User Profile

I'm primed to be skeptical of any claim which sounds like the core one in this book: that there's something pernicious about The New Communication Tool, and that it will erode our society and culture.

But. Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, and has been specifically correct about several… let us say… arcs? of transformation in culture & communication; in the way we value wisdom, knowledge, information, and data; and in our approach to disagreement, debate, and argument; among others. Postman clearly isn't exactly right in the particulars — the cultural role of television has changed substantially, and even newer new media has further adapted down this path. He didn't specifically anticipate Twitter or Facebook or TikTok, but his heart is in the right place by extrapolation from television.

Still. Is society worse, or just different? Are the ways societ has improved supported by new media, and how does that compare with its support for the ways society has degraded? Did television & social media cause misinformation & polarization, or did they just happen simultaneously? I'm not going to come down on Postman's side here. But I also have unusually-easy access to unenshittified media, and I might be more tempted if I had to live through the way normal people experience the Web all day.

Regardless of valence, I don't think these changes are reversible. We can't go back, we can just adjust our paths forward. "Old man yells at TV." is a trite tale. "Dysfunctional society no longer able to coordinate changes needed to survive the changes causing dysfunction." is probably more distressing. And the problem with all questions about how to improve society somewhat is that so many of the levers of change are locked out for various reasons, so "What should we do about this?" ends up always having deeply radical answers because nothing is superficial. Or perhaps that's just because almost all simple problems have been solved, and we keep being left with more and more challenging ones.

Please like and subscribe, and don't forget to hit that bell.

First off, I have never seen Blade Runner, so that movie had no impact on my feelings for this book.

I was sucked into this book from the very start. Animals are basically extinct and farmers are usually having to resort to buying robotic versions of the animals to be able to still produce goods. People are using computers to program them to feel specific ways (you can even make yourself feel depressed for whatever reason). The world building was really well done and for the first half of the book I was very into it all.

Then it just kind of lost me. It starts to show its age when it comes to discussing or referencing any of the female characters. We are told all about their breasts and there's even the old school jolly of having sex with a robot.

I know that issues like this are inherent in older books, but I still don't like to give it a pass. Maybe if I had read this book 10+ years ago, I would have felt differently and still found it enjoyable upon rereads at this time. I think that I've read enough newer sci-fi books that don't have these issues in them and it's just really made me up my standards for what I find tolerable in older books.

It was still a good read, but I had to knock it down one star due to the outdated issues.

Æ vet ikke helt ka æ hadde forventa da æ lånte den her, og æ huske heller ikke helt koffor æ endte opp med å låne den i utgangspunktet (æ tror noen som har en smak æ stole på sa at dem likte den), men æ e glad æ leste den.

Det e historien om S, som bor i USA, med foreldre som ikke gjør det, som skal være den amerikanske drømmen, men kanskje ikke helt får det til, som e ung og usikker og altfor tøff for sitt eget beste.

Historien i sæ sjøl e ikke så nyskapanes, men det e måten den e fortalt på som treff så uventa godt. Den e i fire deler, med ujevt antall kapitler i delan, og varieranes lengde. Det e fortalt i fortid, med hint av en forteller som vet kordan det kommer til å gå, men ikke på en slitsom måte. Det e mørkt og intenst og lyst og håpefullt, og det handle mest av alt om vennskap og korvidt man kan stole på folk. Æ e solgt, og glad æ leste den.

Surely, the real point of having a dozen previous books in a long running series establishing characters and world building is so that you can then truly and properly roast them in the worst dinner party disaster ever imagined.

This book is a comedy of manners about various courtships in the shade of the Emperor getting married. I love that a science fiction action politics series can have a book like this in the middle of it, and it doesn't feel out of place.

I do wonder a little how well this book would stand up on its own, though. There's so much history with Drou and Kou, Cordelia, Mark, Alys Vorpatril, Simon that it's hard to know if this would be quite as satisfying to a reader who doesn't have the level of background of reading all the previous books. I think the primary crux of the story, of Miles waging a surprise war of secretly courting Ekaterin as if it were a military endeavor (and, crucially, without telling her), is romantic comedy that could land for anybody.

