The old joke goes something like this:
A tourist is wandering around New York city and he is clearly lost. He walks up to a local and asks, “How do you get to Carnegie Hall?”. “Practice, Man, Practice” responds the local.
Despite the groans this joke elicits, there is sure to be a few wry smiles because of how true the statement is. If you want to be good at something you have to practice. Sure it helps if you have some natural talent, but the desire to be good at something and the will to keep practicing is just as important. Chris Ballard writes of Kobe Bryant in a recent article in SI:
There’s a difference between loving basketball and liking basketball. There are only about 30 guys in the league who love it, who play year round. Allen Iverson loves to play when the lights come on. Kobe loves doing the shit before the lights comes on. This thing, this freakish compulsion, may be the hardest element of the game to quantify. There are no plus-minus stats to measure a player’s ruthlessness, his desire to beat his opponent so badly he’ll need therapy to recover. One thing’s for sure: You can’t teach it. Is so Eddie Curry would be All-NBA and Derrick Coleman would be getting ready for his induction ceremony in Springfield, Mass. But people know it when they see it
Despite similar levels of athletic ability, his ability to practice more and harder than anyone else is the reason that Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA. The importance of practice isn’t limited to sports. Atul Gawande, in his book entitled Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance states that studies have shown that the difference between the ability of elite performers (from violinists to chess players to athletes) and lesser performers is the amount of deliberate practice. In fact, Gawande cites a study by Ericsson who claims that the most important talent is the willingness to practice! Incredibly, elite performers hate practice just as much as their less able peers. However, they are somehow able to push through and will themselves to practice anyways.
Thus, if a person is to become exceptional at their profession, the best thing to do is to practice practice practice. This is obviously easy for Kobe Bryant; it just means more time in the gym. However, Gawande raises an important question: How do we teach surgeons? Obviously, to become an expert surgeon, one must have lots of hands on practice. However, how ethical is it to allow a surgical intern to practice on someone whose life is at stake? Study after study has shown that a patient is more likely to have a successful operation the more experienced a surgeon is. Yet the fact remains that as a society we need to train new surgeons. Additionally studies have shown that when new operating procedures are introduced, patient mortality increases in the short term (but decreases in the long term). How can we train surgeons on new procedures without putting patients at risk?
Gawande does a great job describing these problems and speaks of how he understands the need to train surgeons but he himself has refused to let an intern operate on one of his family members. I can see how much of an internal struggle this would be. I understand that we need to train new surgeons, but I sure as hell don’t want to be the first person a surgeon has ever operated on.
And all that thought was brought on by the first chapter! As usual Gawande’s writing stimulates the mind and the rest of the book is a quick read. Gawande discusses the problem of bad doctors, what should happen when a doctor makes a mistake (and every doctor will eventually make a mistake), the purpose of medical conferences, and a series of interesting case studies. I found the final chapter (about a young girl who may or may not have contracted the flesh eating bacteria) especially interesting. Gawande compared his successful diagnosis to the situations described inGary Klein’s work on firefighters in the field.
But the dilemma that stayed with me was how can we train surgeons without putting patients at risk? It is clear from studies of elite performers that the only way to become proficient in a profession is to practice practice practice. Yet who would want to be on the other end of the knife when a mere novice is holding the scalpel?
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Book Review (6/34) Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead
The first time I encountered Margaret Mead was in a biography about Norbert Wiener. I was very impressed that Mead had written a well received book at the age of 27 in 1928 when at that time science was dominated by men. So, when I came across this book, Coming of Age in Samoa, sitting on the shelf in the local bookstore decided to give it a go.
Coming of Age in Samoa details the lives of adolescent Samoan girls in the early 1920s. Mead spent years observing the girls and provides an interesting look at their lives from birth to old age. Though the descriptions of the Samoan culture circa 1920 is certainly fascinating, the portion of the book that really captured my interest was the last two chapters, where Mead asks the question, “What can we learn about our society from studying the lives of the Samoans”. Mead makes some insights that are just as relevant today as they were in 1928.
Mead set the stage for these latter two chapters in the beginning of the book when she asks the question, “Must adolescence always be a stormy time of rebellion and angst or is that a unique feature of Western culture?”. Throughout the rest of the book the answer become clear. Adolescent girls in Samoa do not have the same turmoil and strife that adolescent girls (and boys) in America have. Mead hypothesizes that this is due to a lack of choice in Samoan culture. In Samoa, everyone believes the same things and the opportunities that a teen girl has for the future are relatively few. In comparison, an American teen is beset with limitless opportunities, and unlimited choices, which her parents, friends, and society constantly pressure her to choose from.
