counter-historical fiction

I have just finished reading the fourth and final book in the Time's Tapestry series by Stephen Baxter. Overall, I find that the series is unlike the typical scifi novels I have read in the past and come to love. I would not say that I found the books boring, but I wouldn't recommend these to any scifi-reading friends unless I knew they had an earnest appreciation for millennia-spanning history lectures squeezed into the novel format.

The first book of the series is titled Emperor and the setting spans the course of Pre-Roman through Post-Roman historical England with fictional protagonists cast among famous historical figures. The pace of the story is that which will suddenly jump a century or two forward between chapters, and likewise, the following two books, Conqueror and Navigator follow the same breakneck speed.

Conqueror, still set in the England, follows a new group of fictional characters and recounts the invasions of the Vikings, the Normans, and the Germanic Saxons, though not necessarily in that order.

Navigator takes the reader through the Crusades, the back-and-forth conquests of Moorish Spain and the Iberian Peninsula, and culminates with the famous sea expeditions of trying to navigate the Atlantic passage to India and the far east.

Weaver slows the pace down significantly to follow a single group of main characters, who more or less make it through the entire novel and is firmly entrenched in World War II England under Nazi occupation. In this novel, we finally meet the fellows who tamper with the history of the first three books, but I will have to say I was disillusioned with this climatic element; metaphorically speaking it was more akin a bottle rocket that fizzles in disappointment than the atomic explosion of brilliance I patiently awaited.

I might add that not having read any of Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels, I can't say how Baxter stacks against this narrow category's 800-pound gorilla. My recommendation for your typical scifi reader would be to skip this series completely. But if you're anything like me, a guy who would love to have some idea of world history but never takes the opportunity to get cracking into the dryness of textbooks, you will probably enjoy having a history lesson crammed into a novel format.

bookmarking bastiat #2

It has been a while since I finished reading the Bastiat Collection put out by the Mises Institute, so before I completely forget some of the best material I've found in there I'll whip it up into this blogpost, which I realize should get quite lengthy as I quote stuff.

In ridicule of the "balance of trade" protectionist theories, Bastiat writes;

"There is still another inference to be deduced from this, which is that according to the theory of the balance of trade, France has a very simple means of doubling her capital at any moment. It is enough to pass them through the Customhouse, and then pitch them into the sea. In this case the exports will represent the amount of her capital, the imports will be nil, and impossible as well, and we shall gain all that the sea swallows up." --Economic Sophisms— Social Fallacies Chapter Six, Pages 224-225

On the folly of central planning and practicality of spontaneous order;

"On entering Paris, which I had come to visit, I said to myself— here are a million human beings who would all die in a short time if provisions of every kind ceased to flow toward this great metropolis. Imagination is baffled when it tries to appreciate the vast multiplicity of commodities that must enter tomorrow through the barriers in order to preserve the inhabitants from falling a prey to the convulsions of famine, rebellion and pillage. And yet all sleep at this moment, and their peaceful slumbers are not disturbed for a single instant by the prospect of such a frightful catastrophe. On the other hand, eighty departments have been laboring today, without concert, without any mutual understanding, for the provisioning of Paris. How does each succeeding day bring what is wanted, nothing more, nothing less, to so gigantic a market? What, then, is the ingenious and secret power that governs the astonishing regularity of movements so complicated, a regularity in which everybody has implicit faith, although happiness and life itself are at stake? That power is an absolute principle, the principle of freedom in transactions. We have faith in that inward light that Providence has placed in the heart of all men, and to which He has confided the preservation and indefinite amelioration of our species, namely, a regard to personal interest— since we must give it its right name— a principle so active, so vigilant, so foreseeing, when it is free in its action. In what situation, I would ask, would the inhabitants of Paris be if a minister should take it into his head to substitute for this power the combinations of his own genius, however superior we might suppose them to be—if he thought to subject to his supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, to hold the springs of it in his hands, to decide by whom, or in what manner, or on what conditions, everything needed should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed?" --Economic Sophisms, Social Fallacies Chapter Eighteen, Pages 272-273

Bastiat was in favor of practicing wertfrei economics, to not let personal preferences cloud judgment of economic fact;

"In political economy there are no absolute principles.
In plain language, this means:
“I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. The immediate effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is the only law which I can consent to recognize.” --Economic Sophisms, Social Fallacies Chapter Twenty, Page 281

On the dangers of mixing your metaphors;

"The word invasion itself is a good illustration of this. A French ironmaster exclaims: Preserve us from the invasion of English iron. An English landowner exclaims in return: Preserve us from the invasion of French wheat. And then they proceed to interpose barriers between the two countries. These barriers create isolation, isolation gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion. What does it signify? cry the two sophists; is it not better to expose ourselves to a possible invasion than accept an invasion that is certain? And the people believe them, and the barriers are kept up.

And yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What possible similarity can be imagined between a ship of war that comes to vomit fire and devastation on our towns, and a merchant ship that comes to offer a free voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities?" --Economic Sophisms, Social Fallacies Chapter Twenty-two, Page 296

On being sold counterfeit goods;

But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are now become sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves.
Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? They are as much so as ever, and moreover they rob one another.
The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent She acts no longer by Force, but by Cunning.
To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, imaginary services, and often worse." --Economic Sophisms, Social Fallacies Chapter Twenty-three, Page 304

Looking now at my reference list I realize I have 29 bookmarks more to go, all from the second volume. Should I spare you the agony/joy for until the next time? I warn you though, I may be absent for a while.

paramnesiastic

That is how a verbaholic such as myself would describe the sensation commonly referred to déjà vu.

For a while I was secretly embarrassed to think that although I've read most of Neal Stephenson's books, notably the Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, and the enormous Baroque Cycle trilogy, I never got around to reading his first major, coming-of-age novel Snow Crash. Or so, that is what I thought to be the case.

You see, I remember reading the Diamond Age when it came out back in 90's when I was still in grade school; to be technical, while I summered at a sleepaway camp. To this day I cherish the memories of reading it, vaguely recalling the basic storyline and some of the more remarkable elements which still reside deep in my neurostructure.

But I had no recollection whatsoever of ever reading Snow Crash until I bought a fresh copy a few weeks ago and finally read the damn thing.

And boom!, just like that, memories came flooding back-- the metaverse, the dentata, the rat thing. Even the parts about glossolalia.

I think I was 11 or 12 when I first read it. Hands down I think I've enjoyed it much more this time around.

To recap a paragraph sure to bring a smile to fellow anarchonomists;

"It's always been a mystery to Hiro, too, but then, that's how the government is. It was invented to do stuff that private enterprise doesn't bother with, which means there's probably no reason for it;"

Well said, Mr. Stephenson.

bookmarking bastiat

I've been sending myself emails whenever I come across passages of particular interest when reading the new collection of Claude Frederic Bastiat's essays on economics prepared by the Mises Institute. I'm not quite done yet, but I've already live-tagged so many nuggets I figured I would start sharing them with my imaginary readership.

