Am I a Bad Person because I judge a book by its cover?

We have all been children before. Even the really old, nasty neighbour you had when you were 5, who would shout at you for playing football against their wall. Even them. So growing up we all heard the phrase

“Don’t judge a book by its cover”

Welp, that is a nice metaphor. But it exists for a reason: judging things quickly is easy and, unfortunately, can be very informative. You can determine if someone is rich or physically fit by their appearance. Stop- stop the barrage of abuse coming my way!

snob.gif
Footage of me diving into arguments in the comments section

This is a generalisation, but it works for the extremes. If someone is wearing Gucci (which, by the way, someone once told me “was chavvy”. I wonder which group they could be lumped into), then they are definitely not poor. Equally, if someone is living on the street, then they are decidedly not wealthy. (The fault with this is in the gray areas: if someone is moderately wealthy then it can be hard to see where precisely they lie. They do not wear designer, but it is not rags either (then again Silicon Valley guys do dress like a homeless people) .) Ahh double brackets; never a good sign!! Anyway, the same applies to books: is it easy to judge them in the most extreme cases, because books which are of a high quality will be signed onto major publishing houses, and therefore will have beautiful covers, so that they sell better. Books which are self-published will usually have very plain or self-drawn (!) covers. No  one aspires to be self-published. The reason why decent ones makes headlines, like Eragon, is because how rare high quality is in that sector. So generalisations can be made: is it worth reading 99 awful-looking books just to find one good one, or should we just read 99 great-looking books, and risk finding one terrible one?

Take Refuge:refuge.jpeg

There is something so captivating about that cover; something so thoughtful. I have never read it before, but the quote “Rich and colourful” from The New York Times matches the painting precisely, no? So clearly this image has been chosen carefully, and if the publishing house has spent all that money on the design, then they are backing that book to be successful. These people edit books for a living, so they will know a crowd-pleaser when they see one. Now, sometimes I do question how a book has gone past so many people and yet still has glaring spelling mistakes and inconsistencies (ahem “What Milo Saw” by Virginia MacGregor), but this is a rare phenomenon. When I do dislike something in a book, I do appreciate that it is not the publisher’s fault necessarily but merely a matter of my own (never quite humble enough) opinion.

Even a book like-spurious.jpeg

-has such an intriguing cover that you cannot help but buy it. Because riddle me this: have you ever, in a shop, tasted the cake before you bought it? Or eaten their pizza before ordering it? No? Well then you judged their food by the restaurant’s cover: their staff and interior design. You have no idea, really, how well the food will be cooked on that particular night. It is just like, how, even if you have read some of their books before, you never know quite how good their next one be. J.K.Rowling found this out the hard way… if she did not want to hear the honest truth, she should not have written under a pseudonym!

On the other end of the scale, there are books with the shoddy covers. I am not going to put some of the worst images on here, because I started researching books with terrible covers and I ended up with some shockers. There are some so bad that my eyes started bleeding. Also, I do not want to pollute this website. All I am saying is, the title of one the books was “Now That I’m A Ghost I’m Gay”. If that does not have you running for the hills, then I do not know how to help you. There are some very funny ones out there, too, particularly here on Bored Panda, but the top two were:

worst-book-covers-titles-15
I think I will pass

and

worst-book-covers-titles-26
I do not think this is in international dialogue, actually, since it this published in 2007

These are examples of either unfortunate titles or simply- well, I am not sure how to excuse that last one. “Fine!” You say. “But these really are not that bad. That international dialogue part sounds interesting, so why judge? You cannot say that these do not have the potential to contain something interesting?” Well, Imaginary Dialogue Friend, what I can say, is that there are certain covers which would have me scrambling for anything, even Hello Magazine, just to escape looking at them a second more. Like these:

book-covers8.jpg

I want someone to look me in the eye, right now, and tell me that they would want to read them. And no, Shawn James, you do not count. Maybe even you do not even want to read these. Oh, and it does not count if you tell me this out of spite. I know you shady people out there.

So yes, you definitely can judge a book by its cover (and if you still disagree, please do read the two books above and leave a review in the comments below Xx ). Secondly, no I am not a bad person for doing this because it simply makes common sense: I can read a beautiful book which is more likely than not a stimulating Pulitzer Prize winner, or a grimy looking one, written in a garden shed, which is so awful that they had to self-publish.

We all have limited time in this world, so go ahead, make that judgement and do not give the side eye to those admit to doing the same.

There are a few occasions where snobbishness is acceptable, and this is it.

pig
You have full permission to fling that waste of paper 

It’s time to rebut, refute and refine

This is a ridiculously long and detailed response to the ridiculously problematic “The New Narcissism” article by Lara Prendergast in the 11/08/18 edition of the Spectator. This post will only make sense if you read the other article first. The issues that tackled throughout the post are structured to mirror the loose order that they are found in the original article. Any quotations from ‘The New Narcissism” are underlined for ease of recognition.

The date that went wrong

Perhaps the biting anger and resentment that Prendergast exudes throughout stems from the rejection and confusion her friend feels on a date because his partner “didn’t eat”. Of course, it is a bit embarrassing to be the only person chewing, to have every mouthful watched and to try and eat whilst maintaining a meaningful conversation. But if she must take her friend’s emotions to heart, then maybe next time Prendergast should just colour in some nice mandalas instead and not channel that negative emotion into a poorly structured article.

Huel, narcissists and fads

The offered notion that Huel (a company that primarily offers nutritionally-complete food in powdered form) is a “fad” is one which is deeply misguided. It is an idea that appears to be thrown into the article to be more inflammatory and flippant than actually useful. A fad is something people quickly latch onto, something that becomes a craze before it is carelessly discarded to make way for the next trend. Fidget spinners was a fad. As were loom bands.

Huel, on the other hand, was launched three years ago, and is one of the fastest growing companies in the UK. It earned over £14m in 2017 alone. So assuming Prendergast is correct, Huel is not only one of the most prosperous and popular but also one of the longest-lived fads ever. Thereby undermining its epithet.

However, perhaps the reason that the journalist thinks that Huel’s stellar success is fleeting is because she believes that the trend of caring for future generations and the planet is short-lived? Either way, she isn’t correct, because she rightly notes that the “world’s population is growing”, suggesting that she realises that with the population increase there follows consequences that require increasingly complex solutions. Huel is one of those solutions. There is no doubt that as resources become rapidly more limited, its role (along with similar companies) in preventing world hunger in a “post-apocalypse” environment will become more prominent.

