kind of curious to see where the story goes from here.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

No, I don't speak Latin, but between English and Spanish (and the Google Translate app) it's fun to see how much I can parse out. Goths isn't the best - and certainly not the most good-natured - Asterix album, but it has a lot of fun with bilingual jokes in any translation, and while I'm not completely sure the Latin translation is entirely consistent ("Pro Iuppiter!" suddenly becomes "Per Iovem!" halfway through) it mostly hits the right beats as far as I can tell. And it does have some really good beat(ing)s.

Omnes insaniunt atque ego caput eorum sum!

Effrenatus est!

So after reading Dickens for the first time, why not follow up with another supposed classic I've never read.

Bukowski is one of those authors I was pretty sure I knew how he would read just from all the times I've seen him compared to others; Hemingway, Waits, Burroughs, Johnson, Cave; booze, violence, dames, self-mythologizing; yada yada. And yeah, he delivers mostly what I expect, though not always in the way I expect. It's hard to deny the sheer force of his writing; you're swept into Buk- sorry, Chinaski's POV and his struggle to... I'm really not quite sure what we're supposed to take away. At one point in my life, I might have loved this tale of self-destruction. Call me a hypocrite, but as alternately engrossing, horriffic and heartbreaking as it is at times, part of me can't help but hope I've moved past admiring people for proudly wearing their assholedom on their sleeve.

3.5/5. ESH. (Except Einar Heckscher. Rarely has a translator been so well suited.)

So, my first proper full-length Dickens. I liked it. It's funny, it's got more bite than I expected it to, and the twist in the last third is very well done (far too many coincidences notwithstanding). I do love what he does with all the characters, and how he uses the first-person POV to keep us both in Pip's perspective and let us see where everything goes wrong. In the end it's all a little too convenient for my taste, but I laugh enough an get invested enough for it to work.

SMG continues to almost tickle all of what I think I want from a book like this, and long stretches of this is probably the best I've read of hers since Signal to Noise - unsurprisingly, since it's largely a similar idea. Movies as magic, amateurs piecing together esoterica, pre-Internet sleuthing being simply a lot of informational dead ends... Yes, there are bits where it drags a bit, and the central relationship is a little repetitive, but I can live with that. I might wish that it'd been a bit sleazier as a book about old horror movies, but I can live with that too. It's not perfect, it's not quite up there with Daughter of Dr Moreau, but it's still a ride that knows which clichés to love and which ones to burn down. Chanting cultists, Carpenter soundtrack and all.

And the moral of the story is, nicking the ear on a cheap piece of tat doesn't make it any more valuable; no matter how many people die for it, it's still full of casual racism.

Think again, Jimmy. You see, the firing pin in your gun was made of, yep, zinc!

I do like these history books that try to capture the history of everything through one particular aspect. Mark Kurlansky's Salt springs to mind. Boyle tries to do the same thing to the moon here, and often succeeds; there are some truly interesting bits here, whether it's her visiting stoneage monuments, tracking selenology through Greeks and renaissance thinkers, or staring in awe at moon rocks.

The trouble is... it's just too damn big. It's THE MOON. You could write five thousand pages on its effects on human mythology, science and culture and barely get past the many times it's been rhymed with June. Trying to jam it all into 250 pages often makes it strained; she has to connect everything just to the moon, nothing is NOT about the moon. It's never not interesting, but maybe they really should have sent a poet.

It’s vital to remember who you really are. It’s very important. It isn’t a good idea to rely on other people or things to do it for you, you see. They always get it wrong.

So out of the five first Discworld books, four are centred around wizards (and exactly who gets to be a wizard). While I'm glad that he kept expanding the lore much further than that, and this book shows why he needed to do that, it also feels a bit like a reboot of Color/Light except with a more focused plot, better worldbuilding and (mostly) better jokes. Also, I'm glad that we address the potential power of the UU this early in the series. What's the point of a wizard? Presumably wisdom has to enter into it. And Rincewind, whatever else he may be in his eternal quest for a long, boring, adventureless life, has more of that in his socks than most people do in their hats.

“If we get a chance,” whispered Rincewind to Nijel, “we run, right?” “Where to?” “From,” said Rincewind, “the important word is from.”

Everyone should run FROM mad powerhungry dictators. When people don't, and in fact get seduced into helping them, the people who want to have to do something about it.

Som någon som jobbar inom offentlig sektor, och har sett hur beslut om ”digitalisering” fattas av chefer som år 2024 behöver hjälp av ”tekniker” för att hitta muteknappen i Teams, skrämmer den här utvecklingen livet ur mig. I en tid när vi mer än någonsin behöver tänka efter exakt hur mycket av beslutsfattande och persondatahantering vi vill stoppa in i smarta försäljares svarta lådor kommer vi snarare att glatt fortsätta ”leka och lattja” (exakt citat vad jag som bibliotekarie uppmuntras göra med ”artificiell” ”intelligens”) oss fram till en punkt där vi inte längre vet hur beslut fattas, på vilka grunder, och vem som är ansvarig. Problemet med s k AI är inte att den är för smart; det är att vi är för dumma.

Snälla någon, bevisa att jag har fel.

