Thursday, December 27, 2012
What? The Sun!?
It's been raining for several days here in NC, and the Sun has decided to come out and play today! Going to get cleaned up and see what I can get done outside; I've missed Vitamin D.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Resurfacing; My thoughts on Sandy Hook
=======================================================================
Caveat Lector: I'm about to ramble on about my personal philosophy for a bit.What I'm going to say is either pro self sufficiency, pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-small community, or a combination of all the above. If you don't like it, either be civil or sod off.
=======================================================================
I know that I've been pretty quiet online for the past week or so. Since Sandy Hook, I've been taking my time, dissecting what I was seeing in the media and in society, and figuring out what exactly it is that I wanted to say about it. Somethings were easier to figure out than others; for instance, I don't have any sympathy for the shooter (whom I won't dignify by naming), because that son of a bitch is dead, which is as it should be. Other things are more nuanced.
Back in the Byzantine era, when I was in high school, I was in the NJROTC. I learned a lot from those courses, and the people in them. One of the things that stuck with me the most is about the balance between authority and accountability (or power vs. responsibility). These two forces have to be in balance, regardless of which person, or office, or government is forming the fulcrum. If authority far outweighs accountability, you get tyranny. If accountability is in the extreme, you get slavery. Society always seeks to correct any imbalances, just look through the history of rebellions, the fall of empires, and the rise of individual rights for evidence.
What does this have to do with Sandy Hook? I think that our society has had a trend towards reducing the level in which the individual is culpable for their own actions. A burglar can sue a homeowner if they fall through a skylight and hurt themselves, because the homeowner didn't take appropriate steps to keep them off of the roof. Folk can sue McDonalds if they order a hot coffee and there after scald themselves by opening it in a moving vehicle. Families of dead drunkards can sue electrical companies when the besotted bastard climbed over separate fences and pisses on a transformer, because the electrical company didn't have a roaming security guard to keep him out. The list goes on, and on, and on. In our society, the individual is being held less and less accountable for their actions.
So, how does society balance that out? It would make sense to hold people accountable for their own actions again, but it seems people don't want the responsibility. No, it seems that society would rather remove its own authority to balance the scales. The movement I've seen in this direction is to chuck rights under the bus until people feel safe again. The method that seems to be approved to establish this is to outsource responsibility for these things to a third party (the government).
People don't seem to understand the equalizing forces that our basic rights grant us. No amount of money in another person's pocket should stop you from being able to speak your mind as you see fit. With freedom of speech, your word counts the same as anyone else's. No amount of peer pressure should be able to force you into not practicing your own religion, or force you into practicing a religion at all. With freedom of religion, your religion (or lack thereof) cannot be questioned. No one should be able to walk into your home and rifle through your things. With the fourth amendment, the privacy of your home, and your mind, is sacrosanct. And no one, regardless of how big or tough they are, should be able to physically push you around. With the Second Amendment, if a 120 lb, 5'1" woman is carrying the same firearm as a 6'1", 275lb man, with equal skill, then their effective lethality is exactly the same. Instead of minimizing individual liberty and authority, we should be maximizing it while holding people to exacting account for their own behavior through societal pressure from their family, friends, and neighbors.
Instead of that, though, this is all I'm hearing on TV and reading online:
It wasn't the gunman's fault, it was the guns. Let's get rid of the 2nd amendment and ban guns! After all, the police and the army will protect us!
No, It wasn't the guns fault, it was all the violence in the media. Let's get rid of Freedom of Speech, and force people to sell back their violent video games. After all, we can trust the government to know what's right for everyone!
No, no, it was all these religious groups, let's make Christianity the only tolerable religion and blackball all the others. After all the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, right?
No, no, no. It's mental illnesses that are the real issue, let's just toss out the 4th amendment and invade medical records so that the government can keep it's ever so trustworthy eye on folk with those pesky chemical imbalances. After all, the Government knows what is acceptable behavior for all of us, right?
