By Ruth Davis Konigsberg
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Grief-Stages-Science/dp/1439148333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297097931&sr=1-1
Book review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
Konigsberg discusses the way the five stages of grief provided by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the book, On Death and Dying, have become a cultural touchstone and, thus, embedded in our everyday lexicon and a mainstay of pop psychology. I first learned about the stages quite early and incorporated them into one of the editions of my book, Understanding Interpersonal Communication (Harper/Collins), and I talked about the stages, too, when lecturing in my interpersonal communication classes. They weren’t weighty, philosophical discussions but just an introduction to a way of thinking about (interpreting?) grief.
Konigsberg writes well, and she supports her ideas effectively. There are 200 pages of text and 41 pages of “Notes.”
I loved the way Konigsberg notches her successes. That is, she eats away at various theories and books (like The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion), morsel by morsel like a mouse eating a hunk of cheese. By compelling her adversaries to the dust bin, she clears the way for acceptance of her ideas and point of view.
“Like Kübler-Ross’s original five [stages of grief], these additional stages [proposed by other writers about the process] were all based on anecdotes and personal experience, not methodologically sound surveys” (p. 70).
For my purposes (as a motivational speaker and writer), I found Konigsberg’s emphasis on optimism and self-preparation to deal with grief supportive of my own position:
“Resilient grievers,” she writes on page 54, “appear better equipped to accept death as a fact of life and tend to have a more positive worldview. Chronic grievers seem less confident about their coping abilities and more dependent on the relationship to the deceased. (A lack of social support and financial resources also plays a role.” These differences become apparent within the first month and are good predictors of how someone will handle the loss over time, with early success seeming to set the course toward greater well-being, while early difficulties — intense negative emotions such as the desire to die or frequent crying — are associated with poor coping after two years” (p. 54).
I found Konigsberg’s Chapter 4, “The Making of a Bestseller,” particularly interesting (being a writer myself). How Kübler-Ross’s book, On Death and Dying, came to be published was fascinating stuff. Konigsberg writes, “The way Kübler-Ross described it, the stages came to her suddenly, almost as if through divine inspiration” (p. 96). The chapter is, basically, a biography of Kübler-Ross’s life.
People like stages because they are clear, specific, easy-to-follow, and easy-to-remember. But, as Chris Feudtner of the Penn Center for Bioethics, a pediatrician who has treated hundreds of dying children at the Children’s Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and who, in addition to his medical degree, has a Ph.D. in the history and sociology of science, has said, according to Konigsberg:
“The way he looks at it, any form of generalized treatment for grief is likely to miss its target. “When you’re trying to treat someone, you’re trying to mechanistically make them better,’ he explains. ‘If it’s something simple, like pneumococcus infects your lungs, we can kill that germ, but with something like grief, we don’t know the mechanism. The other thing is that people have resources like resilience and strength and will just get better on their own, and it’s very hard to show a treatment effect if most people just get better anyway. Most people spontaneously recover from six months to a year” (p. 124).
Quoting psychologist and grief researcher Toni Bisconti, now at the University of Akron, in Ohio, as reported by Konigsberg:
“Grief is anything but linear [as in Kübler-Ross’s stages], and my data showing consistent ups and downs are obviously in conflict with stage theory,’ Bisconti told me. ‘Stage theories are also conducive to self-fulfilling prophecies and confirmation biases. In other words, if I lose my partner/spouse and I am angry on a given day, I’ll think I’m in the anger stage and discount the fact that also on that day I might be sad, distraught, even happy at a given moment” (p. 72).
I found this book intriguing, enlightening, and thoroughly engaging. For those involved in, or who know others who are going through, the grieving process, it is a must read.