But we are luckily not there yet. In fact, one of the actual main aims of Huel is to have  “minimum impact on animals and the environment”. This sounds a lot more virtuous than many other companies in this day and age, where the urge for a profit no matter the environmental cost is the only driving force.  Bearing this in mind, it seems strange that this so-called fad can be attributed to a “new sort of narcissism”. Narcissists are, as Prendergast correctly notes, interested in the “self all-round”. But buying from a sustainable brand is the least narcissist thing one can do. After all, no one today will be alive to see the truly catastrophic effects of global warming, and yet here are so-called self-obsessed consumers investing in a future they won’t see. Funny that.

New Narcissism?

A narcissist is someone who has an “exaggerated sense of self-importance” and is “extremely self-centred”. It is very clear that no one, least of all a narcissist, can be  “vain and virtuous at the same time”. With only one pair of eyes, humans cannot look outwards to help and inwards to indulge in self-obsession simultaneously. I understand that perhaps Prendergast was trying to comment on society today and contemporary morality, but that’s not how psychology works. Psychology does not change even when theories are dressed up in a satirical and biting way. Science sends you their sincerest apologies. Now that the entire premise of “New Narcissism” has been thoroughly destroyed, let’s pretend that this is possible so that the rest of the article is not just dismissed as they all rely on this central theme.

The supposed death of masculinity?

One of my favourite parts from this article is this: ‘Traditional masculine pursuits are being abandoned in favour of more ethical ones. Pubs are closing down and gyms are opening up.” Oh no. Not the slow death of typically patriarchal activities. Save us at least that. Bring back the leering men! Bring back the 11AM drunks! Bring back- and this has been the patriarchy’s firm favourite for millenia- more lazy afternoons where subservient housewives do the chores as (some) men sprawl in dimly light pubs.

The demonisation, firstly, of gyms over pubs is laughable, because Prendergast is suggesting that this is a symptom of nation-wide narcissism, where “more ethical pursuits” are becoming more common as beer pong slowly fades out of fashion. What a pity. I don’t need to tell you that it gyms are hardly the cause for pubs being wiped out of the high street. If that were true, which, as we are taking Prendergast’s word for it (without so much as an anecdote for evidence) I don’t believe is. You can barely take a step in London without seeing a hand-painted pub sign. Now even if pubs are closing, it’s more likely because of driving rent prices than anything else, and even if gyms are directly taking their place, this will be because of gyms are more profitable. Obviously they charge obscene prices and a large percentage of people let their gym membership go to waste, giving the gym free money. Pubs, on the other hand, have to make a product for every transaction, so their profit margin is always set. Anyway, over recent years there has been a backlash against extortionate gyms, as the Guardian in this article points out.

But anyway. Now that we know that society is being slowly destroyed by the dalek like intrusion of gyms everywhere we look, we are then told that men caring about their health is “all the rage” which makes them “almost as boring as women”. Thank God they’re not at female-levels of caring though. I don’t think the world could handle anymore people in the world who are trying not obese on the BMI scale. Want to go to Park-Run this weekend? Stop it, I prefer men with Type 2 diabetes. As for the comment on self-improvement, well, the thought that health-concious men are now considering supporting farmers at local markets, not only to be more ‘ethical’, as Prendergast points out they aim to be, but also to better their appearance by avoiding additives, is terrible. Men should be buying more Tesco Meal-Deals. They need more hydro-xenon and maltocryolites their system (or whatever new substance it is they put in food these days). Okay, I might be a tad sarcastic here, but you understand what I’m getting at. Why would you condemn the pursuit of healthiness in a society facing an obesity epidemic? Let’s get our priorities straight. 

Funnily enough, one of Prendergast’s key examples to illustrate in ethical pursuits is the rise in bodybuilding. She laments the increase in “male self-improvement” and how bodybuilding is suddenly a “very ordinary hobby”. Actually, though, it is unclear how this isn’t a magnification of masculinity. I do agree that narcissism is linked to a concerning with physical appearance. Fine. But she argues that masculine activities are being replaced by bodybuilding. Because that is a new phenomenon and very emasculating. No, men throughout history have always tried to show-off their power and strength. At least as far back as the first Olympics  in 776BC, wrestling and boxing have regularly featured in society. Accentuating physical features has always been on the human agenda too, and if you think about it, stems from an evolutionary point of view . Survival of the fittest is hardly a new concept, so it’s no wonder that this has filtered down into 21st century life. It seemed a queer line of argument for Prendergast to take, as it directly contradicted her. Oh well.

Back to the original quote, it’s not a bad thing that “traditional masculine pursuits” are fading away. They have never served anyone apart from straight white males in any useful capacity. Those pursuits only favoured those on the top of the power structure. Somewhat randomly and ironically, in the same breath Prendergast even refers to #Metoo. The shining symbol of backlash against the film industry that had allowed toxic “masculine pursuits”  to persist for too long. So am I sad to see the back of that particular “pursuit”? No.

 

Veganism

The article noted that veganism is on the rise because it is “slimming and ethical- never mind it makes you a bore at parties”. This suggests that the only thing Prendergast talks about at parties is food, so anger behind this article is probably stemming from her social rejection than anything else (if not the awful date her friend had):

At your typical house party, music pumping.

  • “Damn Daniel, I’m sorry, now I’m a vegan we can’t have a long conversation about our favourite types of cheese sandwich. As you know, I don’t have opinions on anything else apart from cheese and animal rights, so I guess that’s goodbye to our friendship.”

 

  • “Sorry Sarah, I’ve gone plant-based so we’ll have to shelf our barbecue-ribs conversation for now. You want to talk about Brexit? Not to be insensitive, but I prefer to chat about tofu recipes instead if that’s ok. Brexit is so last year.”

 

  • “Apologies Andrew, as I don’t eat animal products, I don’t want to talk about your favourite Burger King meal. I don’t even want to be with you because you’re a dirty meat eater. We have absolutely nothing in common. What? No, it doesn’t matter that we’ve been married for 15 years.”

 

So don’t bash veganism, ok? Anyway, although some vegans may have gained a reputation opposite to the Fight Club (telling everyone about it in the first 30 seconds of an introduction), most are now so embarrassed to mention it, that when pressed they simply say that they are plant-based. I wish there was a good example this… oh wait Prendergast has already included it with her inclusion of Lewis Hamilton, continuing to prove that she undermines herself at every turn.

As for the relationship of veganism to her ‘New Narcissism’ theory, well, the vast majority of people turn vegan out of concerns for the animal welfare. THEY CARE ABOUT OTHER LIVING BEINGS. The next lump of people turn plant-based because they are concerned about the environment, which yet again DOES NOT CONCERN THEM because they’ll be dead by the time this generation’s harmful actions fully come into fruition. So I don’t see how self-interest comes into it.