There are just SO many delightful moments in this book: * "Mother, Father, let me introduce--she's getting away!" * the pile of terrible suitors for Ekaterin * Cordelia sitting Kareen's parents on the couch to be the baba between them and Mark and Kareen * Ivan being seconded to his mother for the imperial wedding * the Lord Dono reveal to Ivan (but just Dono in general) * Gregor giving Nikki his comconsole number, and Nikki calling * the final courtroom (re)proposal scene in the end

A brief plural aside about Mark and his headmates; I do observe that this book definitely posits Mark as the one who "should" be in charge, with everybody else as explicitly "subordinate" and are described as "semi-autonomous subpersonalities". To me this feels somewhat different than how the previous books have treated it.

(A further brief aside about the cover linked here, but Miles is not taller than Ekaterin. Maybe boxes are really popular?)

Todella monen asian pitää muuttua, jos aiomme elää tällä planeetalla vielä tulevinakin vuosisatoina. Valtaosa kirjojen ja elokuvien tulevaisuusvisioista tuntuu kuitenkin olevan dystopioita, kuvauksia siitä millaista helvettiä elämä Maa-planeetalla on, kun kaikki on mennyt pieleen. Muutamalla seuraaville vuosikymmenille lähitulevaisuuteen sijoittuva Kim Stanley Robinsonin The Ministry for the Future kuitenkin esittää uskottavan, vaikkakin monelta osin silmiinpistävän optimistisen vision siitä, miten kaikenkattava ekokriisi on saatu Maa-planeetalla kuitenkin jonkinlaiseen hallintaan. Robinsonin visiosta kiinnostavan tekee se, että se ei ole vain kaunokirjallista kuvitelmaa, vaan perustuu ihan todellisiin haasteisiin ja ratkaisuihin, ja monet kirjan luvuista ovatkin luonteeltaan pikemminkin tieteellisiä esseitä kuin varsinaista kertomakirjallisuutta.

Kirjan tulevaisuuskuva ei kuitenkaan ole paratiisimainen utopia. Maa siinä vaiheessa, kun ilmakehän hiilidioksidimäärä on saatu laskuun, ei ole enää aivan sama planeetta kuin se oli vielä ennen ilmastokriisiä, ja työn planeetan hengissäpitämiseksi kuvataan jatkuvan vielä tulevillekin vuosisadoille vaikka hiilidioksidiongelma kirjassa on saatukin pois päällimmäisistä huolenaiheista.

Robinson ei pyri hahmottelemaan paluuta meneen ajan tasapainoon, vaan pohtii pikemmin sitä, miten täällä eletään kun on täysimittaisesti siirrytty antroposeenin aikaan, ja ihmiskunta ryhtynyt tosissaan kantamaan vastuuta aiheuttamastaan muutoksesta ja planeetan tulevaisuudesta. Kirja valaa kuitenkin uskoa siihen, että tämä ihmiskunnan massiivisin haaste on selätettävissä, kunhan vaan siihen yhdessä ryhdymme. Robinsonille Maa-planeetan elämänlanka on Parisiin ilmastosopimus: siihen tulee tarttua juuri sellaisena historiallisena käännekohtana, kuin millaisena sitä melkein kymmenen vuotta sitten juhlittiin

Kirja sisältää valtavasti tietoa - siis aivan todellista tietoa, ei vain kuvitelmia tulevaisuudesta. Siihen voi hyvin suhtautua myös eräänlaisena ilmastoratkaisuiden oppikirjana. Mitä kaikkea onkaan otettava huomioon?