So here without further ado is Bastiat on the topic of justice—

"When law and force keep a man within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing upon him but a mere negation. They only oblige him to abstain from doing harm... In fact, it is not justice that has an existence of its own, it is injustice. The one results from the absence of the other." — book 1, page 64

On the contradictory absurdness of dialectical materialism—

"They divide mankind into two parts. Men in general, except one, form the first; the politician himself forms the second, which is by far the most important.

In fact, they begin by supposing that men are devoid of any principle of action, and of any means of discernment in themselves; that they have no initiative; that they are inert matter, passive particles, atoms without impulse; at best a vegetation indifferent to its own mode of existence, susceptible of assuming, from an exterior will and hand an infinite number of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected." — book 1, page 67

Everybody except for themselves of course, a parody of fine quining.

Where he asserts binary exchange is a trade of equal satisfactions to each party—

"After much investigation it has been found, that in order to make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to render the exchange equitable, the best means was to allow it to be free... When we look into these subjects, we are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that equal value results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value but that of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged." — book 1, page 144

And explicitly rejects Condillac's theory of the inequality of exchange—

"The explanation Condillac has given appears to me to be quite unsatisfactory and empirical—in fact it explains nothing. “From the very fact,” he says, “that an exchange is made, it follows that there must be profit for the two contracting parties, for otherwise it would not take place. Then each exchange includes two gains for humanity"...Holding this proposition as true, we see in it only the statement of a result...Exchange includes two gains, you say. How? Why? It results from the fact that it takes place. But why does it take place? What motive has induced the contracting parties to effect the exchange? Has Exchange in itself a mysterious virtue, necessarily beneficial, and incapable of explanation?” - book 2, page 90

In the former quote Bastiat endorsed the idea that value is a subjective notion, an indeterminate quantum event valid to but a specific moment, observable only through the action of exchange. That's all nice and shiny, however I think Bastiat's criticism of Condillac's theory applies equally as well to his own notion of equal value; how do we know the observed exchange was of equal values? Through the fact that it took place? But why does it take place?

It also seems odd to me that here Bastiat disapproves of Condillac utilizing an empirical method to prove his inequality of exchange theory when Bastiat himself asks the reader to do the same to arrive at the notion- stating that only upon examination of exchange do we know that the values are equal. It's odd to me because Condillac is in fact utilizing a deductive method, to reflect upon a given event to deduce that if it occurred, it was because each party gave up less than what they expected to receive. And furthermore, it seems to me that what Bastiat calls "examination" is also not empirical fact gleaned through a posteriori observation, but rather a priori deduction!

Note: Philosophy mavens and bowtied economists of the cloth are hereby invited to comment and set me straight as to what Bastiat is saying. For now, I'm taking this to be the sometimes unavoidable result of a translation where concepts get mangled when bridging that gulf.

the root of all evil

In concern to my last post, I meant to include a specific example indicating Murray Rothbard's even-handed approach to TPo1819, in that he would simply restate the arguments made by the differing parties without explicitly endorsing either.

For example, money-brokers were at one point considered the scourge of the early colonial American bank system. These gentle folk were guilty of the crime of purchasing discounted bank notes belonging to out of town banks, and then taking these same notes and redeeming them at their respective banks for their par value in specie. However the banks wouldn't stand these slimy two-timers who dared to impoverish their banks by withdrawing specie and so they sought to outlaw them.

It was here that I thought that Rothbard could interject that the banks had the duty to thank these money-brokers whose selfish, nefarious actions actually served to bolster the exchange value of the very same bank notes. To see why, simply imagine the lack of such money-brokers; after all if a vendor is presented with a bank note for a distant bank of which he knows almost nothing about, it would be more like that the note would have to be discounted even further before he would begin to consider it worth his trouble to accept it in lieu of specie, or in the notes of a closer banking institution.

The money-brokers in their actions thus filled a role in minimizing the discounting of bank notes of distant banks, and countervailed the tendency to further discount then what would have been otherwise.

don't panic!

Murray Rothbard's The Panic of 1819 is quite unlike any other scholarly work of his that I'm familiar with in that he let the facts speak for themselves. Though he does color the arguments presented, he does it in a fair-handed, 'just the facts, mam' manner which might mislead the unknowing reader to think that that he doesn't have a horse in the race. Honestly, I can recall seeing the term "Austrian School of Economics" mentioned just once in the entire book, a shocker considering that in it he analyzes the conditions surrounding what could have been the great depression of the early 1800's in support of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

The Rothbard that I'm familiar with, from the handful of his books that I've read is never dry, uncompromising, and his arguments intellectually-honed which can help the typical unmotivated reader to slog through the 1,400+ pages scholars edition of Man, Economy and State; perhaps not by the edge of his seat, but enough so.

In contrast, TPo1819 is a work of drudgery, detailing the minutia of inductive economic research, one which Rothbard clearly set aside his prejudice for utilizing the thymological method of Verstehen as pioneered by Mises in favor of appealing to those who favor a rather historical, empirical approach to the matter. After reading the first chapter I already was under the impression that Rothbard was writing not to the choir, but to mainstream historians and economic professors alike in an attempt to subtly win over academia to the ABCT.

Though this book required more patience than what I usually have to offer, I was rewarded every now and then when I found insider comments passed off as innocuous statements. One such comments appears towards the end:

"Stress on the moral virtues often took the form of attack on luxurious consumption and other extravagances of the day. Embryonic Veblenians called upon the rich to set an example in thrifty living to the lower classes, who tended to imitate the former."

the left hand of.. something

"Wrong had been done and it had to be balanced out and accounted for personally. But humans were full of rights, and very short of responsibilities." -- Karen Traviss, City of Pearl

City of Pearl is the first book in Traviss's six-part series called the Wess'har Wars. To be candid, I found this book on the formulaic side, one which failed to capture my imagination or blow it to smithereens in the process.

To be fair, it could be my disliking of Traviss's confusing political philosophy which put me off given that her universe is one in which the evil corporations (sigh!) on Earth have eliminated most natural growing foods and have replaced them with genetically-modified and patent-secured replacements to reap monopoly profits with the side consequence of mass starvation for the rest of the human population (::rolling eyes!::)

Or that the protagonist is a former cop, once an environmental hazard protection goon whose past was mired in a conspiratorial battle against eco-terrorists in the highest rank of industry and government.