21st Century Ascetism

This links on nicely to Prendergast’s comment of the supposed “21st Century Asceticism”,  where “no real sacrifice” is involved, just an “exciting set of powders and pills to order on Amazon”. Where do I start? The phrase “no real sacrifice” and “asceticism” cannot juxtapose each other more. Like, they are actual antonyms Prendergast, that means opposite, just in case you weren’t sure, because you’ve been fumbling with word choices quite a lot so far.

Bodybuilding clearly requires sacrifice, because one has to leave the safety of the comfort zone to get to a state where muscle fibres are damaged, but even more so it’s the whole process of bulking/ cutting which is heavily antisocial, as you’re so busy counting macros that end up missing Pizza Night with your mates. I mean I guess you’d miss it anyway because all pubs in world had been shut down by this point. Following that… veganism can be incredibly isolating- friends and family might not tolerate or understand it and end up just you giving you a limp iceberg salad. Many restaurants and cafes don’t cater for the diet, so you either have to pack snacks ahead or risk going hungry. You also have to sacrifice certain foods, too, like Ben and Jerry’s Cookie Dough and Mac ‘n’ Cheese. So, Prendergast, the examples you provided yourself are perfect examples of actual sacrifice. No pills included.

Why are young men narcissists?

Prendergast mentions that “young men (are) turning into narcissists”. Which young men? What proportion of them? All of them in the UK, the West, or the entire world? Even that guy on his gap year in Antarctica who now can only eat hand-caught squid because he didn’t pack enough food? Are you including him too? You would think a journalist from somewhere respectable like the Spectator would realise that you can’t make sweeping statements like that without evidence. Simple references to Lewis Hamilton and the bodybuilding trend does not qualify as acceptable when saying a large proportion of the population has a severe personality disorder. And apparently this supposed narcissism is caused by Trump and Weinstein?  What is puzzling in itself though is the tone that Prendergast writes about their actions, as if these men have in some way been wronged. Yes, the “rapacious pursuit of (their own) pleasure” has indeed “damaged the world around them”.  This shouldn’t be contentious. Men who decide to prioritise their animalistic desires and end up scaring people for the rest of their lives, (giving many disorders like  PTSD), do damage society. Again, I don’t see why Prendergast has written that in such a snarky tone. You would think that in such a competitive and male dominated industry like journalism, she would of all people appreciate this change in attitude.

Then there is the weird phrase about men trying to  “‘detox’ their masculinity”. As I said earlier, I would hardly say that aforementioned bodybuilding is emasculating. Nor is sharing “#gymselfies”. I understand that men want to “distance themselves from monster”‘, but this is hardly revolutionary investigative journalism; no one is currently cosying up to mass murderers or bank robbers, either, so why would rapists be any different?

The inclusion of a hero?

Then, having just mentioned detoxing masculinity, Prendergast suddenly notes that there are “heroes to emulate” too. Presumably a hero for all the skinny vegan man-haters she speaks of? No, she’s completely changing topic and taking about someone at the opposite end of the spectrum, a “hero” whose message includes the “demolition of various feminists”. But I thought Prendergast said that all young men were “vain and virtuous”. So this breed of misogynistic men that in the last paragraph she said were practically extinct -outcompeted by a more conscious kind- (until that day, we can only hope) now do have a massive community, role models and all? The article goes from anti-veganism, to lamenting the supposed loss of the masculinity of modern men, to talking about how, no, the community of feminist haters is still thriving?

Unfortunately, Prendergast’s article has no structure, because now the rest of the article is just to do with nutrition. How apparently even though John Peterson, the aforementioned “hero”, is not virtuous, he still speaks of “restricted consumption and fewer carbs”. Like, he almost qualifies for new narcissism, but he’s not quite ethical enough, oh well I’ll just shove this example in anyway because I can write whatever I want as long as I get a reaction out of people.

Silicon valley- a “natural” link

Prendergast then speaks of the leaders of massive Silicon Valley companies, like Steve Jobs and Peter Thiel, who are “intoxicated only by abstemiousness and their own carefully structured diets.” Sorry, but a link is missing here. Those billionaires are obsessed with success, not food. They do not have time to be obsessed by anything other than their jobs. Eating is only utilitarian for them. They eat in that extreme way because it allows them to be highly productive, not because they are hapless control freaks. They cannot dedicate massive chunks of their day to heavily complex meals, unless someone else prepares it for them, because they actually- surprise surprise- have very busy jobs which require their full attention. They are most likely on these ultra-healthy diets because it allows them to function at their best and become the “powerful”  “supermen” that they are. They didn’t earn their fortune by sitting and cutting fruit in their kitchen.

Also, Prendergast takes a quote by Zoltan Istvan completely out of context. He says that “The less you eat, the better. You’re better off being borderline starving to live longer” because studies have illustrated that being in a calorie deficit increases lifespan (of rats). He doesn’t say starve yourself so that you almost die, which is why it is confusing when Prendergast also notes that some “transhumanists fantasise about cutting out food and sex entirely”. So I’ve already proved that the evidence behind the claim that some people want to cut out food entirely is incorrect in every sense of the word- how Istvan actually has a point that limiting food can be beneficial- whilst she gives absolutely no example at all for people wanting to cut out sex from their lives. What I am meant to do- take your word for it? Yeah, like that’s worked out well for the rest of your article.

Then she includes the example of Istvan eating “artificial eggs made out of peas and beans”, like that automatically proves to the reader that he’s a freak. I eat artificial burgers made from spices and chickpeas- does that qualify me as a weird space-age transhumanist? Even M&S now have a line of so-called ‘artificial foods’. If that applied, someone at every barbecue ever would have to be ostracised from society, simply because they chose a veggie sausage over the real thing.

Food substitutes 

Prendergast clearly has failed to properly do her research here. The motivation behind the  “food substitute” industry is not that the “male body should be purged and perfected”. Going back to Huel: not only are they not gender-orientated (what a gross idea), but they are also specifically not about “sci-fi whimsy” but for busy, everyday people, so that they can eat healthily when they are time poor. The point behind Huel is not to replace food- Huel is a food (as it’s nutritionally complete). It’s just meant to be used when a whole food dinner can’t be made. As for the claim that “male anorexia (‘manorexia’) is now sold as an advanced high-tech ‘disruptive’ diet” – that is absolutely baseless and ridiculous. It’s like saying that small packets of crisps help to contribute to anorexia because they can now eat in smaller portions. People can eat less than the pack, one whole pack, or two packs of crisps and eat an amount of calories accordingly. The same applies to so called “food substitutes”– you can choose to lose, maintain or even gain weight  with Soylent, Feeder or Huel.