My problem with doing this is that we can't get rid of our rights without creating a society where the government has the power to censor the people, has a monopoly on legitimate force, strictly monitors the people and punishes them for deviation from the societal norm, and limits personal freedom of religion to one or two "moral" options. This is the very definition of a tyrannical government. It establishes a caste system of second-class and third class civilians who by law are less equal than others. Raise your hand if you honestly want this sort of outcome. No one? Didn't think so.
I know that there are some people that don't think that this is true. This is primarily due to them not understanding that while the government is formed by the people, it is a separate entity that derives its power from the consent of the governed. The only way that we have "consent" is if we are empowered to take actions against it, through words, through protests, and yes, through force of arms. Take away that power, and we're no longer consenting; we're at the mercy of a government that has more power than the people. Therein lies the truth; the power and accountability of the government has to be exactly equal to the power and accountability of the people, so that the two forces cancel out. If the people succeed in divesting themselves of their rights, the government no longer requires our "consent". It will have the greater power, or authority, and can just make us do what it wants.
The other issue that those people don't understand is the long-view of what they are arguing for.
Anyone that argues against freedom of religion is arguing for a monotheistic government establishment. Period.
Anyone that argues against freedom of speech is arguing for government censorship and greater speaking "privileges" for those with the funds to broadcast. Period.
Anyone that argues against the Fourth Amendment ultimately believes that the government should be able to walk into your home, your safe, your medical records, and your personal life at any time and subject you to observation and inspection. Period.
Anyone that argues against the Second Amendment is arguing for the physical domination of the weaker so that they are subjugated by the strong. Period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's re-group here and think about what should be done. Let's all avoid talk about what rights we'd like to see hit the cutting room floor, and instead think about what steps each individual person can take to make things better for society over all. First, let's acknowledge that there is such a thing as societal responsibility. Any man or woman is responsible for protecting any children in their sight, end of line. If you wouldn't kill a creep for molesting a kid, please excuse yourself out of my country. We're all responsible for the actions of the government, since we voted them into power, so let's all vote according to our carefully reasoned principles and keep close tabs on our elected officials. Let's all come to a gentleman's and ladies agreement that there is a social floor of poverty that we shouldn't let people fall through, and do what we can to help them back on their feet and get them working and moving with us again. Let us all have pride in what we do, and protect the pride of others.
On the individual level, let's all agree that we have have an obligation to prevent our own children from seeing things that we don't want them to see, government and social groups be damned. That we are each ultimately responsible for our own decisions, regardless of how foolishly they were determined. Let's further agree that we have an obligation to respect other people's religions, despite how we each feel about our own moral authority. Let's keep an eye on each other and offer help if things seem out of sorts, but keep our noses out of it if the answer is No. Let's all be vigilant and aware of our surroundings, so that danger doesn't take us by surprise. And let's all understand that we are each ultimately responsible for our own lives, and that in the moment of crisis no amount of government spending will assure that a cop or soldier will be right beside you to shoot the bad guy threatening you.
And if you disagree with all of this, if you want a government that strips you of your rights and keeps you under close surveillance for your own protection; kindly remove yourself from my list of friends and never speak to me again. I can't trust you to pitch in when the fur flies, and I won't be responsible sticking up for your rights if you won't life a finger to save them yourself.
Caveat Lector: I'm about to ramble on about my personal philosophy for a bit.What I'm going to say is either pro self sufficiency, pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-small community, or a combination of all the above. If you don't like it, either be civil or sod off.
=======================================================================
I know that I've been pretty quiet online for the past week or so. Since Sandy Hook, I've been taking my time, dissecting what I was seeing in the media and in society, and figuring out what exactly it is that I wanted to say about it. Somethings were easier to figure out than others; for instance, I don't have any sympathy for the shooter (whom I won't dignify by naming), because that son of a bitch is dead, which is as it should be. Other things are more nuanced.
Back in the Byzantine era, when I was in high school, I was in the NJROTC. I learned a lot from those courses, and the people in them. One of the things that stuck with me the most is about the balance between authority and accountability (or power vs. responsibility). These two forces have to be in balance, regardless of which person, or office, or government is forming the fulcrum. If authority far outweighs accountability, you get tyranny. If accountability is in the extreme, you get slavery. Society always seeks to correct any imbalances, just look through the history of rebellions, the fall of empires, and the rise of individual rights for evidence.
