I think we should also have a general discussion about running reading groups, seeing how this one kind of derailed toward the end.
I have a thought about this, which is: you've got to have a frame of mind that "a reading group that starts" counts as successful. This was successful! Let "finishing" be something that counts as icing on the cake.
We should keep starting reading groups, whenever there's an appetite for one, because the summaries and discussions tend to be amazing and cool.
This is the only reading group where I even pretended I was going to read the book. I made it nearly to the end.
This is the first one since Being and Time that I dropped (and I lasted as long as anyone on B&T). The prose was just too thick to focus on under the circumstances.
I think for anything long and heavy, you maybe need someone who's on deck to fill in at a moment's notice for anyone who flakes out in the middle, or it'll lose momentum. I did that for a couple of chapters of Piketty, IIRC, and I think it helped.
I think you've been exempt from anything deeper than Hop on Pop for this reading period, LB. 4 is a very good suggestion, though. We did have some filling in and I'm actually glad I did my extra chapters even though they were a painful slog, but it wasn't "at a moment's notice" on my part at least.
If we do Hop on Pop, at least I won't need to buy a new book.
Second 4, and 1. And it was a success! Lots of interesting comments, and it spurred me to do more reading I wouldn't have otherwise. And I don't blame anyone for having RL issues, in case I sounded snippy in the OP.
We basically did have that person in you, Mossy! You recapped a bunch, did the cheerleading and herding necessary to keep the rest of us on track as much as possible, and now did a lovely job finishing it off. Thanks!
Aw shucks, Thorn! That's kind of you, but I think LB is right that keeping momentum is crucial, and we didn't. Just think, Moby might have finished the whole entire book!
Oh, she's definitely right! But to 10.last, no one was expecting you to work miracles.
Give me something to work with, man.
Given that we don't care whether Moby reads or not, do we have book suggestions?
I'd say:
- Not 500 dense pages.
- Not overly election-relevant, for those of us who need some escape.
- Some strong and prepared leader, preferably not me.(though time after this, maybe? Surely my life will have slowed down by then, plus I'm easy to guilt-trip.)
- Maybe not about economics? I don't care because the only way I'm going to read books about the economy is this, but one a year seems like maybe plenty for a normal person.
14 sounds sensible.* Looking very quickly at the threads it looks as if people started flagging around chapter 20, so maybe ~300 pages as upper limit?
*I obviously am up for density and economics, but I'm glutted with spare time.
Let me be the first to suggest "The Code of the Woosters". Unless the inclusion of Spode makes it too election-relevant?
Helpy-Chalk had been talking about proposing "Thinking Fast and Slow". It's long but an easy read. Bonus that I think many of us have read it (including me) and could participate with less time investment up front.
Books I can remember people suggesting:
Francis Spufford: Red Plenty
James Palmer: The Bloody White Baron
Ben Macintyre: A Spy Among Friends
Alex Butterworth: The World That Never Was
Walter Isaacson: Steve Jobs
I haven't read any of them, except Isaacson, which I think passes those tests. I'd be most keen on Palmer, but that'll be grim reading.
17 would work for me. I committed on facebook and then didn't do a blasted thing, so it would at least make me read. It seems like a book with a lot of ways in for people who wouldn't be reading and just bloviating from their personal and professional lives, which typically seems popular.
I've been meaning to read Fast and Slow for years. I'd be up for that.
Great! Let's organize it quickly and put helpy-chalk in charge before he has a chance to make other plans!
OH HELLLLLLLLL-PPPPPPY. I have a surpriiiiiiiiiiiiiise for yooooooooou.
The Macintyre is a fairly easy read. Butterworth is not, in the sense that you have to keep a mental card index of a huge number of people and who they were talking to/trying to knife at any given time. It is, however well written and not a chore to read. CT have already done the Spufford- I don't know if that matters or not.