Then there was the repeatedly mentioned "Government's work is God's work" and other similar endorsements for institutionalized mass servitude, which at times was bewildering because you knew that Traviss had it in herself to transcend from the socialist-leftist memeage into the more mature left-anarchist/left-libertarian tradition. Though to her credit it, I sometimes felt as though I was holding a book by Ursala K. LeGuin, as witnessed by this post's opening quote, by far my favorite line in the entire book.

the political means

"It's the lawyers. They're evil. They're bloodsuckers. They're parasites. We create wealth, they live off our scraps. They see guys like us with money, and they say, 'Okay, let's invent some law that fucks this guy up. Let's create some rules about accounting that are tricky and complex and arcane that nobody can possibly comply with them. Then let's bribe some Congressmen to pass the law, and we'll shake these rich bastards down.' That's what it is. You pay to settle the case, and the lawyers split the money. They're all in on it together - not just the plaintiff lawyers but your own defense lawyers too. At the end of the day it's no different than if they put a gun to your head and robbed you in an alley. It's a mugging. Same damn thing. Like it or not, this will only end one way - you will write a huge check, and these fuckers will fight over it like a pack of hyenas tearing at a deer carcass."

-- Fake Steve Jobs, oPtion$

Actually it's not quite the same thing--

"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
-- Lysander Spooner, No Treason

i, dante dilettante

Shortly before this past summer began, I began reading Mark Musa's interpretation and commentary of Dante Alighieri's famous La Divina Commedia, beginning with Inferno. To be honest, I've never read any other translation, so I have nothing to compare with Musa's work, yet I still thought it to be excellent and very well presented. Not only does Musa translate the vulgar poetry into English (vulgar here meaning Italian, rather than the ancient Latin which was the lingua franca for major works,) but he brings it to life by explaining the back story of Dante's life and the socio-political backdrop of the feuding criminal classes between which power waned and waxed for the Ghibellines and the Guelphs.

With my Jewish Orthodox upbringing, I could relate to Dante's overall theological theme, although he obviously based it upon the Christian version of events. One technique, or device have you, stands out quite clearly in my mind; that of contropasso, a very key element to interpreting his allegory. In Hebraic terms the principle is known as midah keneged midah, which is to say measure for measure.

Many people like to think that God is a mean old cosmic tyrant who likes to inflict cruelty upon his creation for sport. Far from it, the concept of midah keneged midah is not a petty game of divine retribution, but rather expresses a concept akin to Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative; the maxim that "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

In other words, God is so fair with us, that not only will he not judge us by what he expected from us, but rather according to the very same standards of justice that we ourselves judged to be correct. This is not to say that if one chooses to disobey God that there are no damaging consequences, only that God won't hold one guilty for acting according to the maxims that he or she believed to be universally true.

On Judgement Day™ God will scroll and scrub through this persons' life and check to see if the persons' actions were motivated according to these principles that he claimed to adhere to and flag those inconsistencies, where the man claims to adhere to moral code x, but acts contrarily to his own belief system. In that case the person is found to be intellectually dishonest, and the purpose of his contropasso is remedy his dysfunction.

One of the more enlightening chapters spoke of Dante's encounter with the level of hell reserved for hypocrites, in which the tormented are marched around bedecked in a friars vestment seemingly made of fine-woven gold. These robes however are lined with lead on the inside, making each step a back-breaking experience for the sinner.

Musa humbly explains that Dante's subtle contropasso here is as follows: The word 'hypocrite' stems from the Greek word ypo'krita, that in Latin would translate to superauratus, both meaning, "that which is covered with gold", implying an inferior non-gold substance constituting the interior portion, a striking simile to the hypocrite who pretends to be of noble stature and hides the ugly nature behind his golden veneer. A double-entendre, if I may call it that is inherent in Dante's ingenious choice of punishment.

Incidentally, I happen to think that the word krita meaning 'gold' is related to both carat and Crete, but I can't find any backup to that. And the root ypo is the opposite of Latin's super, the former like the prefix "hypo" indicating that which lies underneath, and the latter what is above, so I'm not exactly sure of how the word relates to the way Dante wants it to. Super is definitely related to Hebrew's TZa'PEh, which means to coat, or cover with an above layer, although it would have been nice if the Hebrew word for hypocrite would be a gold-coated TZaPUY-ZaHaV, the actual term is a more benign TZVoo'Ee, "the one who is painted", a reference to the same concept expressing that which haves a deceiving outer appearance.

_______
Judgement Day™ is a registered trademark of the Libra Corporation, a Delaware registered limited liability corporation.

bulges

I can't recommend enough John C. Wright's latest trilogy, comprised of The Orphans of Chaos, Fugitives of Chaos, and Titans of Chaos. Only in part because I recently read for my first time Dante Alighieri's Inferno, I roared in delight over this passage found early in the second book:

"Come along, Mr. mac FirBolg. We have all had just about enough," I heard Boggin saying.

"Stand back! I'm about to start speaking in tounges! Rafel mahee amek zambi almit! Papa Satan! Papa Satan allepe!"...

...Colin writhed and screamed and frothed, calling them all sinners and condemning them to damnation and hellfire."

Sometimes I wonder how you could possibly enjoy a novel without knowing what the author is alluding to with their cryptic references. I felt equally suprised when I read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose and discovered a passage smuggling Buridan's Ass ("And so I'm trapped between two opposing forces, like an ass who does not know which of two stacks of hay to eat" Pg. 348.) Heinlein pulled the same one in his Time Enough for Love which I already noted elsewhere. (I've also once noted that Robert Anton Wilson, in his seminal Illuminatus! Trilogy aped Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged with a nested G.E.B.-worthy story-within-a-story titled Telemachus Sneezed.)

Economics 2.0

[Crossposted to the Ludwig von Mises Blog.]

Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic?

Flying cars and little green men aside, many science fiction writers have shown an uncanny ability to predict and "foresee" the future.[1]

Yet, for all their prophetic accomplishments surrounding the development of future technologies, many fail to grasp the economic laws — the catallactics — that have remained unchanged for thousands of years.

Here is a quotation to get our discussion off the ground:

"Capitalism doesn't have a lot to say about workers whose skills are obsolete, other than that they should invest wisely while they're earning and maybe retrain: but just knowing how to invest in Economics 2.0 is beyond an unaugmented human. You can't retrain as a seagull, can you, and it's quite as hard to retool for Economics 2.0." — Charles Stross, Accelerando

Hard science fiction author, Charles Stross published a novel last year entitled Accelerando that tackled the issue of "the Singularity" and its rippling effects throughout society.[2][3]

Initially taking place around 2010, the reader follows the lead character — Manfred Macx — a computer nerd turned globe trotter whose modus operandi is said to be altruism.[4] He bills himself as a venture altruist, building and seeding productive ideas in exchange for mere reputation points.[5]

Ever the second-hander intellectual mountebank, Stross manages to mangle a bevy of technical and economic gobbledygook and shoehorn it into an exponentially spiraling plotline.[6]

However, Stross for all his valiant efforts falls short of delivering a futurist economics that is not subject to the economic principles we know today.