The truth about grief: The myth of its five stages and the new science of loss can be purchased at Amazon.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Art of marriage: A guide to living life as two
By Catherine Blyth
http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Next-Economy-Americas-Future/dp/0307592812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297014166&sr=1-1
Book review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
First and foremost, please realize at the outset that Catherine Blyth is English; thus, you will find scattered throughout this little book delightful English terms and turns of phrase. If for no other reason, I liked this book for her graceful, charming use of language. Examine, for example (and there are many) this delightful paragraph:
“Sadly, for all couples there comes a moment when sex is a dilemma. When you find yourselves arguing about who did not wash up, and little by little, lust’s soufflé sinks in the cool air of Getting On with It. At this point, some fear that they have married the wrong person. But this not a time to retreat to the baked bean-sequined defeat of a tracksuit. Love is not dead; better to consider that its three dimensions have been absorbed, and the long game of marriage has now begun” (p. 119).
Call it unnecessary gibberish, or hoity-toity pretentiousness, if you will, but I wonder if any other author could or would write like this? If you don’t like this kind of writing, avoid this book! (Many of the examples she uses, too, are from English history and royalty.)
I found the gray boxes inserted in chapters interesting. They were enjoyable to read and offered additional insights and information. Necessary? Of course not. But fun.
Another thing I found interesting about this book is Blyth’s use of examples — especially those from history. Although there is a “Selected Bibliography” of seven pages, the sources she uses represent her very broad reading of books, many as you would suspect published by English presses. There are no footnotes, but she gives general references for most of her quotations. Quotations occur often.
Something readers must understand about this book is that we’re not talking about well-researched, documented, scientifically-based advice here. We’re talking instead about “a writer, columnist, and editor” (from the back flyleaf) offering her views and values. Nothing more. Oh, she may say something like, “Contemporary experts find that two dimensions matter in parenting . . . ,” but there is no footnote for such a statement, and you have to take Blyth’s word for its veracity. There is nothing wrong with this. At some points she will offer a citation, as in the following:
“Marriage is the best welfare plan that money cannot buy. Its economics of scale make us richer in the long run (as noted above, unmarried women were 86 percent poorer, and bachelors 61 percent poorer than the married or widowed, in 1992's U.S. Health and Retirement Study)” (p. 189).
Many readers need nothing more, and her brief notations 1) are sufficient, 2) do not get in the way of a good read, and 3) add to her credibility sufficiently enough to make her observations and advice sound. I have no quarrel with this; however, having done the research and read as widely as she has, it would be nice to have the footnotes. (She could even have placed them online at the book’s web site as some authors have done.)
To give you even more of a sample of what is in the book and how Blyth writes, I have selected this piece from Chapter 11, “The A to Z of Marriage”:
“Like its companion antisocial activities — pocket billiards, biting nails, burping, farting — we tend to be particularly annoyed by spouses’ nose picking. Not because it is not fun but because it is fun only for one. It is also a poor spectator sport. To do it shows a lover how relaxed you are in their company, which is nice as far as it goes. But in a bad mood, the sight of that unself-conscious finger, winkling it furry cavity, may be an unwelcome invasion of privacy, or even suggest that its owner does not care if you do not fancy them, since they no longer fancy you” (p. 240).
Notice her use of the words “winkling” and “fancy.” Also, notice that “we tend to be particularly annoyed” comes strictly from her observations — nothing more. And if there is a source, it is not provided.
When all is said and done, I enjoyed the book. She tells good stories, offers interesting quotations, and writes in a lively, entertaining style. She has a subtle, but delightful, sense of humor that is engaging — and, as I said, I love her language. Four stars out of five!
Art of marriage: A guide to living life as two can be purchased at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Next-Economy-Americas-Future/dp/0307592812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297014166&sr=1-1
Book review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
First and foremost, please realize at the outset that Catherine Blyth is English; thus, you will find scattered throughout this little book delightful English terms and turns of phrase. If for no other reason, I liked this book for her graceful, charming use of language. Examine, for example (and there are many) this delightful paragraph:
“Sadly, for all couples there comes a moment when sex is a dilemma. When you find yourselves arguing about who did not wash up, and little by little, lust’s soufflé sinks in the cool air of Getting On with It. At this point, some fear that they have married the wrong person. But this not a time to retreat to the baked bean-sequined defeat of a tracksuit. Love is not dead; better to consider that its three dimensions have been absorbed, and the long game of marriage has now begun” (p. 119).