Technology and narcissism 

Whilst it is true that Instagram does encourage people to take an extraordinary amount of selfies, the claim that Love Island “makes it easy to participate in the new narcissism” is confusing. I thought that New Narcissism was meant to be ethical, but there’s nothing ethical about watching reality TV. What about vanity? Well, people are putting an hour of their evening aside everyday for 8 weeks to watch others go about their day. It’s an activity revolving entirely around the minuscule details of the lives of strangers. It’s incredibly social, too, as anyone who has seen the Love Island online community and meme pages will know. People love to chat about the antics of those in the villa. It is a decidedly unvain activity.

Now onto another flippant statement made by Prendergast. That “All-male beauty salons are now a common sight on the high street” is one of the most sweeping that I have ever heard. I haven’t even heard of them before- I mean, I’m sure they exist but to say that they’re a common sight requires some evidence, please. I know what barbers are, sure, but I would hardly say they are beauty salons. I may be wrong, but in order for me to realise my mistake, I do need to see some statistics. Anything, really, at this point.

Gender stereotypes

Eric Anderson said that men indulge in “self-care” because of a “softening of men and their gender more broadly”. Apparently, the fact that men can now become stay-at-home fathers and are sometimes allowed to cry in public means that “women now feel comfortable commenting on male bodies, while the opposite is frowned upon.” Then Prendergast includes what I presume is her most outrageous example yet- that Anna Murphy from The Times said that men who do yoga are  “stronger, leaner and a lot sexier” ‘. This apparently shows double-standards in our society, because “what man would now dare to say such a thing about women’s bodies” asks Prendergast. None, I imagine, just because typically that kind of compliment has not been in their vocabulary. In the past many men speaking to the media have not been commenting on how strong women are, and how that because they are empowered by their strength, they are sexy. No. That would be fine. In fact, a lack of comments like that is what has made women afraid to enter the weights section, because strength was seen as unattractive. Instead typically in the past men have been saying things about women’s’ bodies, like how they want to “grab them by the pussy”. Not that anyone in power would actually say that…

So that’s why the double standards don’t actually exist. When some men in power speak about women, there is objectification and it is highly disrespectful. Saying that by exercising a man is aesthetically pleasing because he has a low percentage body fat with toned muscles, thus making them attractive, is hardly the same. You can’t exactly compare that to the ruthless female objectification that has for so long dominated the media.

Finally Prendergast blames a rise in eating disorders on “ethical dieting”. Last year, the “NHS reported a 70 per cent rise in adult men being reported to hospital with an eating disorder”. Now, there is a certain stigma currently about men and eating disorders, which should never be overlooked, but (and this is not to diminish male sufferers,) let’s not forget that eating disorders impact women/girls more severely and thus the number of female inpatients is much higher. Also, awareness around eating disorder has risen massively recently, and the correlation between the growth in ED and “ethical dieting” is not necessarily causational. If that were true, then someone should look into the fact that the more films Nicholas Cage appears in, the more people that drown by falling into a pool. Has it not occurred to Prendergast that perhaps the number of men with eating disorder could be more or less the same, but that more are admitting themselves/ being admitted by family to hospitals because they realise they have a problem? They go on social media and realise that they are seriously ill, whereas before they suffered in silence because there was no content out there illustrating what the symptoms were? No: I thought not.

Final thoughts 

Apparently “Huel-slurping puritans, the Silicon Valley transhumanists and the hairless gym bunnies” all want to the push the “limits of their bodies”. I have already explained this so many times, but Huel/Soylent etc. etc. are not made for extremists. They’re about fitting in a healthy meal when you would’ve gone to a Drive-Thru instead. As for Silicon Valley workers and transhumanists; they can come across as manic, but that’s just because they have to work an extreme amount, and want their body to function as well as possible so that they continue to work so hard. They shouldn’t be put down for wanting to work as efficiently as possible. Sure, they’re interested in immortality, but who isn’t? As for the ‘gym bunnies’, well if people are getting fitter instead of chugging beers, then, unlike this article, I don’t find it problematic.

6 Parallels between Trump and the Theban Plays

1. How the Good of the State comes first, and morales second (if at all)

Creon throughout all three plays is clearly a villain, not in the least because he orders his own nephew’s body to fester outside the walls of his city after the battle. When Antigone is the eponymous hero, she is just a bit miffed by the outright disrespect displayed towards her brother Polynices, even if Creon (her uncle) says that it’s fine if dogs eat his flesh because he was betrayed Thebes by trying to overthrow the ruler at the time, Polynices’ brother Eteocles . It’s clear, therefore, that Creon believes that any morales or values must be placed second to that of the States’ needs. In this case the value that is being ‘demoted’ here is that of honouring the dead and in particular family, because Creon refuses to give Polynices any form of a burial, leaving him to rot outside the city’s walls. Instead, Creon decides it’s more important to use Polynices as an example of what happens to those who threaten the State and therefore to help keep order in Thebes.

As for Trump, well…

maga
It’s clear that these…
child in cage
…speak for themselves 

2.Difficulties realising that the truth is not a social construct but an actual thing

In Oedipus the King, the celebrated couple that is Jocasta and Oedipus are discussing the events of Laius’ murder. Both decide to latch onto what the servant had said when they recounted the event, fixing on the fact that ‘strangers’ had carried out the murder when of course Oedipus alone had stabbed Laius. Neither are particularly keen to point out the large number of coincidences that would disprove the servant as a reliable source, like how Oedipus (as his name suggests) has damaged feet and yet just fails to draw a parallel when Jocasta mentions binding the ankles of her new-born, or how both have similar prophecies and yet they don’t see any significance in this shared coincidence. It seems like this pair has a bit of trouble with the truth. Do you know who else does?

trum b

Now, I could go on to list the many times that Trump has had some difficulties with the truth, (in fact the Post says that since he started his presidency he has this problem 4.9 times a day on average), but instead of going into the details myself, I’ll let the excellent Pulitzer Prize winning website POLITIFACT do it instead. Really, click on the link. Go on, check it out!

3. A tendency towards self-inflicted pain

Deaths happen. Lots of deaths. No, I’m not talking about the countless suspicious car accidents which take place in Russia everyday as more agents try to double cross and reveal evidence of collusion. No. I never said that. I am talking about the large number of suicides that occur during the span of the Three Theban Plays:

Oedipus firstly blinds himself in Oedipus the King and then leads himself to his own death at the end of Oedipus at Colonus. His two sons/ half brothers, Polynices and Eteocles, die by each-others’ swords (which can be judged as self-inflicted because Polynices knew from the prophecy that he would die without Oedipus’ support). Then there is Jocasta, Haemon and Eurydice who die in equally gory and interesting ways….