- Göteborg som lät en algoritm fördela var skolbarn skulle gå i skolan och inte förstod skillnaden mellan fågelväg och resetid. Och sedan inte tog ansvar. Och förvaltningsdomstolen inte förstod problemet.
- ”Teknik är alltid byggd av någon, på ett visst sätt, med ett speciellt syfte i åtanke, och detta syfte kommer också att avspeglas i teknikens utformning. Om teknikens politiska dimensioner glöms bort riskerar vi att osynliggöra samhällsbeslut som borde fattas i demokratiska församlingar. Motmedlet är en medvetenhet om att den tekniska utvecklingen inte är självgående utan den kan och bör underkastas demokratins principer.”
- ”Hur mycket data varje medborgare genererar, och vilka beteenden medborgaren ’matar’ systemet med, är inte jämlikt fördelat. Den som äger fler tekniska prylar tenderar att skapa mer data”
- ”Några har gjort ett medvetet val, men de flesta förblir passiva och väntar på styrsignaler från regeringen eller (…) SKR. Styrsignaler de med stor sannolikhet inte kommer att få. (…) Konsekvensen är enskilda inköp till astronomiska totalbelopp, obefintlig förhandlingsstyrka gentemot ett fåtal jätteleverantörer och – om vi ska vara ärliga – ofta rätt kassa system.” (Marcus Matteby, Sundsvalls kommun)
- ”Att AI har potential att bidra med stora nyttor inom offentlig sektor är det ingen som förnekar, men samtidigt finns risk för att marknadens affärsmodeller skapar än större inlåsningseffekter med ytterligare minskad transparens som effekt. (…) Detta behöver dock inte bli en sanning för kommuner och regioner om vi lyckas driva utvecklingen mot användning av en mer öppen AI-infrastruktur…”
- ”Det offentliga ska inte lockas till en innovationsverksamhet som inte håller medborgares fri- och rättigheter i första rummet. Att sjösätta eller tillåta samhällsbärande digitala lösningar utan att förstå hur tekniken är uppbyggd eller hur lösningarna hanterar medborgares data är att tillåta sig att medvetet ignorera den nya teknikens maktmedel – algoritmerna – och den inverka de kommer att ha på medborgarnas tillit till samhällets förmåga att utvecklas i samklang med den digitala tidsålder vi lever i.”
- ”Digitaliseringen har lett till att myndigheter kunnat omformulera sitt uppdrag från myndighetsutövning till ett ’tjänsteutbud’ efterliknande en kommersiell aktörs terminologi. När medborgaren förvandlas till kund förlorar individen också makten över samhällsutvecklingen. Kundens val gäller individuella tjänster för individen, till skillnad från att ge en medborgare agens när det gäller samhället i stort.”
- ”Trots detta har digitalisering aldrig varit en partipolitisk fråga där ideologiska vägval presenteras för väljarna. (…) Den enda konkreta fråga som fanns med i programförklaringarna var löften om utbyggd bredband. De drygt 1330 motioner om digitalisering som i skrivande stund har lämnats in till riksdagen ger inte heller de någon bild av vad partierna avser att digitaliseringen ska leda till för ett samhälle.”
- ”Användningen av ML-teknik som beslutsstöd i offentlig myndighetsutövning är rättfärdig enligt demokratiska normer om, och endast om (I) det grundar sig på skäl som överensstämmer med offentliga beslut om de mål som demokratiskt har beslutats, och (II) skälen är tillgängliga för dem som omfattas av ett beslut fattat av en offentlig myndighet.”

OK, wow. That was a mouthful.

The good:
- It's extremely well-researched. I'm pretty sure I now know everything that James Clavell knew about 16th/17th century Japan. From what I can find out, it seems to even be mostly correct - tinged with a fair bit of orientalism, sure (though see below), perhaps exaggerated for drama, but not necessarily wrong. Messenger pigeons notwithstanding, but that's a necessary literary shortcut.
- Unlike the 1980 series, which is my previous contact with this story, I like how many narrators this gets to have. Yes, the Europeans consider the Japanese to be savages, but the Japanese consider the Europeans savages too, and neither is completely wrong. That's just humanity, I guess. Or at least enough of it to not make Blackthorne a completely annoying Mary Sue, huge dick aside.
- The characters all get room to move, which is impressive for a story this obsessed with plot and Historical Significance. From the lowliest servant to the mightiest lord, they all get to speak their piece. Everyone gets to have their agenda. Everyone gets to play the game.

The not-so-good:
- It's extremely well-researched. I'm pretty sure I now know everything that James Clavell knew about 16th/17th century Japan. He leaves nothing on the cutting-room floor, even when perhaps he should. If he wants to do a 20-page aside on the materials used in sandals or the history of Shinto or Japanese sex toys, he'll do it without blinking, whether the plot needs it or not. As impressive and as educating as that may be, it's not always good storytelling.
- Yes, all characters get their due, but can you maybe leave a little something up to the reader? Does every single character have to soliloquize for hours, do we need flashbacks within flashbacks of long dialogues explaining exactly why character A knew character B would seek out character C to discuss character D? Especially when half of any given dialogue is just people throwing honorifics and gomen nasais at each other? How about just once you trust the reader to remember something you told us five times already? How about just once you just write "Toranaga smiled wryly"? 16th century admin is still admin.
- If the plot depends on a lot of clever characters playing 4D chess for 1100 pages, maybe don't go quite so much into detail on all the bits that make them seem very naive? Yes, it's funny to have Blackthorne and Mariko congratulate each other on how secret they're keeping their affair only to cut immediately to everyone knowing... once. The tenth time, it just makes them look like idiots.

Now I really want some sushi.