What does this have to do with Sandy Hook? I think that our society has had a trend towards reducing the level in which the individual is culpable for their own actions. A burglar can sue a homeowner if they fall through a skylight and hurt themselves, because the homeowner didn't take appropriate steps to keep them off of the roof. Folk can sue McDonalds if they order a hot coffee and there after scald themselves by opening it in a moving vehicle. Families of dead drunkards can sue electrical companies when the besotted bastard climbed over separate fences and pisses on a transformer, because the electrical company didn't have a roaming security guard to keep him out. The list goes on, and on, and on. In our society, the individual is being held less and less accountable for their actions.
So, how does society balance that out? It would make sense to hold people accountable for their own actions again, but it seems people don't want the responsibility. No, it seems that society would rather remove its own authority to balance the scales. The movement I've seen in this direction is to chuck rights under the bus until people feel safe again. The method that seems to be approved to establish this is to outsource responsibility for these things to a third party (the government).
People don't seem to understand the equalizing forces that our basic rights grant us. No amount of money in another person's pocket should stop you from being able to speak your mind as you see fit. With freedom of speech, your word counts the same as anyone else's. No amount of peer pressure should be able to force you into not practicing your own religion, or force you into practicing a religion at all. With freedom of religion, your religion (or lack thereof) cannot be questioned. No one should be able to walk into your home and rifle through your things. With the fourth amendment, the privacy of your home, and your mind, is sacrosanct. And no one, regardless of how big or tough they are, should be able to physically push you around. With the Second Amendment, if a 120 lb, 5'1" woman is carrying the same firearm as a 6'1", 275lb man, with equal skill, then their effective lethality is exactly the same. Instead of minimizing individual liberty and authority, we should be maximizing it while holding people to exacting account for their own behavior through societal pressure from their family, friends, and neighbors.
Instead of that, though, this is all I'm hearing on TV and reading online:
It wasn't the gunman's fault, it was the guns. Let's get rid of the 2nd amendment and ban guns! After all, the police and the army will protect us!
No, It wasn't the guns fault, it was all the violence in the media. Let's get rid of Freedom of Speech, and force people to sell back their violent video games. After all, we can trust the government to know what's right for everyone!
No, no, it was all these religious groups, let's make Christianity the only tolerable religion and blackball all the others. After all the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, right?
No, no, no. It's mental illnesses that are the real issue, let's just toss out the 4th amendment and invade medical records so that the government can keep it's ever so trustworthy eye on folk with those pesky chemical imbalances. After all, the Government knows what is acceptable behavior for all of us, right?
My problem with doing this is that we can't get rid of our rights without creating a society where the government has the power to censor the people, has a monopoly on legitimate force, strictly monitors the people and punishes them for deviation from the societal norm, and limits personal freedom of religion to one or two "moral" options. This is the very definition of a tyrannical government. It establishes a caste system of second-class and third class civilians who by law are less equal than others. Raise your hand if you honestly want this sort of outcome. No one? Didn't think so.
I know that there are some people that don't think that this is true. This is primarily due to them not understanding that while the government is formed by the people, it is a separate entity that derives its power from the consent of the governed. The only way that we have "consent" is if we are empowered to take actions against it, through words, through protests, and yes, through force of arms. Take away that power, and we're no longer consenting; we're at the mercy of a government that has more power than the people. Therein lies the truth; the power and accountability of the government has to be exactly equal to the power and accountability of the people, so that the two forces cancel out. If the people succeed in divesting themselves of their rights, the government no longer requires our "consent". It will have the greater power, or authority, and can just make us do what it wants.
The other issue that those people don't understand is the long-view of what they are arguing for.
Anyone that argues against freedom of religion is arguing for a monotheistic government establishment. Period.
Anyone that argues against freedom of speech is arguing for government censorship and greater speaking "privileges" for those with the funds to broadcast. Period.