So there’s plenty of tragic deaths through suicide of one form or another. But the point that Sophocles is trying to make? That wrongdoing is a catalyst for a loss. Here, the wrongdoing as such is incest, which is linked to every sucide either directly or indirectly. Ergo, a crime or a sin will have negative consequences, and the more severe the crime, the greater the effect.

Now the Trump administration has seen quite a few people either resign or be, to put it bluntly, sacked so hard that they plummeted through the earth and appeared on the other side in Japan.

As of March 2018, over 22 people have either resigned or have been fired. This is much the same as ‘self-inflicted pain’ because, of course, to have a cohesive government the party needs to be unified. Any cracks weaken the party and thus the President. If the leader is losing respect of the people in his party to such the extent that they feel they have to leave, then clearly the President is not only doing something wrong, but is sending the message of a rift in the party to the public. At the rate Trump is going through these staff, it won’t be long before ‘factionalism’ as created by Lenin, will be introduced to ensure that someone turns up to wor on Monday morning.

A few of the most major leavers were:

Thomas-Frank-Scaramucci-Buzzfeed
Anthony Scaramucci with his 11 day career 
seanspicer
Sean Spicer who probably wasn’t laughing like this when he left the White House
Comey and the complex saga that followed him

4. Humanity’s potential for infinite stupidity

The vision of Oedipus violently blinding himself, with blood running down his face, is one of the most memorable from King Oedipus. But references to vision can be found more than just that once throughout these three plays. Lots of times these references are a metaphor for the truth and knowledge. Going back to the previous example, Oedipus blinds himself because he doesn’t want to see his daughters/ siblings. As if by not seeing the truth, it can be avoided and ignored. Ironically and in reverse, the prophet who features mainly in Antigone, Tiresias, is alsp blind, and yet he can predict the future accurately and thus does have great knowledge. So the message is that even those who are the most revered and are the most intelligent in society i.e Oedipus who solves the riddle, can be incredibly short-sighted (PUN INTENDED). Like when he accidentally  marries his mother. So Sophocles neatly and dramatically highlights how although humans have the potential for great intelligence, in reality they’re unreliable and vastly stupid.

Hm. You know, I don’t know if this does relate to Trump. I can’t think of him in any situation about where he seems even a tiny bit idiotic and resembled a well dressed orange with a penchance for public speaking.  Only joking. I wouldn’t say that about oranges. Even oranges know that ‘covfefe’ isn’t a real word and try to pull off the fact

covfefe.jpg

 

5. Trouble when family and state collide

 The Theban Plays become very grave when discussing burials. Obviously the source of the conflict when Polynices’ corpse is denied a proper grave in Antigone whilst shockingly, Antigone is entombed in a cave whilst alive (and then kills herself, but that’s another motif for another paragraph). Even the way Oedipus choses to buried at Colonus is significant because it gives Athens the prophetic power to win any future battles.

Anyhow, during the denouement of Antigone, Creon realises that it’s his part of his duty to bury his nephew, traitor or not, and so burials come to represent the duties and trials that come with kinship, particularly when the duty to the state conflicts with the duty to one’s relatives.

For Donald Trump, there is on the other hand no conflict with duty to family and state. No, they are the same thing. Now, two words: Ivanka Trump. A Senior Advisor to the President.

Ivanka-Trump-November-1997

Makes sense. She has modelled for Tommy Hilfiger and Versace, and was a reality TV personality and fashion designer. One cannot think of anyone in the entirity America who is more suited to advising the President on nuclear warheads and soybean tariffs. What Obama really needed, then, was Cindy Crawford by his side….

And another two words: Jared Kushner. He has to broker peace in the Middle East, act as the liason to Mexico, China and the Muslim community. Oh, and he also has to enjoy being Donald Trump’s son-in-law. But that’s just a coincidence. Isn’t it?

6. Assertion of control over others

Lastly is poor Antigone. Banished to a cave, buried alive. Oh the horror. No, seriously, that does actually sound quite horrific. On a metaphorical level this is crucial because it suggests that Creon disregards the Gods entirely; it was widely known to be a terrible sin to put living Antigone into a grave and keep dead Polynices above ground. In doing so, Creon is clearly trying to assert his control over the Gods, which always ends well, and disregard the sinful nature of this act.

As for assertion of control…. let me leave you with this one final thought:

trumpvun.gif

Should we swallow all literature?

images
Unless you read awful books, then you can alternatively die of boredom quite a few times as well…

Short answer: No.

Now that I have weeded out all the non-commited readers (or those with a stereotypically 21st century attention span), we can begin. There is talk of reading everything you come across, as it’ll make you more appreciative of the better crafted books and if you’re a writer, enhance your skills. You can envision it now; a class of nervous looking graduates, ink pens resting atop leather-bound notebooks, almost crushed by the weight of the student loan that uneasily allowed them to attend this class. “Read” rasped the teacher, her hair like tendrils twisting down her back. “Read everything, let the words encompass your soul and sift through the goodness…” she jutted out her chin, dramatically clawing of the air in front of her bookcase.

No thank you. Although it was meant to be a demonstrative metaphor, I suspect that I might have just exposed to some rather poor literature right there. Swiftly moving on, it seems strange that people should advocate for wasting their time. Thanks to the internet, we seem to be procrastinating unwittingly most of the day anyway, so adding to this intentionally is going to help nobody. I suppose the argument is that it’s going to help with technique, that once your retinas have been scarred by such a disgusting use of a semi-colon you’ll never dream of copying it in your own work.

However I don’t exactly need to read other’s work to experience poor writing. The first draft of any novel I write (publishers- I know this is a long shot- but I’ve got a manuscript for one I’ve recently composed and if you email me I can always send it over) is going to be shocking. Who has a first draft that isn’t? (That front-row student puts her hand up, 15 different highlighters lined up on her desk and already 3 supernovas to her name; she had found them causally doing astronomy before school this morning.) Alright, apart from her. Regardless of the number mistakes I’ve made, I’m still going to do a second draft. And a third. And a fourth. (Yes, all publishers out there, I am thorough.) I’m going to inevitably correct my grammatical errors if my laptop doesn’t do it for me so I don’t need to suffer anybody else’s. Think of it this way- compared to the classic cult film Mean Girls if I may. Reading someone else’s poorly written book doesn’t make mine any better, just as making Regina gain weight didn’t make the girls any skinnier.

tumblr_mbmvo17F0f1qbdq9so1_r1_500
I’m guessing it’s Wednesday too…

It just gave Lindsay Lohan the high school epiphany that trying to sabotage other people would not make her a more welcoming person, whilst it’ll give you the epiphany- as your thoughts wander again- that actually you still have 6 different preps to do, it’s nearly 1AM and you’d probably be better off watching Narcos with your roommate in Spanish (even though you can’t speak it) instead of forcing your writing synapses to cry.