Call it unnecessary gibberish, or hoity-toity pretentiousness, if you will, but I wonder if any other author could or would write like this? If you don’t like this kind of writing, avoid this book! (Many of the examples she uses, too, are from English history and royalty.)
I found the gray boxes inserted in chapters interesting. They were enjoyable to read and offered additional insights and information. Necessary? Of course not. But fun.
Another thing I found interesting about this book is Blyth’s use of examples — especially those from history. Although there is a “Selected Bibliography” of seven pages, the sources she uses represent her very broad reading of books, many as you would suspect published by English presses. There are no footnotes, but she gives general references for most of her quotations. Quotations occur often.
Something readers must understand about this book is that we’re not talking about well-researched, documented, scientifically-based advice here. We’re talking instead about “a writer, columnist, and editor” (from the back flyleaf) offering her views and values. Nothing more. Oh, she may say something like, “Contemporary experts find that two dimensions matter in parenting . . . ,” but there is no footnote for such a statement, and you have to take Blyth’s word for its veracity. There is nothing wrong with this. At some points she will offer a citation, as in the following:
“Marriage is the best welfare plan that money cannot buy. Its economics of scale make us richer in the long run (as noted above, unmarried women were 86 percent poorer, and bachelors 61 percent poorer than the married or widowed, in 1992's U.S. Health and Retirement Study)” (p. 189).
Many readers need nothing more, and her brief notations 1) are sufficient, 2) do not get in the way of a good read, and 3) add to her credibility sufficiently enough to make her observations and advice sound. I have no quarrel with this; however, having done the research and read as widely as she has, it would be nice to have the footnotes. (She could even have placed them online at the book’s web site as some authors have done.)
To give you even more of a sample of what is in the book and how Blyth writes, I have selected this piece from Chapter 11, “The A to Z of Marriage”:
“Like its companion antisocial activities — pocket billiards, biting nails, burping, farting — we tend to be particularly annoyed by spouses’ nose picking. Not because it is not fun but because it is fun only for one. It is also a poor spectator sport. To do it shows a lover how relaxed you are in their company, which is nice as far as it goes. But in a bad mood, the sight of that unself-conscious finger, winkling it furry cavity, may be an unwelcome invasion of privacy, or even suggest that its owner does not care if you do not fancy them, since they no longer fancy you” (p. 240).
Notice her use of the words “winkling” and “fancy.” Also, notice that “we tend to be particularly annoyed” comes strictly from her observations — nothing more. And if there is a source, it is not provided.
When all is said and done, I enjoyed the book. She tells good stories, offers interesting quotations, and writes in a lively, entertaining style. She has a subtle, but delightful, sense of humor that is engaging — and, as I said, I love her language. Four stars out of five!
Art of marriage: A guide to living life as two can be purchased at Amazon.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future
By Robert B. Reich
http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Next-Economy-Americas-Future/dp/0307592812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297014166&sr=1-1
Book Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
I am not an economist, but I took a basic economics class as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. One does not need an economics background to understand (or appreciate) this book. The reason it helps is simply that it provides a useful backdrop or context for Reich’s ideas. (As a university education assists all students and graduates in offering challenging ideas for growth, development, and change, most all college courses prove useful in a variety of situations. This is just one more of them.)
I loved Reich’s book. First, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt — as numerous economists have proven over and over (including, of course, Paul Krugman) — that top-down, trickle-down economics is a sham. It didn’t work under Reagan, it isn’t working now; it hasn’t worked at any time in history, and it won’t work in the future. It is bad economics. As “A larger and larger portion of the economy’s winnings [go] to people at the top” (p. 3), the economy grows steadily worse. “This is the heart of America’s ongoing economic predicament” (p. 3). This is one of the backbone tenets of this book, and Reich puts it on the first page of his “Introduction.”