Russia has been back under the thumb of the apparatchiks for fifteen years now, its brief flirtation with anarchocapitalism replaced by Brezhnevite dirigisme and Putinesque puritanism, and it's no surprise that the wall's crumbling — but it looks like they haven't learned anything from the current woes afflicting the United States. The neocommies still think in terms of dollars and paranoia. Manfred is so angry that he wants to make someone rich, just to thumb his nose at the would-be defector: See! You get ahead by giving! Get with the program! Only the generous survive! But the KGB won't get the message. He's dealt with old-time commie weak-AIs before, minds raised on Marxist dialectic and Austrian School economics: They're so thoroughly hypnotized by the short-term victory of global capitalism that they can't surf the new paradigm, look to the longer term.

While some self-professed Marxists have allegedly embraced Austrianism — and vice versa — one wonders exactly how to synthesize the Marxist Labor Theory of Value with its polar opposite subjective theory as enshrined by the Austrian School.[7][8] This fact is punctuated best by Das Capital, in which Marx embraces historical materialism as the de facto epistemology to explain how and why historical events occur, in part, through the now-classical bourgeois-versus-proletariat class struggle.

In direct contrast is the Austrian School's a priori science approach, called praxeology.[9] Its foundation was laid out by Ludwig von Mises's axiom of human action or purposeful behavior. Society is a product of the human urge to remove uneasiness and dissatisfaction as far as possible; it is not a product of social classes, political hierarchies, and various other synthetic structures.

The Calculation Debate 2.0

While introducing the decade of 2070 A.D., Accelerando's narrator notes:

The last great transglobal trade empire, run from the arcologies of Hong Kong, has collapsed along with capitalism, rendered obsolete by a bunch of superior deterministic resource allocation algorithms collectively known as Economics 2.0.

It is these algorithms that Manfred earlier sold to an Italian politician, as a means to objectively calculate prices in a command economy. The mechanics of such equations are never fully fleshed out, leaving the reader to wonder exactly how a third party can, in some manner, come to such a measure of the multitudinous subjective values and preferences that individuals intrinsically have towards goods and services.

These "superior resource allocation algorithms" have been conjectured among numerous economists over the past century as it has played a central role in the socialist calculation debate. And while political scientists and technocrats continually busy themselves with tweaking the economic "black box" with various inputs, they fail to grasp how prices arise.[10]

Unfortunately for Stross, the future holds no deus ex machina in store to rescue this storyline, because a finite set of supercomputers cannot encompass a problem set containing infinite sets of possibilities. In this respect, the idealized command economy is a mathematical impossibility.[11]

Misplaced Energies

At one point in the story Macx's French mistress broadcasts news that Macx is in town:

"Oh, and he's promised to invent three new paradigm shifts before breakfast every day, starting with a way to bring about the creation of Really Existing Communism by building a state central planning apparatus that interfaces perfectly with external market systems and somehow manages to algorithmically outperform the Monte Carlo free-for-all of market economics, solving the calculation problem. Just because he can, because hacking economics is fun, and he wants to hear the screams from the Chicago School."

In this passage Stross now makes the error of "solving" Mises's calculation problem with the band-aid solution of copying consumer goods prices from a market system and transplanting them into the command economy. The use of this technique only affirms Mises's position, and is hardly a novel solution considering that Soviet planners were regularly thumbing through Sears catalogs for their coefficients.[12]

But we can still make lemonade out of this sucker — in theory we would have no issue per se with the argument that a super[-human] intelligence could drive entrepreneurial activity, and make smarter choices than a mere human opportunity exploiter. This is where the present and future can possibly diverge: can a two-state computational engine ever approximate human intelligence?[13]

Bursting Bubbles

While discussing what to do with a guest in their spaceship, several characters meander off the deep end:

The orang-utan explains: "Economics 2.0 is more efficient than any human-designed resource allocation schema. Expect a market bubble and crash within twelve hours."

Stross is guilty here of the mainstream economic error of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, by attributing the phenomenon of the business cycle to the emergence of capital markets in the industrial revolution. Under such mistaken impressions, it would be then quite natural for him to assume that an immense acceleration of the market process would also speed up the rate of market boom and bust cycle, although never explaining how or why it occurred in the first place.

Contrary to the mainstream, the Austrian Business Cycle Theory posits that cycles are exogenous to the market, a creature wholly belonging to the governments manipulation of the money supply, which, by artificially lowering the rate of interest, misrepresents the general level of time preference and ultimately misleads entrepreneurs en masse into malinvestment of the capital stock in sub-marginal pursuits.[14]

In contrast to the tenets of the neo-classical error, the condition of a free market would tend toward the evenly rotating economy (ERE), although never achieving equilibrium, as the minor perturbations mirror the transient value preferences on the market.[15] Under such conditions, Stross is incorrect to think that ratcheting up the intelligence and computational speed of the market would have a bearing on the amplitude, rather than only the frequency of misallocation.

However a simpler question may be posed to Stross: if "Economics 2.0" is more efficient than human-based pricing and has perfected an all-encompassing algorithm that allocates resources with near-absolute precision, how can capital malinvestment ever occur?

What is a reputation worth, anyway?

One of the most intriguing concepts found in the novel is that of "reputation markets."[16] While Stross also does not deign to explain in detail how this concept would function, one can make some guesses, although none of the interpretations seem to add up to anything useful or novel.[17]

Apparently Stross imagines that reputations will supplant the usage of currency and markets in a post-scarcity world as one is lead to believe from passages such as the following:

His reputation is up two percent for no obvious reason today, he notices: Odd, that. When he pokes at it he discovers that everybody's reputation – everybody, that is, who has a publicly traded reputation – is up a bit. It's as if the distributed Internet reputation servers are feeling bullish about integrity. Maybe there's a global honesty bubble forming.

… She doesn't approve of Manfred's jetting around the world on free airline passes, making strangers rich, somehow never needing money. She can see his listing on the reputation servers, hovering about thirty points above IBM: All the metrics of integrity, effectiveness and goodwill value him above even that most fundamentalist of open-source computer companies.

While we can only guess at what Stross meant by reputation markets, there are only the two possibilities: either it is a commodity-backed market, or not.

The problem with the former scenario is two-fold. First, because we are supposedly dealing with a post-scarcity world, the concept of commodity-trading is absurd as would be the trading of air or ocean water in our present world. Goods that are in superabundance are not subject to the study of praxeology, and certainly not within the scope of catallactics.

It is clear, though, that the world that Stross has created cannot be a post-scarcity world, if one still has to exchange in order to acquire the use of goods and services. The exchange of a valued reputation sounds interesting, but is quite problematic as will be explained momentarily.