I'd quite like to do the Palmer. I haven't read it but I have read his "The Death of Mao: The Tangshan Earthquake and the Birth of the New China" which must be equally grim but I found well worth it.
in the sense that you have to keep a mental card index of a huge number of people and who they were talking to/trying to knife at any given time
I think this is a bad setup for recaps. You need to either let people have fairly self-contained chunks or easy ways to reference what went on previously. If what you're writing about relies on something from earlier in the book that didn't show up in the notes the person assigned that chapter wrote, it seems like more work to make sure you know what was said already. Or possibly other commenters here are more up-to-date and less lazy than I am.
Butterworth is not, in the sense that you have to keep a mental card index of a huge number of people and who they were talking to/trying to knife at any given time
Just about all history books that aren't simply biographies have this issue, to me. Who is this person again? Especially if they have non-European names, unfortunately.
How about a book that's kind of an episodic travel narrative?
I still need to finish the Odyssey.
What could possibly surprise a hell-puppy?
The Chilton repair manual for a 1986 Civic.
How about a book that's kind of an episodic travel narrative?
I tell you what is great, if you can get past the early 19th century sensibility- Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent. Somebody may be able to get through all 7 volumes, but not me. There's an excellent abridgment though in Penguin, which is perfectly manageable.
I still need to finish the Odyssey.
And then read Ulysses if you haven't already.
The Odyssey, I gave up halfway through the book. Ulysses, halfway through the first page.
27 to 26 (sop for Cerberus); 28-30 to 27.
If we have a reading group for bloody James Joyce I am going on hiatus.
27 to 26 (sop for Cerberus)
Cerebus! Now there's a book group idea!
37: You'd still probably want a McManus lead, though.
And they never fought a world war again. THE END
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then...
Newt's been on a Tom Lehrer kick for a while, and was amused to find out that I sang that to him when he was a baby. (Look, you try coming up with songs tagged as lullabies. I ran dry of anything actually appropriate after "Rockabye Baby.")
The library book version is good for reading in a timely fashion, but I wound up reading and returning it in the space of 8 chapters or so, so lots of the remainder was short term memory instead of book in hand.
Still, I learned a lot from the book--and, even more, got a hint at vast swaths of history that I'd never learned, despite enjoying history and being relatively bookish. The commentators did a good job of dragging in tangents that provided useful context.
Depending on the book, I'm interested in the next. It just sounds like it'll need to be a purchase instead of a library loan if it's a more than 8-week recap.
If vote for thinking fast and slow because I haven't read it and I know I should
I'm actually already in the middle of Thinking Fast and Slow, but NW snaffled it last night to read in bed. So I'm in favour too, but only if he gets himself his own copy.
If we go with an economics book, I'd like to read The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
Although I actually own a copy of Thinking Fast and Slow, which is nice.
I enjoyed both the reading group and the book, the former having motivated me to read the latter. I'm impressed at how thorough and insightful the contributors were. Kudos to you all.
41
The Element Song makes a good lullaby, if sung slowly and with tenderness.
It was a great read, and thanks to the knowledgable people who decided on it and had so much to contribute. I learned a lot, although I'm sure in three months I'll have forgotten everything beyond "lol wilson was a dick huh."
Tom Lehrer wrote a lullaby, if you're into multilateralism, IYKWIM.
I'd go with Kahneman because like others, I also own a copy I haven't read. I'd also suggest Duncan Watts' Everything is Obvious, which I only read halfway through but seems like the kind of thing people here would be interested in.
It was good long, though, but then.
I enjoyed Spy Among Friends. Holy shit the amazing luck!
I think Thinking might be one of those books where chunks will be demolished by failure to replicate or failure to scale, over time. Too many social psychology results in there.
Kapuscinski's Soccer War is short.
Cherry-Gerard's The Worst Journey in The World is beyond fantat=stic.
Kahneman sounds OK ttoo.
My brother used to sing Tom Waits and Warren Zevon songs to his son to get him to go to sleep. "Way Down in the Hole" and "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner" worked well IIRC.