Anyone that argues against the Fourth Amendment ultimately believes that the government should be able to walk into your home, your safe, your medical records, and your personal life at any time and subject you to observation and inspection. Period.
Anyone that argues against the Second Amendment is arguing for the physical domination of the weaker so that they are subjugated by the strong. Period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's re-group here and think about what should be done. Let's all avoid talk about what rights we'd like to see hit the cutting room floor, and instead think about what steps each individual person can take to make things better for society over all. First, let's acknowledge that there is such a thing as societal responsibility. Any man or woman is responsible for protecting any children in their sight, end of line. If you wouldn't kill a creep for molesting a kid, please excuse yourself out of my country. We're all responsible for the actions of the government, since we voted them into power, so let's all vote according to our carefully reasoned principles and keep close tabs on our elected officials. Let's all come to a gentleman's and ladies agreement that there is a social floor of poverty that we shouldn't let people fall through, and do what we can to help them back on their feet and get them working and moving with us again. Let us all have pride in what we do, and protect the pride of others.
On the individual level, let's all agree that we have have an obligation to prevent our own children from seeing things that we don't want them to see, government and social groups be damned. That we are each ultimately responsible for our own decisions, regardless of how foolishly they were determined. Let's further agree that we have an obligation to respect other people's religions, despite how we each feel about our own moral authority. Let's keep an eye on each other and offer help if things seem out of sorts, but keep our noses out of it if the answer is No. Let's all be vigilant and aware of our surroundings, so that danger doesn't take us by surprise. And let's all understand that we are each ultimately responsible for our own lives, and that in the moment of crisis no amount of government spending will assure that a cop or soldier will be right beside you to shoot the bad guy threatening you.
And if you disagree with all of this, if you want a government that strips you of your rights and keeps you under close surveillance for your own protection; kindly remove yourself from my list of friends and never speak to me again. I can't trust you to pitch in when the fur flies, and I won't be responsible sticking up for your rights if you won't life a finger to save them yourself.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Paper Review; Gurnell et al 2011
WARNING: HEAVY SCIENCE
Gurnell, A., W. Bertoldi, D. Corenblit. "Changing River Channels: The Roles of Hydrological Processes, Plants and Pioneer Fluvial Landforms in Humid Temperate, Mixed Load, Gravel Bed Rivers". Earth-Science Reviews 111, 129-141. Dec. 2012
--------------------------------------------
This was a pretty good paper on the types of vegetation, and under what circumstances, that can establish pioneer landforms that can stabilize river banks. The paper itself talks about four separate study areas, which muddles things a bit and makes some of the interpretations a little hard to follow (which river were they talking about again? The one in France?). It was decently written, but it still had some writing issues that I found glaring. A couple of colloquialisms, five or six awkwardly written sentences, and an entire paragraph that was completely unnecessary and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
There was some very cool info in the paper, though: It talked briefly about how river systems changed in ancient history due to the influx of new vegetation types, which is a facet of Geomorph that I've never touched on before (very cool!). Apparently rivers were a lot more braided back in the day, until vegetation started to stabilize the banks. Makes sense.
There's three figures that are extremely handy, one of which describes the zone of interaction between pioneer plant species and flood disturbance in terms of vegetation biomass, which is really just a graph of how effective plants are in relation to elevation above the channel surface at establishing new forms. Another figure shows an evolutionary model on pioneer islands, which is a pretty cool concept: A reedy type of vegetation manages to establish itself, which under flow causes sediment to be entrained behind it, eventually storing more sediment under which more vegetation can establish. It's a positive feed-back loop which eventually allows the pioneer island to be incorporated into the floodplain. Again, this stuff makes sense but it's always good to see an idealized model to explain the concept.
The third model is what brought me to the paper, and that's one about riparian species and their role in allowing in-channel alluvial benches to become established. It's still all about reedy vegetation slowing down flows for the accretion of sediment, so it just gives me something to look for when I'm in the field.
