Gulf, by Robert A. Heinlein, Reviewed.

Robert Heinlein, L. Sprague de Camp, and Isaac Asimov, Philadelphia Navy Yard, 1944. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gulf, by Robert A. Heinlein, is a Sci-fi adventure story/thriller, set on a future Earth and Moon, full of fascinating contradictions. The anachronisms - for example, the plot depends on the physical transmission of microfilms - ought to render it unreadable for a modern reader, but the quality of the writing and the characterisation both take it into the realm of the 'classic'.

Written in 1949, long before the computer was commonplace, although Turing had by that time already shown such a machine was a real possibility, the exclusion of this major influence on the world is a serious omission. I suspect, had Heinlein been aware of the extraordinary changes to communication encouraged by computers and their peripherals, he would have found a way to modify his story to include this aspect of modern life.

There's a good deal of philosophising in the book; much of this could conceivably be considered an analogy for Hitler's attempts to breed a pure race of Tutons. Here, however, we have the idea of a race of 'supermen' based entirely on brainpower. That, perhaps, is the least attractive part of the book. There's a singular lack of emotional content in both the characters and the philosophy many of them espouse. I gained the impression, from the large portions of author intrusion, that Heinlein was definitely on the side of the 'supermen'.

Whilst many of the ideas expressed are attractive to anyone who has a rational element to their personality, the lack of emotional content is a serious worry. Imagining a world taken over by those with the ability to reason and rationalise their way out of our most pressing problems, but lacking any emotional connection either with each other or with their intended victims, makes for a barren world devoid of the most important single quality displayed by humans: their capacity to love.

The story itself is fast moving, full of event and crammed with ideas. The central character, Gilead, is an extraordinarily capable survivor in what is often an almost incomprehensible world. His connection with and partnership of Baldwin allows the story to take on a new dimension and it is following this association that the philosophising really begins.

The denouement was both surprising and, on reflection, inevitable. I find myself recalling certain passages and considering the various messages and theories postulated by the book. I suspect this is a story that will stay with me for quite a while and one which will inform my own writing in certain ways.

So, if you're susceptible, beware of reading this book. It might give you ideas! It's an old story but, in spite of its deficiencies, one worth reading.

It has been said that in Gulf, Heinlein tackles the question, 'What is a superman?' and in answering it, makes previous answers appear muddleheaded. I'd add to that observation that Heinlein's 'superman' is the product of equal muddleheadedness. The total lack of a moral framework or an emotional component, makes his superman more a totalitarian despot than a true superhero, I think.

Nevertheless, I'd happily recommend this as a read for sci-fi and general readers alike.

The Absolute at Large, by Karel Capek, Reviewed.

Photography of the Czech author Karel Čapek. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Karel Capek is, of course, the author credited with the invention of the term 'robot', but this story isn't concerned with artificial intelligence in any way. He was a philosopher. The book first appeared in Britain, in translation by Thomas Mark, in 1927. The style and language reflect this period and the version I read had been edited by Damon Knight, the anthology editor, to remove certain chapters he described as 'nearly half the book - (chapters) that go nowhere and contribute nothing to the story.'

This is a story told for a purpose. The theme of man's mistaking religion for respect for God is transparent and boldly exposed throughout. The author was clearly troubled by this artificial confining of a force he considered too complex and ineffable to be so defined. It's an element of my own beliefs on the subject so, naturally, I was in sympathy as soon as this theme became apparent.

The story concerns the activities of a businessman, Bondy, who encapsulates all that is abhorrent in those who consider profit the only worthwhile pursuit, and his one-time friend, Marek, an engineer and inventor who is sensitive to the terrifying device he's created. The Karburator, an imaginary nuclear device capable of destroying matter and converting it to pure energy, is initially seen by Bondy as a way of making vast profits. In spite of Marek's demonstration and warning of its underlying spiritual capacity, Bondy is so taken with the opportunity to make millions that he manufactures these devices in large numbers, causing a crisis in the economic structure that leads to war, famine, death and disaster.

I will give no further description of the plot, but the ending is less inevitable than might be supposed, although Capek's attempt at a warning for mankind is achieved at the expense of what might be considered the natural conclusion to the tale. This author intervention is acceptable, however, in that it allows the central message to be sounded loud and clear. It would take a fairly dense reader not to understand the meaning behind this story.