“But how will I know if I like it?” Obviously, if you haven’t started reading it, you won’t. Yet I think sometimes skirting the blurb is enough- and here’s why: I, with the extreme caution of one handling an unsanitary item (even though I was looking at images online,) read the back of Fifty Shades of Grey. Whilst I’m not going to plague my blog with an image of the book, needless to say, you can get a sufficient idea of the type of story it is simply by the type of audience they’re trying to appeal to. If you don’t see yourself as the type of half-ravaged person who is going to be lured into buying some ink on paper simply because the blurb used copious amounts of alliteration and the rule of three, then don’t be. It’s as simple as that.

Also, I find that I read some rather displeasing items enough as it is, without even trying to go out of my way. I was going to write a book review of What I talk about when I talk about running by Haruki Murkami, true to Ink Cloud form, but I couldn’t bring myself to. Thanks to the wildly successful poll I ran a few weeks ago, I was recommended to tone down the reviews a bit and ramp up the opinion pieces, so here we are. Anyway; it was such a self-indulgent book, simply going on about how the author had building work done to house in Boston and about how he had a connection with Olympic athletes because he saw them on his daily morning run. I know that his running habits are the basic premise of this book, but I was hoping for something more generalised, like how Japanese culture has ingrained running into it, but on the contrary it simply included regurgitations of articles written for running magazines. If I wanted them, I’d look in the archives! It was simply a long, dull (I would say vomit, but that would be unfair) mass of words which have struck precisely zero sympathetic chords in me. Which is strange, because I’m a runner. And Murakami is one of the greatest writers of the 21st century (according to other people).

Unlike you, however, I had to stick it out, because unlike you (well, who knows, maybe I’m wrong), I have a blog where I write about books. That means reading the entirety of it before I can ‘write it off’. I’m not completely cruel. I will give the book a chance to redeem itself after a shoddy start before eloquently reminding the world how awful it is. So, reader, consider yourself lucky that you don’t have to finish terrible books and suffer through to the end. Why? Because I do all the hard work for you.

5 Signs You’re a Reader

We all know that reading is a dangerous sport and yet many of us persist, despite the very obvious perils. If you are, however, unfamiliar with the hazards, then here they are.

1. You will buy books instead of food. Or clothes, theatre tickets, houses…

when-i-get-a-little-money

No. Not the important ones like I will become a fountain of gratitude,  meditate everyday and recycle everything. You will slowly start to cut back to afford books, (given that merely borrowing one is a terrible idea) and it not only becomes a question of skimming the grocery shelves for the lowest prices so that you bound over to the book section and splurge (splurge? This is legitimate spending going on here) but also, start asking questions like: do I really need a new jumper? It may have a massive hole in the middle, but £30 could buy me a wonderful new hardback, and a cheeky paperback too if I’m thrifty. Again, it’s won’t really be a choice you’re making, but a predestined path you’re following.

2. You hoard.

ho

It’s true. After all, once you’d started that Harry Potter series, there was no way that the subsequent 6 other books wouldn’t wriggle their way into your bookshelves too, right? It starts off alright, with the books stacked neatly in the cupboards, and you tell yourself that at the end off every month you will clear them out, but soon you have to face the reality. How could you ever throw something like A Bear Called Paddington away? It squints at you, the corner of the front page a bit jammy from when your 7-year-old self was munching breakfast and reading. Then you remember that happened on holiday in Cornwall, oh memories of Cornwall, and then you realise that to throw away Paddington would practically be blasphemy, because, well, it’s been with you for so long, and what if you might, maybe read it again?

3. You have no social life.

Do I want to go out to a long stuffy dinner to face a mangled crustacean or stay at home with a book and enough ice cream (in my case, granola and yoghurt) to last? It’s a quite simple answer, actually. Soon, you find that you become much better friends with fictional characters than real people. It’s sad, but true- anyway no one has a sense of humour quite like Death from the Discworld series, so why bother looking any further? And you won’t really be in your living room, will you?

(“So what did you get up to on Friday night?” *Looks around, innocently* “Me? I was trekking in the Amazon and got attacked by a crocodile” *Cue other person slowly shuffling away*)

Well, at least books can’t reject you, and to say the least, going out for dinners might become rarity because…

4.You’re TBR is normally waaaaay to long (and an existential crisis ensues).

hammy

You read. Then you begin to read more, start searching novels online and begin chatting to friends (those you have left) not about the weather, (which may be just as well) but this year’s Man Booker shortlist. Stop, before it gets out of hand. But you can’t. Book research is addictive, (as is endlessly perusing the shelves of bookshops when you’ve already bought a book, but are wallowing in the excitement of potentially diving into the tombs around you). Yet, like everything, there becomes a limit and soon it seems perhaps you can’t quite read all 207 books on your TBR that’s you’ve collected that year in the 14 days preceding your TBR deadline. You made the deadline to gently push you in the right direction and pressure you to find enough time to read. Trust me, this tactic becomes stressful, and you start to flail and wonder how, let alone on a time limit, but ordinarily you’re going to finish them all. There’s no consolidation either, no gentle hand willing you to step back, because you have actually wanted to read all them since, forever it seems… and ditching that list would be wasted hours.

5. You show your love for books in weird and strange ways.

book-lovers-understand-hell

A conversation of praise isn’t enough, oh no. Cue the Pinterest accounts, the Facebook group chats dedicated to books series (I’ve known it happen, that’s all I’m saying) drawing endless pictures of your favourite scenes in the books, and even tattoos.

Reading is a commitment, my friend. Look where we are now; I find myself writing about books in my free time, when I could be doing actual useful stuff, and you are reading this (which I very much appreciate, I have to say). But seriously, people become seriously attached to novels.

booky

For example, don’t even try to argue against Tris on a forum, unless you want to end up hunted out like a Divergent yourself. Also, you might start finding yourself dressing like the characters and even wearing the same type of clothes. I know. (Having said that, Katniss braids are AWESOME so why wouldn’t you want one? I should have stopped trying to defend myself by now to be honest.) And you know all those fancy book quotes that we see plastering library /bedroom walls / phone cases. Someone had to make them, and normally they were  done by the fanatics themselves.