Second, it supports a thesis I have often espoused: “redistributing income from rich to poor” makes good economical sense (p. 35). “ . . . Marriner Eccles [Reich has a chapter devoted to him because Eccles chaired the Federal Reserve Board from November 1934 until April 1948 — crucial years in the history of the American economy, and the world’s” (p. 11)] and John Maynard Keynes saw a broader economic justification for organizing the economy in such a way that the rich did not accumulate a disproportionate share to begin with: the need to maintain enough total demand” (p. 35).
The reason this book should be read by ALL Americans has to do with Reich’s basic argument: “. . . that our fundamentals are profoundly skewed, that the Great Recession was but the latest and largest outgrowth of an increasingly distorted distribution of income, and that we will have to choose, inevitably, between deepening discontent (and its ever nastier politics) and fundamental social and economic reform. I believe,” writes Reich, “that we simply must — and will — choose the latter” (p. 5).
There are 12½ pages of notes and only 146 pages of text material. Thus, this is a well-supported, well-written book that is both challenging (thought-provoking), and engaging (attention-holding).
I appreciated Reich’s honesty in assessing counter arguments to his own. For example, “Some argue that there was simply no need for government intervention [to prevent the Great Recession of 2007]. The economy did better on its own, those people say, without so much government and with lower taxes on the rich. They point,” writes Reich, “to the great expansion of the 1980s and the long recovery of the 1990s, and to the wildly exuberant bull market of the era. . . This argument is bunk,” he says. “It equates the stock market with the economy, and turns a blind eye to the revocation of the basic bargain. The argument does not acknowledge the consequences for an economy when the middle class lacks the means to buy with it produces” (p. 57).
If you ever listen to Robert Reich’s contributions to MSNBC (he is one of the major political economists they consult because he was labor secretary during the Clinton administration, and is currently professor of public policy at U.C. Berkeley‘s Goldman School of Public Policy), you realize how clearly and cogently he explains various economic problems and conditions. He is straightforward and to the point. The book is written in the same style. Reich is always interesting, insightful, and, inevitably, cuts to the chase.
If you wonder why China does not allow its currency (the yuan) to rise freely against the dollar, Reich explains it simply and clearly on page 73. If you want to know what the fundamental economic problem America is facing [“Americans no longer have the purchasing power to buy what the U.S. economy is capable of producing” (p. 75)], he carefully explains it (and re-explains it) throughout the book. If you want the ideal solution to the nation’s economic problems, read about the election of Margaret Jones of the Independence Party to the presidency in 2020 and her absolutely ideal economic solutions — a delightful scenario described on pages 79-81.
If you enjoy hypothetical, projection-analysis, Reich offers readers the politics of economics from 2010-2020 (prior to the election of Margaret Jones in 2020). It is a sobering analysis, and based on projections, it has the earmarks of a potential reality. For example, “The first painful adjustment will be to a lower standard of living — or at least far lower than we anticipated” (p. 89). Why not listen to a distinguished economist make his projections? Why not listen to a person with his credentials offer a worse-case-scenario for the American economy?
In about 20 pages, “What Should Be Done: A New Deal for the Middle Class,” Reich offers eight measures to assist in solving the problem: “Unless America’s middle class receives a fair share, it cannot consume nearly what the nation is capable of producing, at least without going deeply into debt” (p. 127) The second part of the problem is political: “Widening inequality, coupled with a growing perception that big business and Wall Street are in cahoots with big government for the purpose of making the rich even richer, gives fodder to demagogues on the extreme right and the extreme left” (p. 127).
So what are his solutions (and he admits “that he cannot pretend that the following measures would remedy these problems altogether)? 1) A reverse income tax. 2) A carbon tax. 3) Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy. 4) A reemployment system rather than an unemployment system. 5) College loans linked to subsequent earnings. 6) Medicare for all. 7) Public goods, and . . . 8) Money out of politics. His final chapter is about how all of this could get done.