On book choice, The Worst Journey in the World is terrific, as is South (Shackleton), but you should discount my recommendations on this area as I am the blog's designated polar nut. (Ooh, also "Barrow's Boys" and "I May Be Some Time".)
I've read Thinking Fast and Slow and enjoyed it. And "Eastern Approaches" is terrific, and my go-to book recommendation for everyone, though it has low but non-zero levels of wartime grimness.
I read the whole book in one of the lulls, so once it started up again I forgot everything. Except that Wilson is a dick.
I thought the book pretty much sucked after about chapter 20 anyway. The book started with a clear thesis about people responding to the US's disproportionate power, but by the end it devolved into "Here's a bunch of stuff that happened. And then look! Hitler."
There are lots of good Tom Waits lullabies!
I have a copy of Eastern Approaches and do plan to read it soon, but I think branching out to a new topic like Thinking might be better.
52: Thank you for reminding me of Eastern Approaches! I read it at school and was completely fascinated by the illicit Central Asian journeys, to the extent that I'd completely blanked his later adventures from my memory until I looked it up again just now. Will reread.
I read the whole book in one of the lulls, so once it started up again I forgot everything
This is why we need momentum.
the book pretty much sucked after about chapter 20 anyway
Disagree. From there on America's effect is felt largely through the absence of US action rather than its presence, but that's kind of the point. I agree there's one-damn-thing-after-another feel to the end, but I think the argument holds together. I'm actually much more impressed by the book second time round, especially as I start reading the sources.
History, as Alan Bennett has one of his characters remark, is just one fucking thing after another.
For the record, I enjoyed the book event, and would likely have never read The Deluge otherwise. I also agree that it did decline into "this thing happened then this other thing happened" after a while. Still, interesting information, even if it wasn't presented in the most gripping way.
I was going to quote 57 in my second summary but figured I was being mean enough on my own without appeals to authority.
The art is in choosing which fucking things to mention, in which order.
58: Good to know! And likewise to Mooseking and others.
Is there a book Thinking Not at All? Would seem more suited to the times.
Altemeyer, The Authoritarians. Which I won't recommend for a reading group, ever, because there's only so much of this shit I can take.
I'm halfway through Thinking Fast and Slow and I don't have a good sense of how discussions of it would run: clusters of anecdata? skepticism about experimental results? But I have wanted for a while to use it as a self-help book; however that's a private matter.
I might take part in discussions, or I might finally install blocking add-ons on the remaining unblocked browser so I quit wasting all my time here when stressed and overwhelmed. Such overwhelmed, many stressed, wow.
Since I failed to write my summary of the chapter, here is the condensed version of the semi-trolling, but I believe accurate, conclusion that one should take from the last few chapters of the book.
The conclusion is this. Exiting the gold standard, which was unquestionably a good thing for the economy of Britain and the United States, was a total and complete fucking disaster for the world as a whole, because the gold system bound the world economy together. So, basically, you had America, as irresponsible as ever, and Britain, as perfidious as ever, give a big fuck you to the entire world in order to tend after their domestic economies. The result was an absolutely predictable weakening of the cosmopolitan elites in the lesser powers, the rise of fascism, and eventually complete collapse of the world order.
So, even America's most glorious moment of proto-Keynsianism, under its best or second-best President FDR, was an epic disaster on the world scale because it failed to look out for the rest of the world.
And, of course, the disaster was amplified because of America's shitty-ass handling of the world situation in the 20s, which made the problem so much worse. Immiserating allies and forcing them into all kinds of nonsense with rapacious debt demands. Refusing to negotiate a workable global economic and political order. About the only Americans with their heads screwed on remotely straight appear to have been Thomas Lamont and bankers at JP Morgan, but they were largely ignored (indeed, a core lesson of The Deluge is that the House of Morgan was, in terms of international politics at least, the smartest powerful voice in American politics and we'd have done better if they were more directly in control).