So you’ve been warned. These are the perils of reading. (Happy April Fools!) Have you personally suffered from any of these traits, or seen something entirely different spring up as a result? Do let me know and have a great (hopefully prank free) day!

February Book of the Month – A.A Gill is Further Away: Helping with Enquiries

2923

Everyone was shocked. It was unexpected, especially since A.A.Gill had only recently revealed his cancer. His death has shaken literary world; now there is a gaping hole where his columns used to be, ever opinionated and witty. Unfortunately, the newly employed writers are floundering to fill it: reading over their thoughts of the mango soufflé suddenly appear (whereas it most certainly hadn’t before,) trivial. Of course those journalist can’t help it, but how can you fill the page in place of one of the best journalists of our time and not appear feeble in comparison?

I decided to read A.A.Gill is Further Away because his death had inspired me to look what he had achieved and created. It contains a remarkable selection of short essays- the book is roughly split into two: the first half is composed of essays which he had written about his experiences in England, and for the latter each essay is about a foreign country. The remarkable thing about Gill’s writing is that the subject is almost regardless. His essays about bantam chickens are as compelling as those reflecting on his trip to Haiti. Every topic felt fresh and were explored with such a zest and enthusiasm towards the subject that is difficult to find elsewhere. You can tell that Gill enjoyed his job, that he felt satisfaction from diving into corners of the English language to extract the most precise metaphor, or adjective, or obscure yet oddly accurate imagery. The descriptions are vivid and quite literary for essays, which I enjoyed because often I find that non-fiction books can be stale in that respect.

The variety of subjects were in itself a relief: each essay is roughly 10 pages long and detailed enough to make one feel (if somewhat briefly) immersed in the location, but because Gill’s writing is incredibly intense, not so long that one loses concentration or interest. Gill has a unique voice, one which is blatantly unafraid to point out the faults in a country or to highlight the triumphs in the ordinary. This is wonderful. So often people are timid to say something that not only defies public opinion, but in fact is disparaging, simply because of fear. There’s none of that here! And those readers who think that this type of writing, or as it has been labelled ‘complaining’, is dull, well it isn’t. Gill writes about, for example, his Madagascan tribal culinary experience with such humorous distaste that it’s impossible not only to sympathise with him, but to laugh.

I thought that A.A.Gill is Further Away was a fantastic collection of essays and contained some of the best pieces of travel writing that I’ve come across. If you’re looking for an escape, not necessarily to another world as the cliché goes, but at least to another country, then look no further.

op

The Uses and Abuses of History by Margaret MacMillan

It’s January. People are looking at gym leaflets, trying again to stick to the resolutions they made in vain last year. Trying as best possible to hide from last year’s events, (whether it was political, or that Dinner Party at Fred’s which no one dares mention,) using the new shiny ‘2017’ as a shield. It is at this time of year that most people try and avoid history, in whatever form. However, we shouldn’t shun history. It should not be cast aside. Instead, it should be utilised, and used to our advantage. (So, note to self, never attempt to serve Baked Alaska near the Victorian curtains again.) The Uses and Abuses of History illustrates people who have done exactly that (no, not served Baked Alaska and then set the house on fire,)  but have used history to their advantage. Although there may be situations you will never find yourself in, there are many examples that can be related to, and the book will start to answer the common question: What can you even do with history?

use it.jpg

The Uses and Abuses of History is a thorough review of the way history has been manipulated and used as a tool in order to achieve certain goals. It shows us what the consequences are when history is taken into the wrong hands, and how this can in turn affect us in the present. To tell the truth, there wasn’t exactly a balance of uses and abuses of history, as Macmillian mainly looked at the more negative side to the way the past has been used, but it was nevertheless an interesting collection of essays.

For a non-fiction essay based book, it is surprisingly readable and full of interesting and understandable examples, which makes this book stand out from the hundreds of others similar in theme, crammed with illegible text and unfathomable references. A great example from the book was the Communist Chinese’s’ use of history; they tried to eradicate every single piece evidence of a time before communism in the country, including priceless artefacts, and rewrite the past to be used for their own means. Many people brought up in the Chinese education system have never once questioned their textbooks, the history of their country that had been fabricated from someone’s mind in an office. The words from their teachers that settled like dust in their minds after a long day at school were, and still are, taken as complete truth. The Uses and Abuses of History teaches you that rewriting the past to suit your own means is easier than you think, and more common in our lives than you’d expect, whether in terms of a politician vying to elevate their popularity, or a simple blunder made by an uninformed amateur historian.

prop.jpg

Not exactly a fast-paced action novel, nor one bursting with intricate characters (although the public figures referred to here are illustrious,) but if you’re willing to read a book about history, then this may as well be this one. After all, what is the point in history?

Have you read this book- what did you think of it? What’s your favourite historical novel? How close to the truth  do you think historical novels should be? Comment your thoughts below!

Burmese Days by George Orwell

Myanmar has only had 69 years of Independence. The past is closer than you think- and you can immerse yourself in it in Orwell’s first novel.

Imagine the existence of places centuries ago. We are all familiar with the concept of Victorian London, or the America as Columbus saw. But can we ever really believe in that place, petrified by the weight of history? Not simply in terms of overpaid actors, but understand the place that existed only a lengthy string of years ago?

burm

Yes- if you read Burmese Days. Since Orwell himself was stationed in Burma as a policeman there is an inescapable authenticity to the novel, and the blank way he causally refers to cultural customs illustrates that he wasn’t desperate to impress readers with his knowledge. (Unlike those authors who adopt the manner of *And here is a recipe for a rare national dish, inserted for no purpose whatsoever except to show you that I didn’t intend to spend countless hours trawling the internet for no credit.*) Due to his experiences (Orwell could even speak Hindi and Burmese) the novel felt genuine and gave me a clear idea of life at the time, and should be regarded as a valuable resource to anyone studying Burma in the early 20th century.

The plot itself could be considered mundane. There is a languid pace; it moves at the speed of someone overwhelmed by the summer heat. It’s mundane, almost. All that happens is that a British man abroad struggles (and fails,) not only to secure his Indian friend a membership to the European club, but the marriage of a girl. This is what the story is driven by, and after awhile it does become rather repetitive.

But then again the ending was shocking, and ends the sense of banality that had been previously lurking. It was so depressing (and tragically realistic,) that it made you ponder the entertainment value of reading it after all. (Why do I spend hours of my life, in happy solitude, staring at bits of paper?)