In the latter scenario, if we posit that reputation markets are not commodity-backed, (and ignoring for a moment his apparent confusion over what comprises a post-scarcity world), all Stross has managed to do is recreate the concept of money substitutes, with the nexus of reputation markets to facilitate the exchange of this currency.[18]

In both these scenarios then, the objective exchange value of this money or money substitute comes into question without the benefit of the regression theorem to explain its present monetary valuation by the economic actors.

There are other fundamental questions to be asked about a reputation-based currency, most notably, how are reputation monetary units quantified or graded, and who or what intelligence will determine that?[19]

One can make the case, however, that although "reputs" (the story's marketable reputation units) may presently hold no objective exchange value (as they are essentially mere data patterns stored on a server) they may still hold monetary value, if and only if they once held objective exchange value.[20][21]

As intriguing as the technological wizardry within the story may be, the plot is unfortunately riddled with economic misconceptions and non sequiturs.

---

Tim Swanson is a graduate student at Texas A&M University. Send him mail. See his archive. Isaac Bergman is a real-estate developer in New York City. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

Notes

[1] For instance, from Arthur C. Clarke's imagination sprang the notion of placing communication satellites into geosynchronous orbit. And Gene Roddenberry was one of the first individuals to envisage an all-in-one handheld device, capable of measuring, communicating, and storing information.

[2] Accelerando can be viewed online for free at www.accelerando.org.

[3] While somewhat tangential, Charles Stross operates a Wiki to further explore and explain many of the ideas discussed in Accelerando. Of particular interest is his critique of libertarianism, in which he simply links to Mike Huben's smorgasbord of pro-statist arguments.

[4] The nomadic and quasi-Bohemian lifestyle that Macx lives has been described as a "serial entrepreneur"; however it is arguably closer to the life and times of grey hat hackers such as Adrian Lamo. These individuals attempt to highlight security vulnerabilities at companies, while having a credo of operating for little or no personal gain. In the story, Macx's character conveniently is able to side-step these economic uncertainties through the generosity of third-parties (e.g., "a grateful multinational consumer protection group" paid for his hotel visits). Note: one argument surrounding individuals such as Lamo is that they are, in fact, attempting to gain publicity in order to market themselves for monetary contracts.

[5] This is reminiscent of the classical argument that all monetary systems should be scrapped and replaced with a system of credits for hours of labor, as determined by the rate of a person laboring for an hour with a shovel. Not only is this average unrealistic but it also ignores the dissimilar, heterogeneous abilities and productive levels each individual is capable of. See also "labor notes" and the Cincinnati Time Store. Reading "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut may also be instructive.

[6] Apropos Peter Klein, while we enjoy an entertaining storyline, we can only suspend our disbelief so far.

[7] See also Heterodox economics and Heterodox traditions.

[8] The academic discourse comparing the LTV and STV is voluminous. For instance, see chapter 5 in "Epistemological Problems of Economics" by Ludwig von Mises. For a recent layman's explanation of the STV see "Artwork and the Subjective Theory of Value" by Yumi Kim.

[9] See, "Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics" by Murray N. Rothbard, "Praxeology and Understanding" by G.A. Selgin, and Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

[10] Prices themselves are not fixed points along a line, but rather temporally subjective valuations of goods and services. For more discussion on this paradigm of "perfect information" and what a price "should be" see "Knowledge vs. Calculation" from Stephan Kinsella.

[11] See Robert P. Murphy's "Cantor's Diagonal Argument: An Extension to the Socialist Calculation Debate" in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Summer 2006, 9(2), pp. 3-11 (available in PDF).

[12] For the Sear's connection see, here. See also Gennady Gerasimov's joke of sparing the markets of New Zealand.

[13] Regarding the centralization of knowledge and prices, see: "Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and "Why a Socialist Economy is "Impossible"" by Joseph T. Salerno. See also "Knowledge vs. Calculation" from Stephan Kinsella.

[14] For more discussion on the ABCT see, The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle compiled by Richard M. Ebeling, Money, Bank Credit, And Economic Cycles by Jesús Huerta de Soto, and "Expectations and Austrian Cycle Theory" by Frank Shostak.

[15] For more on the ERE see, chapter 14 in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, and the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State from Robert P. Murphy.

[16] This criticism can also be leveled towards the Whuffie system used in "Down in Out in the Magic Kingdom" by Cory Doctrow.

[17] Rating, risk analysis and credit scoring companies exist today; based upon a plethora of metrics they will rate the value of companies, bonds, etc. However these "reputation" companies are providing a service good, not a currency. Incidentally, both Standard & Poor's and Moody's have been erroneously sued in the past for providing debt ratings of government solvency. Stock market's themselves are institutions that — when free of regulation — can also accurately reflect and rate the health of organizations.

[18] One seemingly extraneous example that illustrates the difference between the hypothesized reputation currency and a money or money substitute system is Frequent Flier miles. These miles can arguably be called money, since they have monetary exchange value in which people acquire and maintain "cash" balances for future consumption or exchange. In the case of frequent flyer miles, the miles are initially valued for their objective exchange value, because they represents a claim on a specific good: transportation via airplane. However the reputation currency has no such explanation of any historical objective use balance, and is unlikely, if not entirely impossible, to become valued for its monetary function. See, The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises.

[19] "Reputs" are to reputation scales what 'utils' are to cardinal value scales. Furthermore, how exactly do you cash in a few points of reputation? Are they redeemable for any material object? As long as the reputation system is an exchange system, it is subject to economic laws. And assuming that Stross's reputation system somehow solves the "decider" problem, a number of other issues remain unresolved. For instance, how many "points" can each person use throughout the day? Do you get to give someone a point for every time someone does something? Every 5 seconds? Once an hour? Can you remove your vote? Is a point for yawning weighted as much as shooting a bulls-eye in archery? Ad nauseam.

[20] This aggregation mystery belies subjective indices such as BCS football rankings, college rankings, and even GDP. "What is up with GDP," by Frank Shostak, articulates perhaps the clearest account of why the GDP framework is fallacious and misleading.

[21] Regarding the present valuation of money, Ludwig von Mises writes in The Theory of Money and Credit:

Before an economic good begins to function as money it must already possess exchange value based on some other cause than its monetary function. But money that already functions as such may remain valuable even when the original source of its exchange value has ceased to exist. Its value then is based entirely on its function as common medium of exchange.

caveat lector

Perhaps proving that bookworms and peliculists (is there a word to describe movie junkies?) have more fun than everyone else...

Page 62 of Ken MacLeod's The Cassini Division pays homage to Oskar Lange:

"the (almost deserted) great hall of the Central Planning Board with its golden statue of Mises... Alas for plans."