I was surprised by some of the descriptions of how vegetation can be established *after* a flood event, by portions of vegetation ranging from propagules to entire limbs that can root on landforms. I hadn't thought about sections of living vegetation being able to root itself prior to be ripped off during an event, so that was a new one on me. These folks are biogeomorphologists so I bow to their expertise but I'd still like to see that process in action. Not to believe it, but I guess just to verify my understanding of how that would work.
Oh, and *tons* of sources to back track for more papers to read. I never really understood why teachers make students try to satisfy a certain criterion for citations; whatever it takes to properly cite is what it takes to finish the paper, not a firm "no less, no more" than eight. If that means 10, fine. If that means 120, fine. Whatever it takes.
Pretty good paper overall, with lots of useful info. Just needs a good revision. 80 out of 100, with the majority of the points being dinged because of bad writing.
Gurnell, A., W. Bertoldi, D. Corenblit. "Changing River Channels: The Roles of Hydrological Processes, Plants and Pioneer Fluvial Landforms in Humid Temperate, Mixed Load, Gravel Bed Rivers". Earth-Science Reviews 111, 129-141. Dec. 2012
--------------------------------------------
This was a pretty good paper on the types of vegetation, and under what circumstances, that can establish pioneer landforms that can stabilize river banks. The paper itself talks about four separate study areas, which muddles things a bit and makes some of the interpretations a little hard to follow (which river were they talking about again? The one in France?). It was decently written, but it still had some writing issues that I found glaring. A couple of colloquialisms, five or six awkwardly written sentences, and an entire paragraph that was completely unnecessary and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
There was some very cool info in the paper, though: It talked briefly about how river systems changed in ancient history due to the influx of new vegetation types, which is a facet of Geomorph that I've never touched on before (very cool!). Apparently rivers were a lot more braided back in the day, until vegetation started to stabilize the banks. Makes sense.
There's three figures that are extremely handy, one of which describes the zone of interaction between pioneer plant species and flood disturbance in terms of vegetation biomass, which is really just a graph of how effective plants are in relation to elevation above the channel surface at establishing new forms. Another figure shows an evolutionary model on pioneer islands, which is a pretty cool concept: A reedy type of vegetation manages to establish itself, which under flow causes sediment to be entrained behind it, eventually storing more sediment under which more vegetation can establish. It's a positive feed-back loop which eventually allows the pioneer island to be incorporated into the floodplain. Again, this stuff makes sense but it's always good to see an idealized model to explain the concept.
The third model is what brought me to the paper, and that's one about riparian species and their role in allowing in-channel alluvial benches to become established. It's still all about reedy vegetation slowing down flows for the accretion of sediment, so it just gives me something to look for when I'm in the field.
I was surprised by some of the descriptions of how vegetation can be established *after* a flood event, by portions of vegetation ranging from propagules to entire limbs that can root on landforms. I hadn't thought about sections of living vegetation being able to root itself prior to be ripped off during an event, so that was a new one on me. These folks are biogeomorphologists so I bow to their expertise but I'd still like to see that process in action. Not to believe it, but I guess just to verify my understanding of how that would work.
Oh, and *tons* of sources to back track for more papers to read. I never really understood why teachers make students try to satisfy a certain criterion for citations; whatever it takes to properly cite is what it takes to finish the paper, not a firm "no less, no more" than eight. If that means 10, fine. If that means 120, fine. Whatever it takes.
Pretty good paper overall, with lots of useful info. Just needs a good revision. 80 out of 100, with the majority of the points being dinged because of bad writing.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Book Review; Tunnel in the Sky
I'll admit to being something of a Heinlein fan, but I'm not an apologist. I've read some of his stuff that just plain wasn't good, or seemed a little bonkers. His latter works as he started slipping come to mind.
Tunnel in the Sky, thankfully, is not one of those. If you can get past some of the 50's style "Jee Whilicers" dialogue, it's got a good plot with solid characterization. It's vintage Heinlein, a good adventure romp with plenty of self-sufficient philosophy thrown in. It's a page turner, but damned it's short. I got through it in a couple days worth of spare time.
