Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Review: Frozen Heat

Frozen Heat
Frozen Heat by Richard Castle

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

These Castle books are fun, but also somewhat confusing: it is hard not to see the characters from the TV show as the characters in the book. There are many parallels between the books and the show but there are dissimilarities as well. It is sometimes hard to keep straight.

The books on their own are good, but not great. This one gets stronger near the end. The beginning sort of meanders a bit and feels like a mundane Castle episode. Things take off as more of the plot is revealed.

View all my reviews

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Review: Riders of the Purple Sage

Riders of the Purple Sage
Riders of the Purple Sage by Zane Grey

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This wasn’t what I expected. I didn’t come in with a clear idea of what to expect, maybe I was expecting something more like a movie western or even more like Parker’s Cole and Hitch westerns (my only previous literary westerns). In some ways it was more of romance than western. Stylistic, I didn’t like how much the narrator tells the reader about what the characters are thinking or what their motivations are.

Nevertheless, I liked it. It is beautiful book; it is worth the read just for the description of the landscape of Utah alone. The Mormon and Non-Mormon conflict is interesting and raises several issues that are worth more examination and thought.

View all my reviews

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Review: The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia

The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia
The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia by Bernard Suits

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

"The Grasshopper" is unique philosophy monograph. It is part narrative, part dialogue, part treatise. It is also humorous and easy to read. It, quite self-consciously, plays off elements from Socratic dialogues, the New Testament, and Aesop’s fables. Though I don’t agree with many of its philosophic conclusions, the work, overall, is successful at pulling all these elements off. That is, I enjoyed reading it and found it enlightening.

The main focus of the book is an extended discussion of the definition of the concept of “Game.” While in some ways, it is a meant as an answer to Wittgenstein’s famous claim that one can’t define “game,” it is more philosophically rich than that. Suits’ discussion is really more an analysis of the meaning of life. The Grasshopper’s main philosophical claim seems to be that in Utopia, all meaning in life would come from some kind of game-playing. By Utopia, he means a state of life where all activity is purely and totally voluntary and no instrumental activity is necessary. Suits argues that the only activities in such a utopia would games (or other forms of play).

I think Suits is wrong here, for several reasons. Without going into detail (I hope to write a long blog fleshing this out), his use of Utopia is irrelevant. The life he imagines here is impossible, and even if it were, such beings living that life would be nothing at all like human beings. So, whatever we might learn about such a utopian life is meaningless for the life human beings live. His accounting of play as “all of those activities which are intrinsically valuable to those who engage in them” is far too broad (This sweeps in things like one’s career) (146). His distinction between instrumentally and intrinsically valuable activities is too constrained and too sharp (it leaves no room for mixed activities or constitutively valuable activities). So while I agree that game-playing and more generally play itself are important, even central, aspects of human life, I disagree that is the only intrinsically valuable (whatever that means) human activity.

My main quibble (and it might be more than a quibble) with Suits’ definition of games is the idea that “the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less efficient means” (54). It is a quibble if by less efficient he really means obstacle-making. I do think all games involve rules that place certain kinds of obstacles for the players to overcome, surmount, or play around. These obstacles often mean that only less efficient means for achieving the goals/ends of the games are available. So my concern is that the focus on efficiencies is non-essential. The essence is obstacle-making, not efficiency reduction--even if these end up being co-extensive. I am not sure they are co-extensive; hence, my concern that this is more than a mere quibble.

View all my reviews