As I learned from the last quarterly journal of Austrian Economics (and as I subsequently found quoted in this article written by the esteemed BK Marcus), Oskar Lange paid mocked homage to Mises in a 1936 response to the arguments of Professor Hayek and Robbins. Lange said, "socialists have certainly good reason to be grateful" to Mises for forcing them to "recognize the importance of an adequate system of economic accounting to guide the allocation of resources in a socialist economy." He even suggested that a "statue of Professor Mises ought to occupy an honorable place in the great hall of the ... Central Planning Board of a socialist state" in "recognition of the great service rendered by him" to the theory and practice of socialism.

In Alastair Reynold's Century Rain, Casablanca-ish similarities abound. Dialog such as

"stick my neck out" (page 116), "the beginning of a beautiful friendship" (page 457) and "We'll always have Paris" (page 496)

are clear references to the film noir classic, most probably to invoke a direct comparison of Floyd and Auger, the story's protagonists to Bogart and Bergman.

The story's love triangle, the lifelike characters whom exude multi-dimensionality, make this book stand apart from your typical space opera, the like of which so often contain the hackneyed panel of shallow caricatures. You can practically sense the murkiness of the cigarette smoke in this sci-fi turned silver screen whodunit?.

A rather shallow reference though is the story's human faction known as the "Slashers", an allusion any /.'er worth his salt has got to be brain dead to miss.

Robert A. Heinlein's Time Enough for Love is loaded, yes, loaded with semi-esoteric concepts, intimately familiar to Austrians or other studied libertarians. Perhaps its not what you would call jocular material, but I still appreciated those juicy bits with a suppressed chuckle of amusement.

Lazarus Long, the main character, is one part John Galt, one part Ragnar Danneskjold, and three parts a lecherous, licentious, and lascivious old man. I'm pretty sure I've seen it written somewhere that Heinlein identified himself with this character's espoused ideologies; methodological and egotistical individualism, vigilante/private justice, and -- catch your breath -- liberal usage of the reproductive organs with others, including one's immediate family, animals, and even his own clone. (For further reading of Heinlein's views on sexual taboos, see Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or I Will Fear No Evil. Especially the latter book.)

Observe some choice dialogue:

"I don't feel well, yet I can't die. So I'm stuck between the suicide switch and giving in for the full treatment... the donkey that starved between two piles of hay."

Buridan's Ass-- page 14.

"Ernie, where is the money?
"What money duke?"

"'What money??!' Why these account books show that you've taken in thousands and thousands of dollars. Your own trading post shows a balance of nearly a million. And I know you've been collecting mortgage payments on three or four dozen farms -- and haven't loaned hardly anything for a year or more. That's been one of the major complaints, Ernie, why the selectmen just had to act -- all that money going into the bank and none coming out. Money scarce everywhere. So where's the money, man?"

"I burned it" Gibbons answered cheerfully.
"What?"

"Certainly. It was piling up and getting too bulky. I didn't dare keep it outside the safe even though we don't have much theft here -- if somebody stole it, it could ruin me. So far the past three years, as money came into the bank, I've been burning it. To keep it safe"

"Good God!"
"What's the trouble, Duke. It's just wastepaper"
"'Wastepaper? It's money "

"What is 'money' Duke? Got any on you? Say a ten-dollar bill?" Warwick, still looking shocked, dug out one. "Read it, Duke " Gibbons urged. "Never mind the fancy engraving and the pretty paper that can't be made here as yet -- read what it says "

"It says it's ten dollars "
"So it does. But the important part is where it says the bank will accept that note at face value in payment of debts to the bank " Gibbons took out of his sporran a thousand dollar banknote, set fire to it while Warwick watched in horrible fascination. Gibbons rubbed the char off his fingers.

"Wastepaper, Duke as long as it's in my possession. But if I let it get into circulation, it becomes my IOU that I must honor. Half a moment while I record that serial number; I keep track of what I burn so that I know how much is still in circulation. Quite a lot, but I can tell you to the dollar. Are you going to honor my IOU's? And what about debts owed to the bank? Who gets paid? You? Or me?

Warwick look baffled. "Ernie, I just don't know. Hell, man, I'm a mechanic by trade. But you heard what they said at the meeting "

"Yeah, I heard. People always expect a government to work miracles -- even people who are fairly bright other ways. Let's lock up this junk and go over to the Waldorf and have a beer and discuss it "

Banking and Currency theory -- page 272.

There are a couple more, I'm sure of it, but I don't have the book around at the moment; and by golly, there is always another day for that to be explored further.

keep fast

Avid reader of Robin Hobb's earlier Farseer, Liveship Traders, and the Tawny Man trilogies will be certain to enjoy her latest Soldier's Son trilogy which begins with a "coming of age" book titled Shaman's Crossing.

The setting for this tale is an exiled empire called Gernia, which had lost its most precious coastal lands, and was forced to battle its way inland to territory already occupied by uncivilized tribes, collectively known as the 'plains people'.

The main character Nevare Burvelle is the son of a newly-appointed lord and is destined to become a soldier as was his father before the king rewarded him with lordship for his valor in combat. The story begins with couple of chapters summing up the important events of Nevare's childhood, but remaining in the present tense throughout.

The "coming of age" section, the meat of this tale, is when Nevare heads off to military academy, to hopefully become a mounted officer, part of the "cavalla" like his father before him. Nevare, a soldier's son, raised as a soldier to always obey, must now learn how to juggle between obedience and leadership, qualities which are often contradictory.

Without divulging any further plot material, this book has an ending to the compare of the Tolkien's 'scouring of the shire' in terms of Nevare's personality change and how he deals with the people around him.

What I enjoy in Robin Hobb's tales is her obvious talent in painting her characters with genuine personas, not unrealistic, quivering, and overdone moralists-- something which I believe is quite rare in the fantasy genre.

I have a vague notion of where Ms. Hobb intends on taking this series, and I believe it will be with a reexamination of the sad plight of the plains people, and the double-standard of Gernia; on one hand it proclaims its moral right to reclaim their ancestral lands, but at the same time it callously took another people's lands and disregarded their rights by proclaiming the indigenous people to be savages who must be brutally reformed into the civilization provided by Gernia.

My rating for this novel is 4.5 stars out of 5.

A Twist on Charlie's Chocolate Factory

Christopher Largen's JUNK is a upbeat, yet scarily prescient tale of where nanny-statism will eventuate.

Here is a cute excerpt:

"Pastor Smith snickered. “Well, I’ve got news for you. Despite the Reverend Goodman’s arrogant attempt to play God, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is actually a sublime Christian allegory.”

Farah leaned forward and smiled. “Oh? Do tell.”

“It’s simple . . . the Chocolate Factory represents the Kingdom of God, with Wonka as Supreme Being. In order to enter the kingdom, the Bible says, you must become like a child. So, Wonka has to find a kid to inherit his factory.”

Moe chuckled. “Oh, please. Spare us the muddled metaphors, Pastor.”