I suspect that if the book was ever made into a movie, the same troupe of racists would trot out their arguments on why the talent scouts stubbed their toe, just like with the character "Rue" in the Hunger Games movie. The main character, "Rod", is indeed black. If the reader can't suss that out of the book, they need to burn their high school diploma and give their state a refund on their public education, because obviously it didn't take.
Anywho.
My edition is on the Kindle, so as expected there were relatively few grammatical and spelling errors. There were some, but not many folks are going to jump on a half-century old book with both feet and complain about it. At least, not too much.
One of my favorite things about reading Heinlein is that he expects his readers to be well read. It had been about a decade since I read through Kipling's verse, but I had to trot out a copy to get a reference about "The Truce of the Bear". After a refresher, the comment made perfect sense. At some point I'll get a full copy of the Five Nations and review it, but for now Google worked fine.
My one real gripe with the book is that I don't think that the side characters were very well fleshed out. There were five or six characters that I knew intimately by the end of the book, but there were literally dozens of toss-away characters, that I knew were toss-away characters but expected a little bit more than a window treatment from Heinlein. Didn't get it, no joy. Boo, hiss. Heinlein knew better, of course, but I suspect that his real focus was on the ordeals of nation building. I can't blame him for that, but I still blame him for losing track of characters.
I really liked Tunnel in the Sky, but of course nothing is perfect. Since liked this one just a touch less than "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", so in keeping with that this book rates an 88 out of 100 on my reviewing scale. Not bad, not bad at all.
Tunnel in the Sky, thankfully, is not one of those. If you can get past some of the 50's style "Jee Whilicers" dialogue, it's got a good plot with solid characterization. It's vintage Heinlein, a good adventure romp with plenty of self-sufficient philosophy thrown in. It's a page turner, but damned it's short. I got through it in a couple days worth of spare time.
I suspect that if the book was ever made into a movie, the same troupe of racists would trot out their arguments on why the talent scouts stubbed their toe, just like with the character "Rue" in the Hunger Games movie. The main character, "Rod", is indeed black. If the reader can't suss that out of the book, they need to burn their high school diploma and give their state a refund on their public education, because obviously it didn't take.
Anywho.
My edition is on the Kindle, so as expected there were relatively few grammatical and spelling errors. There were some, but not many folks are going to jump on a half-century old book with both feet and complain about it. At least, not too much.
One of my favorite things about reading Heinlein is that he expects his readers to be well read. It had been about a decade since I read through Kipling's verse, but I had to trot out a copy to get a reference about "The Truce of the Bear". After a refresher, the comment made perfect sense. At some point I'll get a full copy of the Five Nations and review it, but for now Google worked fine.
My one real gripe with the book is that I don't think that the side characters were very well fleshed out. There were five or six characters that I knew intimately by the end of the book, but there were literally dozens of toss-away characters, that I knew were toss-away characters but expected a little bit more than a window treatment from Heinlein. Didn't get it, no joy. Boo, hiss. Heinlein knew better, of course, but I suspect that his real focus was on the ordeals of nation building. I can't blame him for that, but I still blame him for losing track of characters.
I really liked Tunnel in the Sky, but of course nothing is perfect. Since liked this one just a touch less than "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", so in keeping with that this book rates an 88 out of 100 on my reviewing scale. Not bad, not bad at all.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Watching it Burn
Oakland is having a bit of a forehead smacking, "why the hell didn't I see this coming" moment. Notice how that article is suspiciously short in info on how the police force got that low? You see, two years ago the city council decided that the best way to trim the budget was to cut 80 officers off of the force, which was a little more than 10% of the standing force. Then the police announced that they wouldn't respond to burglary calls anymore.
Now, they are reaping what they have sown. Folks, California is a study in how not to manage a government, or how to help the people. Let's have some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, gut the police force, and then tell the honest citizens not to defend themselves. Let's also tax the hell out of the people, and then run the government into debt to the tune of at least $165 Billion, and perhaps as much as $335 billion for giggles. When Kipling wrote "The Islanders", he was writing about Britain, but he might as well have been talking the folk in California.