Robinson ei anna ihmiskunnalle mitenkään kevyttä tehtävälistaa. Paitsi että Pariisin henki pitää institutionalisoida globaalia muutosta johtavaksi "tulevaisuusministeriöksi", ihmiskunnan henkiseen muutokseen tarvitaan vielä paljon muutakin. Emme varmaankaan herää ennen kuin olemme kokeneet kunnon katastrofin. Eikä varmaankaan tuhoisia tapoja ja toimintamalleja saada loppumaan ilman, että jostain nousee sellaista aktivismia, jonka rinnalla Elonkapinakin vaikuttaa ompelukerholta. Planeetalle aiheutettu vahinko on myös jo niin suurta, että tuskin selviämme ilman massiivista ilmastonmuokkausta: sulaneen Arktiksen värjäämistä auringonvaloa heijastavaksi keltaiseksi ja öljynporausinfran käyttöönottoa sulavien ja mereen luisuvien Antarktiksen jäätiköiden pysäyttämiseksi. Talouskin pitää mullistaa: tulee luoda taloudellinen insentiivi hiilen varastoinnille, tehdä rahajärjestelmän tasolla kestävästä toiminnasta kannattavaa ja kestämättömästä tappiollista.

Robinsonin visioima muutaman vuosikymmenen päässä oleva Maa-planeetta on kuitenkin yllättävän samankaltainen kuin nykyinenkin maailma, ehkä vain vähän verkkaisempi, reilumpi - ja varmaankin mukavampi. Mantereiden välillä ei enää liikuta lentokoneilla, vaan ilmalaivoilla, ja rahtilaivojenkin vauhti on hidastunut, kun ne on automatisoitu ja konvertoitu aurinko- ja tuulivoimalla liikkuviksi. Kyllä tällaista tulevaisuutta kannattaa tavoitella.

Ja kyllä Robinsonin kuvaus tähän tulevaisuuteen tarvittavista toimistakin on uskottava. Jotain tämän kaltaista, vaikkakaan ei varmasti juuri tätä, taatusti tarvitaan. Työtä on monella rintamalla: talouden, lakien ja instituutioiden tasolla täytyy tehdä muutoksia, mutta tarvitaan myös aktivismia - ja voi olla, että osa siitä on sellaista mikä tapahtuu varjoissa, hämärässä ja lain nurjalla puolella. Koko sivilisaation tulevaisuudesta kuitenkin on kyse.

I've put off talking about this book for a bit because honestly I'm not sure where to start. The short of it was that this was one of the best things I've read this year.

It is nearly impossible to describe the plot, but this is not a plot-driven book. It's weirder and bolder and chewier than The Saint of Bright Doors. To describe it at all, this is a book about two (ish???) characters whose various lives intertwine with each other across the timeline(s???), told in a series of simultaneously deeply interconnected but also wildly different stories. There's constantly recurring thematic motifs and threads, and I feel like the reader is asked to do a lot of work to try to connect the myriad of interconnected bits and bobs and hints in its various depths. I finished it and immediately considered starting again with my extra knowledge to try to piece more connections together and better understand the whole.

Tonally, I also think Rakesfall is doing very interesting things. In comparison, The Saint of Bright Doors had some funny side jokes like "nine-tenths of the lore" in the same way that Harrow the Ninth has "none house, with left grief"; they're references if you catch them, but feel like a drive-by joke and not the destination. On the contrary, Rakesfall surgically deploys out of place phrases and tonal shifts to make impacts that deliberately jar the reader.

I apologize for pasting a number of quotes, but it astounds me a little that all of these things can be in the same book, that otherwise has a much more serious tone. I don't list these quotes as examples of what most of the prose is, but as examples of the rare places it swerves to.

The simile of the two-handed saw is not a parable. It isn't even a story. That it is self-consciously a simile suggests an unseriousness, a little haha hoho, a little lol j/k.

This is a one-off line in a brief section of the story that takes place in the same world as The Saint of Bright Doors (although you do not need to have read that book for this story).

Everybody on stage is silent and motionless for another few minutes. The AUDIENCE grows restless. Somebody in the audience takes a picture--the flash is blinding--even though there was a sign at the door that said NO PHOTOS, NO SMARTPHONES. There are muttered complaints. Imiya blinks. His pupils are huge.

Devakarti returns to the chorus and starts organizing them to move on to their next lives.

There's a chapter that is written like a script for a play, but is also a play in progress, and also includes dead people in the chorus who were killed by people in the play. This is a microcosm of what the book feels like.