This is an excellent book. The argument is well-explained and well-supported. The writing is outstanding. And, like Obama’s Debt-Commission Plan, it is similarly radical. What the American people do not understand — or do not WANT to understand — is that in order to right the economy, it will take some suffering and sacrifice. In a land of plenty, with people accustomed to all the accruements of a healthy life and a comfortable lifestyle, suffering and sacrifice do not sit well. Buy this book!
Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future can be purchased at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Next-Economy-Americas-Future/dp/0307592812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297014166&sr=1-1
Book Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
I am not an economist, but I took a basic economics class as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. One does not need an economics background to understand (or appreciate) this book. The reason it helps is simply that it provides a useful backdrop or context for Reich’s ideas. (As a university education assists all students and graduates in offering challenging ideas for growth, development, and change, most all college courses prove useful in a variety of situations. This is just one more of them.)
I loved Reich’s book. First, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt — as numerous economists have proven over and over (including, of course, Paul Krugman) — that top-down, trickle-down economics is a sham. It didn’t work under Reagan, it isn’t working now; it hasn’t worked at any time in history, and it won’t work in the future. It is bad economics. As “A larger and larger portion of the economy’s winnings [go] to people at the top” (p. 3), the economy grows steadily worse. “This is the heart of America’s ongoing economic predicament” (p. 3). This is one of the backbone tenets of this book, and Reich puts it on the first page of his “Introduction.”
Second, it supports a thesis I have often espoused: “redistributing income from rich to poor” makes good economical sense (p. 35). “ . . . Marriner Eccles [Reich has a chapter devoted to him because Eccles chaired the Federal Reserve Board from November 1934 until April 1948 — crucial years in the history of the American economy, and the world’s” (p. 11)] and John Maynard Keynes saw a broader economic justification for organizing the economy in such a way that the rich did not accumulate a disproportionate share to begin with: the need to maintain enough total demand” (p. 35).
The reason this book should be read by ALL Americans has to do with Reich’s basic argument: “. . . that our fundamentals are profoundly skewed, that the Great Recession was but the latest and largest outgrowth of an increasingly distorted distribution of income, and that we will have to choose, inevitably, between deepening discontent (and its ever nastier politics) and fundamental social and economic reform. I believe,” writes Reich, “that we simply must — and will — choose the latter” (p. 5).
There are 12½ pages of notes and only 146 pages of text material. Thus, this is a well-supported, well-written book that is both challenging (thought-provoking), and engaging (attention-holding).
I appreciated Reich’s honesty in assessing counter arguments to his own. For example, “Some argue that there was simply no need for government intervention [to prevent the Great Recession of 2007]. The economy did better on its own, those people say, without so much government and with lower taxes on the rich. They point,” writes Reich, “to the great expansion of the 1980s and the long recovery of the 1990s, and to the wildly exuberant bull market of the era. . . This argument is bunk,” he says. “It equates the stock market with the economy, and turns a blind eye to the revocation of the basic bargain. The argument does not acknowledge the consequences for an economy when the middle class lacks the means to buy with it produces” (p. 57).
If you ever listen to Robert Reich’s contributions to MSNBC (he is one of the major political economists they consult because he was labor secretary during the Clinton administration, and is currently professor of public policy at U.C. Berkeley‘s Goldman School of Public Policy), you realize how clearly and cogently he explains various economic problems and conditions. He is straightforward and to the point. The book is written in the same style. Reich is always interesting, insightful, and, inevitably, cuts to the chase.
If you wonder why China does not allow its currency (the yuan) to rise freely against the dollar, Reich explains it simply and clearly on page 73. If you want to know what the fundamental economic problem America is facing [“Americans no longer have the purchasing power to buy what the U.S. economy is capable of producing” (p. 75)], he carefully explains it (and re-explains it) throughout the book. If you want the ideal solution to the nation’s economic problems, read about the election of Margaret Jones of the Independence Party to the presidency in 2020 and her absolutely ideal economic solutions — a delightful scenario described on pages 79-81.