Thankfully this is interspersed with Orwell’s vivid descriptions of the scenery- he indulges much more in the literary side here than in his other works. For this reason, it would be useful for any fan of Orwell to read this first novel, so that not only can they enjoy the contrast to his later more refined tone, but see how from the start he was interested in discussing political and social ideologies. In fact, Burmese Days foreshadows the themes that would be seen so boldly in his books later on; the individual flailing against the tidal wave of an inhumane society.

A bold and unashamed novel, Burmese Days challenges British colonialism in Burma, offers a rich insight into the life of officers and has an unnerving finish despite the light hearted manner veiling the rest of the novel. If you are interested in political affairs (for Burma/ Myanmar, is rising globally currently), then this is an essential read. After all, if you seek to know something, you must first understand it’s history.

5 reasons you need to read Frankenstein now

 

You need to read Frankenstein now. In the suspendsion between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, where you can only eat mince pies at meals because you have so many left over, there is no better way to escape to the stoic mourning of Christmas (until next August) than to read. But why read Frankenstein?

fran.png

1. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the conception Shelley’s story. (In fact, the way Frankenstein came about, with that ghost story competition with Lord Bryon at Lake Geneva is nearly as famous as the outcome- Frankenstein- itself.) Shelley had a remarkable sense of audacity to publish her book, even if it was initially anonymous, because at the time such gruesome horrors conjured from female minds was frowned upon. But luckily she did, and for the centuries since it hasn’t ceased to shock and thrill all who have come across it, whether Frankenstein was in a literary form, or in a film or stage adaptation. There would be no better way to commemorate Shelley’s great novel than to read it on this anniversary.

2. The season is to create the right atmosphere for book: at the moment, we are in the depths of winter. Darkness seeps into our windows too early everyday, leaving us looking solemnly outside from underneath our blankets, a hot tea by our side. Frankenstein is full of rich imagery concerning nature; soaring icebergs and bleak landscapes. You can all too easily submerse yourself in the wintry atmosphere. For those living in warmer climes… it might be significantly harder to envision the biting chill of polar landscapes whilst you rub the rest of your suncream in, but there you go.

3. You need to learn who Frankenstein is, if you don’t know already. For years in movies the creature that Victor Frankenstein creates has been given that name, but frankly that it grossly inaccurate and just because Frankenstein sounds like an awesome name for a monster, doesn’t mean it is one. This mistake has thus been duplicated: Frankenstein’s Bride isn’t Frankenstein’s bride at all, but his creature’s bride.

animals

4. It’s a classic 19th century novel, with thrilling plot, including: a string of murders, a rampant patchwork zombie and a nervy scientist who is starving for revenge. Story arcs don’t t get much more adventurous than. Despite being writing in the contemporary dialect, reading it is rarely a challenge and by reading an older novel you’re literary horizons will expand. It is on most Top 100 reads not because it is so old, but because there something so profound about it. It’s also the first novel in history about the education of a scientist.

ss

5. Frankenstein explores issues in society. Our world is changing- some argue too quickly. The last of 2016 is rotting away, and then 2017 will be forced upon us. Yet Frankenstein has been with us, modern humanity, for some time. It hasn’t been lost in the flurry of mouldy manuscripts because people connected with it; back then and now. Frankenstein reflects culture greatly. And that is due to the theme of ethics and science- what are the wider implications of an experiment? We have the technology so that it can be done, but does that mean we should do it? To what extent should the scientist’s have control over the created beings, or care for them- is it their duty? In many ways, it is clear that Frankenstein is more relevant today than ever before.

So what are you waiting for- find that battered copy! Or have you read Frankenstein before- what do you think of it? Literary masterpiece, or overrated? Please go ahead and comment your thoughts…

Magnificent Desolation by Buzz Aldrin

Moonwalker. Innovator. Alcoholic.

A brutally honest autobiography of Aldrin’s life, reflecting on not only the stellar parts of his career, but the parts which have shrouded him in despair and embarrassment.

Many Americans view Buzz Aldrin as a national icon; a hero. Part of Apollo 11, the space mission which cemented him in history as the second man to ever walk on the Moon, Aldrin certainly is extraordinary. But there are other sections of his life that define him, too. Like when he was a fighter pilot in the Korean war, an author of novels or when he spent most his days slumped beneath bedsheets, due to the overwhelming depression he suffered. Most people aren’t aware of this side, and Magnificent Desolation explains what precisely Aldrin went through following his Moon Landing; it turns out that the physical side effects were the least of his worries, and that he was psychologically underprepared for the fame that would ensue.

buzz_aldrin

This book, despite being co-written by Ken Abraham, was definitely written by Aldrin. The words had bitter edges on certain topics (like when discussing his failures in his post-astronaut military career, or when discussing conspiracy theorists) and at other times would appear as if he was desperately trying to seem complementary, as if through the publication of this book he was wary of any outstanding offences he could cause.

Also, occasionally Aldrin would start to build up an event as if it had massive significance in the grand scheme of his life, and as a reader I would wonder what this event would foreshadow. More often than not it turned out to be completely irrelevant and not tie into anything else in the book:

“One overly zealous reporter planted himself in front of our car, refused to budge while snapping photos of me through the windshield. In exasperation, I raised my hand and gave him the finger. As soon as I saw the flash go off, I knew that I had made a gigantic mistake. When we got back to the hotel, my first call was to the attache at the embassy to see if he could quash the picture. He must have successful, because the photo never showed up”

It’s just utterly frustrating. If it turned out that the image had been leaked and had started to give Aldrin an awful reputation which affected his speaking career, then it would have been understandable. But nothing came of it- so why waste a paragraph mentioning  an irrelevant event that is not tied onto anything else in the book? This happened so many times throughout and frankly I found myself exasperated.

What I did enjoy though was when Aldrin started to discuss how in his later career he continued to develop ideas for space exploration. His words sounded so resolute and hopeful for the future- how by 2030 we should have people living on Mars, and his grand plans for a Mars Shuttle System. Above all I found that part fascinating, because it offered me an insight into the future of space. He spoke a lot about space tourism too; it seems like a plausible concept and he discusses it at length because he had devoted plenty of time to ensuring that it became as intrinsic to the American economy as ordinary tourism. We’re not quite there yet, but time can only tell!

220px-Aldrin

I would recommend this autobiography to those  who have an interest in space history and astronauts, as it does not only offer a valuable insight to Aldrin’s life, but also into the future of space in our society. It is not a necessarily a relaxing read as most of the information is presented quite factually and straightforwardly, but nevertheless I’m glad I gave it go!