All his soldiers pee themselves a little, so the king calls up his favourite wrestler, biggest face in the city, beloved far and wide as the best good guy who isn't afraid of anything, and the king says, my Beloved Bro, will you Please take this Cup of Water out unto the Dread Cemetary and give it to that Loud Fucker, and Tell him to (a) Pipe down and (b) give Thanks to the generosity of his King? And the wrestler says Sure Thing, my King. He is also frightened but he goes anyway, and he tells himself, real courage isn't found in not being afraid but in doing things that when you are, which just goes to show that after years of celebrity he is so deep in character that his internal narrative takes the voice of an Educational Programme for the small children who are his biggest fans and buy all his T-shirts.

There are other stories within stories in this book, but this one is told in this amazing style of an incredibly informal fable that was striking.

All of this makes for the kind of risky style that could be intensely irritating or obnoxious if it wasn't done so effectively. I think it works for me and I'm delighted by it; more, I think the choice to do this fits in this hurricane of a story that mixes and remixes characters and themes to such a degree.

One of the qualities that I love about the Vorkosigan series is that because it is so long, it allows Bujold to play with different genres between books. If The Vor Game is military SF, then Cetaganda is a mystery novel. Pedantically, this book is not really a mystery proper in the way that a reader could piece together the whodunit independently; however I think this is an example of "detective Miles" mode, and one that we'll see again in Memory and Komarr especially.

This book features Miles and Ivan on a diplomatic visit to Cetaganda for the funeral of the Cetagandan empress. Miles has to juggle investigating a plot that's trying to frame the Barrayarans (but why? and by whom?), hiding things from his superiors (by implying he's a higher level spy), trying to interface with the Cetaganda police about a murder investigation (while not giving things away to them or to his superiors), and stopping a plot that would cause chaos to Cetaganda (while also trying to work towards Barrayaran interests).

One thing I think this novel does well is to portray the Cetagandans in a sympathetic and interesting light, and to dig into the interesting social structure they have going on. In previous novels, the Cetagandans have been the historical invaders of Barrayar and also aggressive expansionists into the Hegen Hub, and the reader doesn't know much about them other than their military bent. This book could be a bit more subtle about weaving all this background info in without as much of an info dump, but in a broader sense it adds a lot of nuance and fills in a lot of detail.

Ok, ok. I know I'm leaning on the horn here (pun not intended), but holy moly this book is still stuck in horny Miles brain mode. He is still not over Elena (who doesn't even appear in this novel) and he loses it over the haut women who ensconce themselves behind opaque bubble forcefields. There is one brief, minor moment where Miles realizes these feelings are clouding his judgement; Ivan comes up with a plan Miles hasn't considered because it wouldn't let him play the hero in front of haut Rian. This is as far as it goes, though.

(It's funny how much this quality sticks out for me on this reread. Am I just older and ace-er? Is this how books airquotes of the time all were and I haven't noticed because I haven't been reading books that are thirty five years old? Is this a deliberate writing decision for a twenty year old protagonist? Did I just forget that's how these books were?)

The cover blurb makes it sound like a cautionary tale about our highly-tech-dependent world (even in the 1990s!), but it's not the technology that's the problem. It's the homogenization of culture, and the insistence that there be one perspective, and only one perspective, that really matters.

Think of how we travel and find the same chain stores, chain restaurants, the ISO standard Irish Pub with its bric-a-brac decor, and how our TV and movies are full of endless reboots, spinoffs and sequels.

We see it first in Sutty's memories of Earth, controlled largely by a theocracy until contact with alien civilizations kicks their support out from under them. And then in the world she's trying to understand, one that's undergone a complete transformation in the time it took her to travel there at relativistic speed. She knows there were flourishing cultures here before she left Earth. She studied the few fragments that made it offworld during first contact. But she finds a world that has discarded its past and modeled itself on the one she left.

It's largely a story of discovery: Sutty, frustrated and depressed, trying to figure out what the heck "The Telling" actually is and what it means, and the government agent shadowing her also discovering what it is he's trying to suppress and why. A lot of it takes place in small villages, but there's also a long trip through mountains that feels like counterpoint to the glacier expedition in The Left Hand of Darkness.

Well worth the read!

(Slightly condensed from my website.)