If you enjoy hypothetical, projection-analysis, Reich offers readers the politics of economics from 2010-2020 (prior to the election of Margaret Jones in 2020). It is a sobering analysis, and based on projections, it has the earmarks of a potential reality. For example, “The first painful adjustment will be to a lower standard of living — or at least far lower than we anticipated” (p. 89). Why not listen to a distinguished economist make his projections? Why not listen to a person with his credentials offer a worse-case-scenario for the American economy?
In about 20 pages, “What Should Be Done: A New Deal for the Middle Class,” Reich offers eight measures to assist in solving the problem: “Unless America’s middle class receives a fair share, it cannot consume nearly what the nation is capable of producing, at least without going deeply into debt” (p. 127) The second part of the problem is political: “Widening inequality, coupled with a growing perception that big business and Wall Street are in cahoots with big government for the purpose of making the rich even richer, gives fodder to demagogues on the extreme right and the extreme left” (p. 127).
So what are his solutions (and he admits “that he cannot pretend that the following measures would remedy these problems altogether)? 1) A reverse income tax. 2) A carbon tax. 3) Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy. 4) A reemployment system rather than an unemployment system. 5) College loans linked to subsequent earnings. 6) Medicare for all. 7) Public goods, and . . . 8) Money out of politics. His final chapter is about how all of this could get done.
This is an excellent book. The argument is well-explained and well-supported. The writing is outstanding. And, like Obama’s Debt-Commission Plan, it is similarly radical. What the American people do not understand — or do not WANT to understand — is that in order to right the economy, it will take some suffering and sacrifice. In a land of plenty, with people accustomed to all the accruements of a healthy life and a comfortable lifestyle, suffering and sacrifice do not sit well. Buy this book!
Aftershock: The next economy and America’s future can be purchased at Amazon.
Monday, May 7, 2012
All facts considered: The essential library of inessential knowledge
By Kee Malesky
http://www.amazon.com/All-Facts-Considered-Essential-Inessential/dp
/0470559659
Book review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
Forty-eight pages of fine-printed “Notes and Sources” will give you some idea of how well Malesky, National Public Radio’s (NPRs) librarian, footnotes and offers references for the information she provides. Malesky notes, “I am not the NPR librarian; I’m one of a team of searchers who support NPR’s editorial process” (p. 3).
When I first saw this book, I overlooked it on purpose thinking it was pure nonsense. That is, I thought it was for those who wanted to fill up their storehouse of useless knowledge (or succeed when playing “Trivial Pursuit”) I didn’t even consider reading the book much less reviewing it.
You may wonder how the facts in this book were selected. Malesky makes it very clear: “The facts in this collection have been chosen by me . . .” (p. 3). These are facts that I like or that I find useful, interesting, amazing, or worth sharing . . . “ (p. 3).
In this book, there is no continuing narrative, no unifying theme (although the author uses parts (“On Memory and History,” “On Reason and Science,” and “On Imagination, Poetry, and Art”)) and chapters) to organize her facts. As you read, however, you kind of lose sight of the over-arching subject since there are so many diverse facts discussed. The index is 20½ pages long (in small font) and includes subjects and authors. This is important in a book such as this for when you want to go back (or research) a particular section, at least you have a place to go to help you find it.
If you just want to fill your mind with facts, this is a terrific resource. For example, “The initialism LOL isn’t new; it was used by librarians (and probably many other people) way before computers, to describe a certain group of patrons: “little old ladies.” Now standard Internet shorthand for “laughing out loud,” it has equivalents in other languages too. . . (pp. 86-87).
In her section, “The Department of Redundancies Department” (p. 88), look at the following list (she lists 22): self-censor yourself, please RSVP, 2 a.m. in the morning, PIN number, SAT test, START treaty, LCD display, ATM machine, end result, basic fundamentals, free gift, closed first, Rio Grande River, pair of twins, reason why, whether or not, hot water heater, unexpected surprise, past history, first began, enter into, and prohibition against. Delightful!
For readers interested in language, her sections, “Endangered Languages,” “Euskera Spoken,” “The Forest of Rhetoric,” and “Mixed Metaphors” are especially interesting.
