I only read a few this year, but here are my thoughts…
Super Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner
The first Freakonomics was one of my favorites. This follow up started slowly, but, by the end, I was sold. The premise, as it is in the first book, is to make connections between things that don’t normally seem comparable, and it often feels like economic and statistical detective work.
No doubt the most intriguing chapter is the final one in which the self-proclaimed “rogue economist” explores global warming. Levitt doesn’t refute global warming as I had heard he did in initial reactions to the book, but he does try to expose some of the myths about it. I’ve heard that much of his research is very isolated, so I won’t get into that. Still, I really enjoyed an interesting irony he illuminates for me about the avid environmentalists and political figures who battle global warming so aggressively; it feels like a religion sometimes. I find this ironic because stereotypical leftist environmentalist who are often uninterested in religion seem to be at arms with right-wing conservatives, many of whom are fairly religious (yes, I’m simplifying). The major figures, like Al Gore, put a moral and sometimes apocalyptic spin on global warming, a “do good now or suffer the consequences later” that really echoes some of the most intense Christian credos. “Cut down on pollution or the world will be destroyed,” when you think about it in terms of morality, isn’t all that dissimilar from “believe in God so you go to Heaven.” I apologize for this being my second post in a row about religion and heaven and hell in places you don’t expect it. I think (and hope) it’s a coincidence, not a trend. However, my final grad paper in 2008 was about the depictions of Hell in literature in Homer, Vergil, Dante, Milton, and Joyce, so it is something that interests me (and Joyce might have dethroned Milton as my favorite).
The authors’ point was, at least what I took away from the chapter, that global warming is a scientific issue, not a moral issue. Yes, reducing consumption can help the problem, but it’s not the only way, and fifty years from now, we might have much better technology to combat the issue. Yeah, I still believe it’s a major issue that I care about, but maybe it’s not as urgent as I thought it was. Either way, I’m thinking about it more.
Yeah Levitt’s statistics are sometimes very subjective, leading to a lot of controversy, but regardless of accuracy, he gets you to think of things in unconventional ways, which I love.
Definitely worth the read.
Eating the Dinosaur, by Chuck Klosterman
Chuck did it again, and I think this might be his best. I love all of his books, but this one probably offers the most insight. My complaints with some of his previous books is that that some lack continuity because they are compilations, and they are sometimes a bit over the top with obscure pop culture references. Still, I can usually follow most of it, and he often provides wisdom in places you wouldn’t expect, usually concerning human psychology and how we interact within the culture that has shaped in ways we often overlook.
Klosterman isn’t all that different from Levitt at times, comparing rock star Kurt Cobain to religious fanatic David Karesh or arguing that Pamela Anderson, and not Madonna, was the Marilyn Monroe of the 1990’s. He asks insightful questions like “did people dream the same way before and after the advent of television?” And he asks less insightful though provocative questions like “how would you feel about war if it was only fought with robots, not people?” or “If you could make a phone call to your 15 year-old self but you couldn’t say who it was and you only have 15 seconds to talk, what would you say?”
Eating the Dinosaur, as do other Klosterman books, has a lot of insight. It has more continuity than Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, but the same depth. If you haven’t read any of his stuff, I’d start with that, then move to Killing Yourself to Live before reading the most recent one. They’re all great though, and Eating the Dinosaur is probably my favorite read of 2009.
Others I read in 2009:
Tom Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded: It’s very well-researched, and definitely highlights how climate change, economic globalization, and overpopulation are all interconnected, and are snowballing very quickly. Definitely worth the read, but you can skim parts of it. The major point I took from it is that China is changing everything. Stupid China.
Chelsea Handler’s Are you There Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea: I did this one in book on tape. She’s very funny, and there are some great one-liners. The book definitely had some good moments. Still, I was a little disappointed. It made me laugh, but it was pretty much void of anything else. Worth the read if you want to laugh, but not much else.
Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons: I know I’m a bit behind on this one. I’m not a Brown enthusiast, nor am I an elitist who says he sucks. He writes page-turners, which is simply a style. His books read like a season of Lost. It’s not good or bad, it just is a style choice. Fun to read, and often insightful, but it’s all plot and suspense. I do enjoy the history stuff though, and I will read The Lost Symbol in 2010 at some point.
Randy Pausch’s The Last Lecture: I don’t know if I’m an asshole for saying the then terminal and now deceased author kind of sucked, but yeah, he kind of sucked. He had some nice moments, but on the whole, I was pretty disappointed. The book was a best seller because it was gimmicky; it had a great inside cover. I’d skip it.
Michael Lewis’s Moneyball: I was way behind on this one, but I finally got to it this year. I loved it, and it got me extremely interested in business in general, and especially the business of baseball. It reads well because it has good characters, heroes, villains, etc, but is informative as well. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested sports or business, and an essential for someone interested in both.
Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: Better than Tipping Point, not quite as fun as Blink. As with much of his stuff, he tells me a lot of stuff I already know, but says it differently. Worth the read, but you can skim a lot of it and still get the point. I just started What the Dog Saw, a collection of his stuff from The New Yorker, and I’m enjoying the variety. His other books are sometimes repetitive, and the collection approach mixes it up.
Jon Krakauer’s Where Men Win Glory: I started it but haven’t finished it. It’s good though. That’s all I’ve got. As always, he’s a great writer tackling a controversial topic. I do love how he has evolved from being the outdoorsy guy though; his last two books have been about Mormon fundamentalists and this one is about the controversial death of Pat Tillman. It’ll be on the 2010 list as well.
Others I read for school that I approve of: Eliot’s Daniel Deronda, Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Statistics, Accouting, Economics, Financial Statement Analysis, and Sarbanes-Oxley for Dummies. Hell yeah.
Definitely don’t read: Tim Forte’s Profits, Prophets, and Peace.
To my four overzealous followers, see you next year. Schneider, out.