“Wait, there’s more . . . The children who find golden tickets embody the deadly sins. Augustus Gloop, of course, is Gluttony. He gets sucked into a chocolate-filled pipe, a victim of his vice. Violet Beauregard is Pride. She’s always showing off her gum-chewing skills, so she blows up like a blueberry—blows up with pride. Veruca Salt is Greed— she wants it now, and gets a one-way ticket to Rotten Eggsville. Mike TV is Sloth. He just wants to sit in front of the tube. So he becomes miniscule—he atrophies down to a speck of his former self. And Charlie is Envy. In abject poverty, he desires the comfort and security that more affluent families possess.” Pastor Smith folded his hands in his lap and smirked."

doubleplusgood

This post having nothing to do with 1984, I'm just misusing George Orwell's newspeak to sing the praises of Dan Simmon's Illium-Olympos series. Yes, the same author of the acclaimed Hugo-winning Hyperion tetralogy penned yet another treat for his fans.

I'll be the first to admit that I was somewhat confused when I finished the first book Illium last summer, but all of that was cleared up when I tore through Olympos a little over a month ago.

Ok, enough about me.

This sci-fi series is set thousands of years in the future and spanning Earth and Mars, and guests from the outer planets of Jupiter and Saturn. In this post-human future there are strange things going on, such as Homer's mythological characters, gods and mortals alike are engaged in a battle over the city of Troy, and more accurately, over Helen, the wife of Agamemnon and ertswhile lover of Paris.

Without divulging further plot material, this series skillfully combines the complicated epic struggle of the Illiad and Shakespearean characters with the best of hard science fiction elements in a delightful manner. If a post-postmodern interpretation of greek mythology is your "thing", you will love and enjoy this series as much as I did.

Go on, buy it.

The Runelords Review

I have certain qualms when reading anything of the fantasy/sci-fi genre, similiar to the views I espouse regarding of modern-day action movies, and why I think GRRM is the best thing since the invention of literary hero-slaying and regicide. The following review will spell out more clearly those biases that I employ.

Dave Wolverton (AKA "David Farland" when penning fantasy novels) is a talented writer, no question. The first thing which drew me to his Runelord series is the balance of magic. I consider the balance of magic to be a crucial element in any fantasy writing. The balance of magic is what allows me to suspend disbelief, and to comfortably enjoy a fabricated tale. The moment that the magical elements become an unaccountable system, the careful balance is thrown off, and my frustration at the series grows proportional to the disbelief unsuspended.



The Runelords universe of magic employs two different and distinct spheres of magic. The first and far more commonly employed magic is a system by which the natural endowments of people can be transfered to another individual, at the cost of the person who gives the endowment. A person may transfer his strength to his lord becoming a "dedicate", which in turn the lord will take care of this person, who may not have the strength to move about any more.

The transfer of one's endowment, be it their wit, sight, voice, olfactory, strength, metabolism, etc is accomplished by the use of magical crucibles, marked with a particular rune, which when applied first to the donor, will extract or channel that endowment. The crucible, glowing with the endowment is branded either directly to the recipient, or to someone who indirectly serves as the conduit for the recipient.

This magic system is a pretty sensible one; one person will grow in abilities, but at the same time, someone else has given up those abilities. It is a check-and-balance system, as no one person can increase their abilities, without some cost attributed elsewhere in the system. It's also a more realistic magic system, i.e. it doesn't let people teleport, shoot fireballs, fly, or generally do things which are outside of normal human abilities. However a person can move and heal faster if their metabolism is increased. The system of endowments also leads to interesting ethical dillemmas which are explored in the plot.

The second, more-encompassing magical system are the elemental magics, which unlike the other type, are powerful, abnormal magical abilites which are created ex nihilo, and therefore are mostly unaccountable, and presumingly undepletable resources. It is the type of magic where the earth lends you the ability to quake it at will, or for a river to be diverted, fireballs to be emitted from fingertips, and wind to batter the enemy. The only check-and-balance on this magic system is that the person has to follow the will of the anthropomorphized "element" in order to wield it. It is a non-nuetral value system; elemental magics are categorized as being objectively good or evil.

I have two main objections to this series. One is the slow story timeline. The series' timeline progresses at a rate of a day or so per book. Granted this isn't Ulysses, it's unrealistic, unnatural and doesn't make sense to carry so much detail "per day" in these books. The other thing which I found bothersome to is the moral qualms the main character doesn't stop quibbling about. Yes, it's fine to have ethical questions every now and then; but it's unreasonable to bore the reader with ethical dillemmas of varying degrees every page or so. Let the damn protaganist make some choices, damned be the consequences, like most people in the world. Otherwise, the character is too fake and therefore the reader unable to relate to a character who painstakingly questions every action and decision.

Otherwise this series is pretty good, and merits 4 of 5 stars.

Elements of a Balanced Magical System

[This was part of a post I'm currently working on, and it discusses the balance I believe must be maintained in the magical systems utilized in the fantasy genre. I felt it could stand on its own, so here it is.]

Many fantasy writers start their book or series with a weak hero and powerful foes, and the "resolve" is that the hero is the strong one, and the villian the weaker one. To me, neither the hero nor the villian should clearly have the magical-upperhand. A better writer will employ non-cookie cutter villians; the resolve will often involve the villian being misunderstood and perhaps virtuous, or the villian was misguided and repents; or the hero is as guilty as the villian; etc.

Overall, there must exist a plausible understanding of what motivates the hero and the villian to use their magics. The villian shouldn't be depicted as a ruthless, homicidal miscreant, wishing harm and death upon others solely for its entertainment value. The hero shouldn't be a selfless, altruistic "friar" who is fighting the battles, and constantly putting himself in mortal danger solely for the sake of others. With believable characters, your mind can more easily suspend the disbelief required for magical tales, or any other fiction for that matter.

The second element of balanced magic is that there are no major magical suprises in the sequels. This means that once a system of magic is explored and its possibilities are discovered, you simply cannot write sequels utilizing the same universe of magic, but which also burst the envelope of limitations that the previous stories and struggles were contained within. Simply put, if the magic used in the first book was only a subtle magic, fantasy writers can't use cheap parlor tricks on readers to accept the fact that now the magic is now a hundredfold more deadly, explosive, fiery, etc. Its an insult and disservice to readers who respected the earlier set magical guidelines, and whom invested time to understood the challenges that the characters faced and the actions they undertook within those limitations.

A Magical Tale, Darkly

In what I can only describe as a pleasant, albeit tedious work of literature, I present before you the work of an author, who goes by the name Susanna Clarke. The title of her opus, which I might add is her first published effort, is:
"Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell"




The tale she so expertly crafts is set in Victorian England, some time before the industrial revolution cranks into life. Her prose mimics the style of that long-gone era, which some readers may find cumbersome. But harkon not, noble reader, for if you have accidentally stumbled upon any of Neal Stephenson's last four books, it should be but a breeze to your accustomed and nineteenth-century-adjusted reading faculties.