This is not the version I read, which was from an anthology,
but an image taken from Amazon, where it can be bought.

Can the book be read on the surface level, as a simple tale of greed overcoming judgement? I suppose it can, and probably will be by those without any real knowledge or interest in the philosophical questions posed. I was unable and unwilling to read it at that level and the story was therefore more accessible to me than it might be for the more casual reader. Don't misunderstand me, here. I'm not suggesting any sort of superior understanding on my part, merely trying to point out that the book will be a different experience for those who read it without reference to the deep philosophical issues it raises.

Had I approached this as a simple story, I doubt I would have put up with the long passages of authorial comment. But these are fairly typical of the age in which the book was written, and we tend to forgive them in the classics of that era.

The characters are surprisingly well drawn and even minor roles are played out with conviction so that the reader is able to identify and empathise with certain people in the book. Bondy, in spite of his irredeemable materialism and inability to separate truth from his superficial, but commonly held, belief in a superior power, is nevertheless a real character and not the cypher he might so easily have become in the hands of a lesser author.

There is much humour in the story and a great deal of it is told tongue-in-cheek. I suspect that some of that humour is lost in translation, but enough remains to make the read enjoyable.

I recommend this book to serious readers but think those who prefer simple tales simply told would be best advised to give it a miss.

When is Theft Not Really Stealing?

Image via Wikipedia

Theo: You do the boss a favour, staying at your desk over your lunch break to field an important call for him, and, whilst you're captive, in what's generally your own time, you surf the net. It's company policy that you can do this during your lunch break, provided you don't enter inappropriate sites, of course. You come across an article you've been wanting to read; research for a private project. So, without the time to read it there and then, you print off the five pages with the colour illustrations, on the firm's laser printer so you can take it home to read in comfort. Is that theft?

Dave: What, taking five sheets of office paper and a bit of ink they'll never even notice? You're kiddin', right?

Theo: The question is this: Is it yours to take?

Dave: Hell, man, you're doing the boss a favour in your own time. He owes you, doesn't he? Any case, I bet you waste more paper and ink than that nearly every day by mistake.

Theo: So, you don't think it counts as stealing?

Dave: No way.

Theo: The same, I suppose, goes for those odd paper clips, rubber bands and envelopes you take for personal use?

Dave: Look, everyone does that. You can't call it stealing. The amount they pay for stationery, they'd never even notice, would they?

Theo: And the private letters placed into the post tray to be stamped or franked?

Dave: Maybe in an emergency. You know, when it needs to go today and you don't have a stamp or you can't get out the office for some reason. Once in a while won't do any harm, will it?

Theo: What about that photocopying of the club's agenda for that meeting you've arranged tonight as secretary? A copy of three pages for each of thirty seven members. How about that?

Dave: It's for a good cause, isn't it? I mean, I know the boss doesn't give to that cause, but the firm chooses a charity every year to support, so they don't mind a bit of giving, do they?

Theo: Not, then, a matter of principle? More one of expediency, I suppose?

Dave: Horses for courses, mate. What harm's it do. That sort of thing doesn't hurt the company. Any case, everybody does it.

Theo: And because everybody does it, that makes it acceptable, or right?

Dave: Well, you can't really call it stealing, can you? I mean, stealing's important things, things that cost, not little bits and pieces like that.

Theo: So, just to get this right: everybody does it and they're only small things?

Dave: That's right.

Theo: So. A hundred employees take a hundred sheets, together with the accompanying ink, what, every week, month, year?

Dave: Now you're being daft. Not everyone does that much, do they? I mean that's ten k sheets and a lot of ink. No. It's not like that; it's just occasional and not all the staff do it, do they?

Theo: Not everybody, then?

Dave: Well, no. Some folk aren't interested in that sort of thing. They take other things instead.

Theo: Ah, you mean time? For example, the quarter of an hour they spend talking at the water cooler when they're being paid to work? Or the few minutes each day they arrive late? Or maybe those odd minutes they need for shopping over lunch? That sort of thing?

Dave: That's right. Most people do that sort of thing.

Theo: And that's not stealing, even though they're paid for that time?