I’m not one who just wants to sit back and be entertained by a whole bunch of unrelated discussions of facts. For me, that is a total waste of my time. I would much rather read books that contribute substantially to my writing (in whatever capacity that may be). It’s the “Inessential Knowledge” portion of the title that concerns me most. I picked up the book simply because I thought there might be some juicy, relevant tidbits that I might use. I think if I were continuing to lecture to undergraduates (as I did for 22 years), there might be an example, a statistic, or an illustration that would be useful; however, being beyond that time in my life, the search would be unnecessary and pointless. I try to read books that are more relevant to my current stage of life.
This book is interesting, well-researched, and well-written. Malesky has collected a great number of facts, and if you have the patience and the interest, this book will definitely occupy your time. There are only 204 pages of text, and it reads quickly. Have fun!
All facts considered: The essential library of inessential knowledge can be purchased at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/All-Facts-Considered-Essential-Inessential/dp
/0470559659
Book review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
Forty-eight pages of fine-printed “Notes and Sources” will give you some idea of how well Malesky, National Public Radio’s (NPRs) librarian, footnotes and offers references for the information she provides. Malesky notes, “I am not the NPR librarian; I’m one of a team of searchers who support NPR’s editorial process” (p. 3).
When I first saw this book, I overlooked it on purpose thinking it was pure nonsense. That is, I thought it was for those who wanted to fill up their storehouse of useless knowledge (or succeed when playing “Trivial Pursuit”) I didn’t even consider reading the book much less reviewing it.
You may wonder how the facts in this book were selected. Malesky makes it very clear: “The facts in this collection have been chosen by me . . .” (p. 3). These are facts that I like or that I find useful, interesting, amazing, or worth sharing . . . “ (p. 3).
In this book, there is no continuing narrative, no unifying theme (although the author uses parts (“On Memory and History,” “On Reason and Science,” and “On Imagination, Poetry, and Art”)) and chapters) to organize her facts. As you read, however, you kind of lose sight of the over-arching subject since there are so many diverse facts discussed. The index is 20½ pages long (in small font) and includes subjects and authors. This is important in a book such as this for when you want to go back (or research) a particular section, at least you have a place to go to help you find it.
If you just want to fill your mind with facts, this is a terrific resource. For example, “The initialism LOL isn’t new; it was used by librarians (and probably many other people) way before computers, to describe a certain group of patrons: “little old ladies.” Now standard Internet shorthand for “laughing out loud,” it has equivalents in other languages too. . . (pp. 86-87).
In her section, “The Department of Redundancies Department” (p. 88), look at the following list (she lists 22): self-censor yourself, please RSVP, 2 a.m. in the morning, PIN number, SAT test, START treaty, LCD display, ATM machine, end result, basic fundamentals, free gift, closed first, Rio Grande River, pair of twins, reason why, whether or not, hot water heater, unexpected surprise, past history, first began, enter into, and prohibition against. Delightful!
For readers interested in language, her sections, “Endangered Languages,” “Euskera Spoken,” “The Forest of Rhetoric,” and “Mixed Metaphors” are especially interesting.
I’m not one who just wants to sit back and be entertained by a whole bunch of unrelated discussions of facts. For me, that is a total waste of my time. I would much rather read books that contribute substantially to my writing (in whatever capacity that may be). It’s the “Inessential Knowledge” portion of the title that concerns me most. I picked up the book simply because I thought there might be some juicy, relevant tidbits that I might use. I think if I were continuing to lecture to undergraduates (as I did for 22 years), there might be an example, a statistic, or an illustration that would be useful; however, being beyond that time in my life, the search would be unnecessary and pointless. I try to read books that are more relevant to my current stage of life.
This book is interesting, well-researched, and well-written. Malesky has collected a great number of facts, and if you have the patience and the interest, this book will definitely occupy your time. There are only 204 pages of text, and it reads quickly. Have fun!
All facts considered: The essential library of inessential knowledge can be purchased at Amazon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