Mead makes a great point at the end of Chapter 13: “In all of these comparisons between Samoan and American culture, many points are useful only in throwing a spotlight upon our own solutions, while in others it is possible to find suggestions for change. Whether or not we envy other peoples one of their solutions, our attitude towards our own solutions must be greatly broadened and deepened by a consideration of the way in which other peoples have met the same problems. Realizing that our own ways are not humanely inevitable nor God-ordained, but are the fruit of a long and turbulent history, we may well examine in turn all of our institution, thrown into strong relief against the history of other civilizations, and weighing them in the balance, be not afraid to find them wanting.”
This is a point I keep harping on, but one I think is vital to how we live and raise our children. The struggles of our youth or our culture in general are due to the details of our culture, not fate or some inevitable part of the human process.
Mead’s words 80 years ago haunt me, because she saw the same problems I see today. “At the present time we live in a period of transition. We have many standards but we still believe that only one standard can be the right one. We present to our children the picture of a battle-field where each group is fully armored in the conviction of the righteousness of its cause. And each of these groups makes forays among the next generation. But it is unthinkable that a final recognition of the great number of ways in which man, during the course of history and at the present time, is solving the problems of life, should not bring with it in turn the downfall of our belief in a single standard."
Unfortunately, it is now eighty years since Mead has written those words and I believe that our society still is filled with these battles between camps of righteousness. Mead stated that:
The children must be taught how to think, not what to think.
And I don’t think we do that.
In Mead’s words, “Education, in the home even more than at school, instead of being a special pleading for on regime, a desperate attempt to form one particular habit of mind which will withstand all outside influences, must be a preparation for those very influences…And even more importantly, this child of the future must have an open mind. The home must cease to plead an ethical cause or a religious belief with smiles or frowns, caresses or threats. The children must be taught how to think, not what to think And because old errors die slowly, they must be taught tolerance, just as today they are taught intolerance. They must be taught that many ways are open to them, no one sanctioned above its alternative, and that upon them alone lies the burden of choice.”
I wish this was how our education system functioned. I long for the day when raising a child to be racist is viewed the same as physically abusing a child. I hope that I can raise my children to be tolerant and to not try and force my beliefs upon them.
Of course, the tricky part is finding where you draw the line. Obviously you need to instill in a child the idea of right and wrong. However, I would argue (and I believe Mead’s writing supports this) that right and wrong are very subjective things and culturally based. So how can I teach a child right and wrong without also inflicting upon them whatever “regime” (as Mead calls it) I subscribe to?
So the questions are:
1.)How can you teach a child to think and to keep an open mind while also teaching them the values that are near and dear to your heart?
2.)Should society as a whole get involved with how you teach your child these things? We as a society already step in where there is evidence of physical or sexual abuse. Should society step in for mental abuse as well? Should we consider it just as neglectful when Dad teaches Little Johnny to hate minorities as when he beats Little Johnny?
Coming of Age in Samoa details the lives of adolescent Samoan girls in the early 1920s. Mead spent years observing the girls and provides an interesting look at their lives from birth to old age. Though the descriptions of the Samoan culture circa 1920 is certainly fascinating, the portion of the book that really captured my interest was the last two chapters, where Mead asks the question, “What can we learn about our society from studying the lives of the Samoans”. Mead makes some insights that are just as relevant today as they were in 1928.
Mead set the stage for these latter two chapters in the beginning of the book when she asks the question, “Must adolescence always be a stormy time of rebellion and angst or is that a unique feature of Western culture?”. Throughout the rest of the book the answer become clear. Adolescent girls in Samoa do not have the same turmoil and strife that adolescent girls (and boys) in America have. Mead hypothesizes that this is due to a lack of choice in Samoan culture. In Samoa, everyone believes the same things and the opportunities that a teen girl has for the future are relatively few. In comparison, an American teen is beset with limitless opportunities, and unlimited choices, which her parents, friends, and society constantly pressure her to choose from.
Mead makes a great point at the end of Chapter 13: “In all of these comparisons between Samoan and American culture, many points are useful only in throwing a spotlight upon our own solutions, while in others it is possible to find suggestions for change. Whether or not we envy other peoples one of their solutions, our attitude towards our own solutions must be greatly broadened and deepened by a consideration of the way in which other peoples have met the same problems. Realizing that our own ways are not humanely inevitable nor God-ordained, but are the fruit of a long and turbulent history, we may well examine in turn all of our institution, thrown into strong relief against the history of other civilizations, and weighing them in the balance, be not afraid to find them wanting.”