The books' protaganists are two magicians, one laconic, bittersome Mr. Norrell, a self-styled tutor of the finer arts. Jonathan Strange is Mr. Norrell's only student and of the opposite character. Mr. Norrell is an aging, introverted bachelor, magically-cautious, and none too happy to share the wealth of the magical knowledge in his unparalleled collection of magicians texts.

Mr. Strange is a devoted husband, and is the counterpart of his mentor. He's more daring in what magic he will summon, and spells he will perform. He wishes to learn more, but his mentor has purchased every significant text and is unwilling to share their knowledge.

Aside from their diverging personalities, they disagree over the correct school of thought for proper English magic. Mr. Norrell despises any and all magic related to John Unkglass, who was known as the Raven King. Mr. Strange disagrees with his mentors assesments, and attempts to learn and practice the magic anyway.

One thing I felt about this book is that the storyline progresses to slowly, and the resolution doesn't properly resolve the issues at hand; it's almost as though Susanna is counting on the sequels to move the story foward into other dimensions.

Overall 3 out of 5 Stars.

Orson Scott Card's Endless Game

Or

"How To Milk A Franchise For Every Redeeming Quality"

I hardly know where to begin. After having read all but the last "Shadow Puppet", I feel mentally exhausted. Firstly from 2,708 pages of sheer boredom, and secondly from a feeling of being duped. This book/series came heavily hyped by a friend, and I was fairly certain that it must be good, since I've heard of the name, even if I never read it. And like the fool that I was, I made an impulse Amazon.com purchase to buy the first six books in two boxed sets.

Ender's Game, the first book was a good book. Notice that I didn't say "great". I suppose if this book preceded WarGames, I might have been inclined to say great. But since it hasn't, my mind instantly recognized the similarity, even though the exact situations were reversed*. Neverless, this book was enjoyable, even though OSC likes to paint his characters with Mensa-prequalified, earth-shattering intelligence (and believe me that this meme is severly abused.) And thusly is embued the main character Andrew (Ender) Wiggin, a genius, along with his parents, and two older siblings. Rating: 4 Stars

Ender's Shadow is book two of this series, and focuses on one of the characters who was mostly ignored in the first book. His name is simply "Bean" and he is an orphan. However, this time around, OSC has a new trick up his sleeve: Bean is so super-super-super intelligent, he makes Ender look like a drooling neanderthal-era idiot. This book is mostly written from the a revisionist point of view, showing how Bean truly manipulated the scenes in the first book, so that events only turned out the way they did, because of his behind-the-scenes actions. Rating: 3.5 Stars



For these last four book, I urge you to avoid them like the clichéd plague. I do admit though, that I very much enjoyed the introduction to "Speaker for the Dead" (Amazon's Search Inside this book.) After that you can safely put down the book.


*WARNING- SPOILER!:
In WarGames, the plot revolves an adolescent who plays a game with a computer, in which it simulates a nuclear war strategy game, only that this computer belongs to the government and controls the real-life nuclear arsenal. In Ender's Game, a 6-year-old boy plays computer games that simulate war, only to find out that he was remotely fighting and directing a real galactic war.

Of Action Movies and Humdrum Books

I've always disliked action movies. Surely, I am just as guilty as many others who indulge in this "pleasure", but I usually do for entirely different reasons. For one, I may see the movie strictly for the appreciation of the stunts, cinematography, and CGI, for example which can be found in a James Bond thriller. Or I might go along just to be with my friends who love such pulp (these are the sort of fellows who recount the movie line-by-line on the drive home.) However, I certainly didn't go because the plot was engaging or the actors were terrific (which in-deed they might have been.)

I for one, am not excited by the hundreds of rounds fired off by the hero, while hanging by his toenails from an upside-down hang-glider, while the arch-nemesis is hacking away at his arm with an axe, and despite all the thousands of henchmen, the hero somehow survives and defeats the "bad guy" in single hand to hand combat, with the aid of one special toothpick or any other device.

Action movies ARE BORING! That, plus hackeneyed, banal, and trite (I'm running out of synonyms here!) My idea of what constitutes a good movie is one you will watch again, and again without losing appreciation, and perhaps gaining more and more from it every time you watch. Here is my test to see if you really enjoy an action film- watch an older one, preferably from the 80's or early 90's. The audacity of the stunt crew and the explosions don't seem so exhilarating anymore, do they? The explosions lack some bang and those special-effects aren't so special, sí compadre?

People make the mistake of equating awesome firepower, deadening explosions, and car/motorcycle/boat/plane/helicopter/segway chases with a good movie. All you have to do is watch the same movie a few years down the line when you have already seen all of the above compressed into the first 30 seconds of a current action movie, and you will probably yawn in disgust.

This attitude of mine carries on into other media such as books. I will never read another Hardy Boys, Clive Cussler, or Robert Jordan book again. Yeah, The Hardy Boys were my friends during my childhood. I have read more than 200 of them, between the 59 in the original series, the 67 or so which I read from the Mystery series, and 106 or so from the Casefiles series. All that before I realized I was suckered into reading trash. Repetitive trash. By the time I was 13, I even wrote a couple of short story mysteries revolving around the characters Frank & Joe Hardy. Of course those weren't the only books I read. The "Three Investigators" (both the classic series and the Crimebusters) were incredible. Tom Swift (both classic and new series) was also mind-blowing to my impressionable mind.

When I was about 17, I accidently picked up my first and last Clive Cussler book. By the time I finished reading it, I cursed myself for giving it the time of day, and vowed to never look at another one again. Robert Jordan came heavily recommended, and by the look of the Robert Jordan newsgroups and IRC channels, he is practically deified by his readers. Ok, so I read his first 3 books in his Wheel of Time Series. Nothing impressive, only the same boring story of a naive youth of a troubled and humble background, unaware of his awesome latent magical powers, full of doubt and filled with ethical dilemmas, who always manages to defeat the all-powerful evil mage/god/demon, (and perhaps by accident too) by the end of the book. ZZZzzzzzz.....

Harry Potter? Don't make me laugh. I won't go as far as dissing the books, but if it brings non-readers closer to the goal of becoming full-fledged readers, it is a worthy goal. Same thing goes for Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", although I did enjoy both that book and the previous "Angel's & Demons". Also, take my advice and avoid his two earlier books, "Digital Fortress" and "Deception Point". Yes, his later books are practically mirror images, but they have many interesting tidbits, however accurate they truely are or not.

I suppose one day I will take a moment to discuss my likes and dislikes of certain authors in their respective genres. But not now, this rant is already too lengthly.