Dave: You think the bosses work every hour of every day? Think they're working when they have a  'meeting' on the golf course? Think they're working when they fly business class to some conference they could do by video call?

Theo: I understand your point. So, what you mean when you say the everybody does it, is that the practise of petty theft is rife throughout the structure of the workplace and is accepted simply as a part of daily life?

Dave: Well, I wouldn't put it like that. But, yeah, I suppose that's really what it is when you look at it. I mean, no one works every minute of every day doing what they're paid to do, do they?

Theo: I expect not. In fact, I suspect it would be bad for their mental health if they did. But, my point here is more about what we call such things. What we label this activity. The bosses see their own small thefts as 'perks', the natural reward for their level of commitment. How do the ordinary workers see their own small acts of stealing?

Dave: Most of them see it as getting something more out the bosses, if they think of it at all. You're making more of it than it really is, Theo. It's just part of working life.

Theo: You're probably right. But what that means in reality is that workers, and their bosses, actually approve, even if only by not disapproving, the daily general theft we've discussed.

Dave: Life's too short to worry about things like that.

Theo: But, what concerns me, Dave, is whether the casual acceptance of such petty theft allows some people to consider rather more valuable items taken to be also acceptable. We don't have time to discuss this now. But I'd like to plant the notion that it's the general acceptance of small theft as unimportant that allows some folk to go on to steal the work of others, to see such theft as something normal and of no harm to anyone.

Dave: It's a thought. But, like you say, we best get back to work. The boss is looking over here and glancing at his watch.

The Analects, Confucius, Reviewed

Disappointing. That's a bald statement and perhaps not the most expected, considering the reputation of this Chinese man of…wisdom? I didn't find that, to be honest. From several hundred short passages of supposed erudition I listed ten I thought worthy of spreading to the wider world.

All the Confucianists will, of course be screaming abuse and possibly foaming at the mouth, because Confucius, rather like other famed wise men, has taken a role close to that of a god for many.

I found him conservative, unimaginative, intolerant and a man who seemed to express a singular self-preservationist philosophy, no doubt intended to keep him alive in what was a very violent society. I gleaned this, by the way, from this book, not from a reading of history.

It's clear that his insistence on the 'Way' is a plea to men (he has no time for women, who were clearly no more than playthings and servants in his time) to be of good character. By which he appears to mean, obey those set above you socially and politically. That a man so revered could be such a supporter of the tyranny of his time and yet accrue disciples merely serves to underline my own impression that there are those in society who'll accept leadership and direction regardless of its merit or otherwise. Faith, in general, is an illustration of this.

It's likely that, in common with Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, his actual words have been usurped and deliberately distorted to suit the ends of those who wished to make capital from his aura of celebrity. I found little to admire in the words I was offered here. Much, rather like the Qur'an, is banal, repetitive and uninspiring. There is a deal of meaningless, to the modern western mind, ceremonial and social reportage that would require a deep knowledge of Chinese history to appreciate. I felt disinclined to spend the time and effort necessary to extract any worthwhile meaning from these passages, since the rest of the supposed words of wisdom were, in fact, anything but.

So, it was, for me, a disappointing read. I can't recommend it. There are, however, a round ten short sayings that carry some resonance in the modern world and I'll happily spread those, in the hope that the reputation of the originator will, at least, lend some authority to these aphorisms for those who might otherwise discount them out of hand.

The Republic, by Plato, Reviewed.

Image via Wikipedia

This classic, in the true sense of the word, was written by Plato some time after the execution of his admired narrator, Socrates, in 399BC. The supposed dramatic setting for the narrative is around 420BC.

Taking the form of a discussion between Socrates and friends, the work is a philosophical treatise founded on the theme of justice. It touches, along the way, many other aspects of life and thought and can be seen to be a foundation stone in the building of Western thought, politics and ideas.

That Plato wrote in an era when slavery was not only accepted but was an everyday normality, and where women were perceived as inferior beings, permeates the text for a modern reader. There are many places where I felt like grabbing the narrator, and his fellow conversationalists, by the metaphorical lapels and shaking them out of their complacency over these two issues. But that is more a reflection of my attitudes about these issues than of the quality of the writing.