Thankfully, due to the grace of all-powerful Atheismo, I wasn't born in California. If I woke up tomorrow in California, and was informed that I now live there, I'd promptly pack my shit and leave. This is right after salting and burning the land I had slept on.
Kinda like this, except with 100% more intent.
--------------------------------------
Business Insider says that the new NDAA makes indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process easier. I'm not really surprised.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Damn Caffeine
You would think that I would learn. I mean, I think I'm a pretty quick guy. Still, when there are soft drinks in the house I just go to town and drink them right up, knowing that they mess with my stomach too much.
I haven't had any soda since this morning, and it's still bothering me. Ugh. Now I remember why I stopped drinking them in the first place.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Steak!
Tonight's meal brought to me by my better half's parents, who randomly play noble benefactor to our starving college student. Damn near a pound of Angus steak each. Mmmmm.
Be very jealous.
That'd make a hell of a Campfire...
Those are people, and the limb the yellow jacket is hanging from is the size of a normal tree.
I kid, I kid. Seriously, check out that mamajama. It's huge! It's a Giant Sequoia, a species of Redwood. That's just incredible!
Read the article, get some Science in your life. Actually, read "Wild Trees", by Richard Preston. It's about Steve Sillet (in part), who's in this picture. Cool stuff.
Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy
This is basically cheating, I know, since it's three books that I'm reviewing and not one. I'm lumping them together because I read all three in the span of "reading time" I would normally allot to a single book. This is the peril of reading fiction that's way below your reading level; fast read times. And make no mistake, , despite the insight into politics that a teenager would not possess, and despite the perspective and world view in the book that a teenager (in the U.S.) couldn't possibly identify with.. this is a book written for teenage girls.
There, I said it. I read a book for teenage girls. Are you happy, internet?
The Hunger Games Trilogy, by Suzanne Collins, using the technical definition, was well written. If there were mistakes in grammar and spelling, they didn't jump out at me like a naked hobo with a clown mask on.
That's a good thing.
I ultimately reached a bad verdict of the series overall, because the third book in the trilogy made no sense. Don't get me wrong; the plot was understandable (and predictably linear), the characters easy to grasp, and the action well paced. But the characterization towards the end of the work was just atrocious. The characters do and say things that are completely out of character and run contrary to previous remarks, actions, and the moral of the story. Why? I don't want to hand out a ton of spoilers here, but let me just say that the end of the third book is like a Seinfield episode. No one learned anything, and there was no development for the characters. It's sad, and a waste of effort.
My better half lobs the argument that Katniss, the main character, has been run through the wringer and its reasonable to portray her as rather broken. I disagree, simply because this is a book about a heroine, that young girls might aspire to be like. If I ever have a daughter, I want her to learn that sometimes life can be needlessly cruel and unfair, that those with authority are not to be trusted, and that sometimes you have to get your shit together under terrible circumstances because other people depend on you. I don't want her to think that getting doped out of your mind, avoiding your issues, and taking more than a year to vacillate between two men is an acceptable method for dealing with things. Collins stubbed her toe on the heroics, except for Peeta (and to a lesser extent, Gale), who handle her silliness fairly well and are excellent male role models.
There's also some rather heavy-handed metaphors, which is frankly rather dull. I like to take a few minutes to think about events, what they mean. I don't need or want a literary ogre clubbing me over the noggin. Look, the main character's scarred appearance now matches the emotional/internal scars! We can dress her so she looks the same, but underneath she's still the same! I GET IT.
Jeez. Next time just send me the Cliff's Notes version, it's probably got the same level of subtlety.
Here's the break down. Book 1, the Hunger Games, gets a respectable 70. Book 2, which is almost as good, gets an almost as respectable 68. Book 3 gets an abysmal 40. I've read worse, so this doesn't come close to making my shit-list for horrible fiction, but I think it whisked through the door just in time (and perhaps, like Bilbo, lost a few buttons in the process). Average them out: 59%.
Try harder next time, Suzanne Collins. Try harder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)