To draw the inevitable present-day comparisons, the book made me much more sympathetic to Angela Merkel. Sure, the Euro has economic problems and sure Greek debt crisis or whatever is bad. But you know what the Germans are not doing? Ignoring the geopolitical realities that bind the entity together or the core political importance of maintaining basically cosmopolitan trade people in power instead of (mostly right-wing, mostly bad) populists. Better to have a slightly fucked economy that's integrated with the rest of the world through thick institutions than a slightly better economy run by populists, especially as (when now) the populists are also caught up deeply with racial and nationalistic ideology.
Hope things get less stressed and overwhelming, lk.
I do it to myself, but thanks. (Specifically, I'm solo parenting all week and working from home because office commute is impossible without another parent around; due to fractured attention I blew a couple of deadlines and am hiding under the bed hoping they just go away.)
And Tigre, thanks for 64: it's pithy and will likely stick in my head.
64: How much are you trolling here? Lamont was one of the biggest forces pushing the gold standard, and showed little to no sign of relenting in the face of depressions (plural, in many countries, over decades) so caused. *
By 1929-33 the damage from the gold standard was such that staying on it wasn't an option, for anyone. American farmers were setting up roadblocks against debt collectors. Japanese farmers were assassinating Prime Ministers. Something had to give.
And Germany (don't know about Merkel personally) is totally 'ignoring the geopolitical realities that bind the entity together', namely that Germany's export boom is being paid for by an artificial currency union, and the periphery can only pay for those imports with German (or northern) money.
*That said, Morgan was remarkably public-spirited, in its own misguided way. It filled in as central bank when the state abdicated responsibility, for decades.
A gold standard combined with debt-forgiveness and substantial economic aid/restructuring would have worked to keep the world together, and that was basically the Morgan plan. A lot better than the alternative.
And is basically the Merkel plan right now.
68: Wait, you think "better than Hitler" is the standard we're looking for? Actually good point.
Since the alternative was, in fact, Hitler (or Tojo, or Mussolini, or now Trump). Not a Godwin violation when actual Hitlers are involved.
that was basically the Morgan plan
I guess. I'm a bit fuzzy on details by now. GOld was inherently deflationary though, any plan would tend to just kick the can down the road. And what is Merkel's plan? I haven't been following.
Hey, as HBGB said, I'm totally on board for Thinking Fast and Slow, and can do some summaries or organizing if need be.
I'm thinking partially of treating it like a self-help book. What here works for you? How do you implement it? But I'm also really interested in seeing what in it is surviving the replication crisis. I've read that some things Kahneman puts a lot of confidence in have not.
Merkel's plan is to kick the can down the road, with less starvation at Europe's periphery and possibly more young workers inside of Germany as hoped-for side-effects. The verb "Merkeln" in german now means as far as I know "to kick the can down the road"
Other Germans are differently minded, because of a) integrating Syrians and Kosovars to german work and social standards really is less straightforward than had been anticipated and b) Those people are muslims.
Yes. Kicking the can down the road and muddling through is an OK if non-completly-optimal strategy.
To Godwinize gratuitously, one of the things I learned in Wages of Destruction is that the Nazi economy ran only by imposing artificial exchange rates and importing semi-forced labor from occupied Europe.
And also entirely-forced labor, obvs. Also given the right-wing surge in Europe it isn't obvious that suboptimal muddling through will be good enough.
76: The Community method is to kick the can down the road. That, along with moving the goalposts, are the things that Brussels is most about, afaict.
If Brexit allows Frankfurt to poach most of the City (and it seems likelier to do that than Paris; Kohl's arm-twisting to get the EMI [now ECB] in Frankfurt is looking even more fateful now), that's another dynamo for the German economy and could ease conditions in the periphery. I am reading that Berlin is making a play for London's tech scene, that seems a little less likely to succeed, but who knows? I'll have to ask my friends who are more closely involved there. Munich should definitely be trying to snag the European Medical Authority; Oktoberfestland is the biggest biotech center in the non-UK EU.
Anyway. "Gut gemerkelt," cans kicked, thanks Brexiteers for the bonus to the rest.