I started reading this tome, which requires a good deal of concentration, before Xmas and the season rather interrupted the serious read. But I became determined to finish the book before starting on the editing of the novel I'd written the preceding November (NaNoWriMo challenge for those interested). The reason was that it immediately became clear that The Republic deals with many of the themes I included in my novel and I wanted to see what this seminal work had to say on these ideas.

The ideas expressed are remarkably contemporary in many cases. I was surprised by references to personality, character, political systems and religion that I'd previously considered to be relatively modern. There were times when I completely forgot that this book was written almost 2,500 years ago.

What I found most disturbing, however, were some of the theories and philosophical ideas that have clearly been responsible for the way we think and live today in the Western world. That some of these ideas have been distorted, misunderstood, partially comprehended or, in some cases, deliberately taken out of context, to justify certain modern political decisions became clearer as I read. I understood, for the first time, some of the classical references I've come across in life and many of the underlying reasons for our current way of life became obvious. It's clear that many of our current leaders are steeped in the arguments put forward in this narrative. The teaching of the classics is, of course, fundamental to the education supplied by most private schools. That it isn't generally included in the curricula of state schools is equally clear. I'm not a lover of conspiracy theory, but it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been a deliberate policy of discouraging the reading of such books as this, lest the general populace become aware of what leaders have always known.

It's impossible to do justice to this text in the space of a simple review. I can only suggest that those who have the intellectual stamina and the necessary curiosity about the nature of thought and life read this book. There is much that the modern reader will deplore, disagree with and denigrate. The benefit of living long after the work was completed provides us with a greater understanding of many things that must have been mysteries to Plato and his contemporaries. But the fundamentals of his thesis on politics, rule and the actions of leaders and the general populace are sound.

Those who love the superficial and the easy will find this book indigestible but those who like depth, provocation of the grey cells and stimulus for the imagination and curiosity will find this a singularly rewarding read. I thoroughly recommend it.

The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, Reviewed

Image via Wikipedia

This parable, and best-selling inspirational novel, is written in a deceptively simple style.

Santiago, the hero of the piece, takes a journey of self-discovery from his homeland of Andalusia, via Tangiers, to the pyramids of Egypt. On the way, he learns many lessons about life, himself and the nature of spirituality.

As a passionate agnostic, I have a built-in suspicion of organised religion or anything that defines God by naming a being that must be beyond our comprehension. So, the references to Allah and to various religious groupings could easily have prejudiced me against the book. That they didn't, is testament to Coelho's ability to express his ideas in a way that is difficult to rage against. In fact, reading this work has caused me to re-examine my outright opposition to religious organisations to the extent that I can now view them as a way for some people to embrace the idea of a superior power and a connectedness of all things in the universe. And to accept them on that level only.

There is a complexity and philosophical depth to the arguments presented in this simple tale, which I suspect will be read on a number of different levels depending on the reader's attitude to matters spiritual. The ideas about love, far deeper and more universal than the romantic love of so much popular fiction, I found so close to my own as to resonate strongly with me.

That the author is a catholic should have made it difficult for me to empathise, but his faith never really got in the way of the ideas he tries to convey here. There is no attempt to convert or to suggest that one set of religious beliefs is any better than any other.

The elements of fantasy and innocence in the story will make it an unlikely tale for the cynical and those for whom romance is something to be avoided. But those with open minds may find something surprising here. I know I will find the ideas returning to me long after I have put the book away.

An interesting reading experience, but one which has not made me eager to try other books by the same author. So, I find myself oddly ambivalent about it; a mixture of admiration and doubt. I suspect the fact that I've come across many of the ideas before in The Secret, which turned out to be a great disappointment, has made me a little sceptical of the content.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Xanthippe

Image via Wikipedia

Xanthippe: noun - The wife of Socrates, a bad-tempered or scolding wife or woman.

'When George lazily referred to his wife as Xanthippe, she picked up the frying pan and demonstrated the accuracy of his description by beating him over the head with it, whilst yelling imprecations about his manhood at him.'

A new word for today

Image via Wikipedia

Word of the Day is divorced from all the other posts in this blog and produced in response to a request from a follower to provide just such a service.

Word of the Day; paradox. A paradox is a contradiction in terms. ‘I am always wrong, is a paradox, because if that’s the case, then I must be right on this occasion.’