This is a point I keep harping on, but one I think is vital to how we live and raise our children. The struggles of our youth or our culture in general are due to the details of our culture, not fate or some inevitable part of the human process.
Mead’s words 80 years ago haunt me, because she saw the same problems I see today. “At the present time we live in a period of transition. We have many standards but we still believe that only one standard can be the right one. We present to our children the picture of a battle-field where each group is fully armored in the conviction of the righteousness of its cause. And each of these groups makes forays among the next generation. But it is unthinkable that a final recognition of the great number of ways in which man, during the course of history and at the present time, is solving the problems of life, should not bring with it in turn the downfall of our belief in a single standard."
Unfortunately, it is now eighty years since Mead has written those words and I believe that our society still is filled with these battles between camps of righteousness. Mead stated that:
The children must be taught how to think, not what to think.
And I don’t think we do that.
In Mead’s words, “Education, in the home even more than at school, instead of being a special pleading for on regime, a desperate attempt to form one particular habit of mind which will withstand all outside influences, must be a preparation for those very influences…And even more importantly, this child of the future must have an open mind. The home must cease to plead an ethical cause or a religious belief with smiles or frowns, caresses or threats. The children must be taught how to think, not what to think And because old errors die slowly, they must be taught tolerance, just as today they are taught intolerance. They must be taught that many ways are open to them, no one sanctioned above its alternative, and that upon them alone lies the burden of choice.”
I wish this was how our education system functioned. I long for the day when raising a child to be racist is viewed the same as physically abusing a child. I hope that I can raise my children to be tolerant and to not try and force my beliefs upon them.
Of course, the tricky part is finding where you draw the line. Obviously you need to instill in a child the idea of right and wrong. However, I would argue (and I believe Mead’s writing supports this) that right and wrong are very subjective things and culturally based. So how can I teach a child right and wrong without also inflicting upon them whatever “regime” (as Mead calls it) I subscribe to?
So the questions are:
1.)How can you teach a child to think and to keep an open mind while also teaching them the values that are near and dear to your heart?
2.)Should society as a whole get involved with how you teach your child these things? We as a society already step in where there is evidence of physical or sexual abuse. Should society step in for mental abuse as well? Should we consider it just as neglectful when Dad teaches Little Johnny to hate minorities as when he beats Little Johnny?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Book Review (5/34) The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal by Jared Diamond
This is the third book I've read by Jared Diamond, and though I didn't think it was as groundbreaking as Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse, I still enjoyed the book. In fact, the ideas that were fleshed out in those two books (Why the European Culture came to dominate the world in the 19th century and why societies collapse) are both present in their infancies in this book.
Basically, Diamond makes the case that man is nothing more than another chimpanzee. We share over 98% of our DNA with chimps, and Diamond shows that everything we consider to be uniquely human traits have animal precursors or equivalents (with the possible exception of drug abuse). Sure humans use tools, but so do some animals (such as chimps using sticks to get termites). Well, humans have language another person might say. So does a species of monkey Diamond discusses that have different vocalizations for eagles, leopards, and snakes. Humans lie! Diamond mentions that some of these monkeys will vocalize a leopard warning when their tribe is losing a fight with another tribe to send their rivals scurrying up trees.
The list continues! Diamond showed that bower birds create "art" and that various animals commit "murder" and even genocide. He also speaks of how ants have domesticated aphids and use them as a food source, thus having a kind of agriculture. In fact, the only thing that seems to be uniquely human is drug abuse, and even that seems to have some animal precursors.
Diamond's main point is that humans have clearly evolved from animals and that the dividing line that we tend to draw between ourselves and animals isn't as distinct as we'd like to think. In fact, almost all the behaviors that we consider to be uniquely human appear to have animal equivalents, or at least precursors.
The next section of the book spends time detailing the evolution of man from our separation from a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas 7 million years ago to the arrival of Cro-Magnon Man 40,000 years ago. The speculation about the extinction of the Neanderthals being caused by Cro-Magnon Man is convincing and the discussion of the spread of languages is interesting as well.
Diamond also takes some time to point out the flaws in the Drake Equation that predicts a universe teeming with intelligent life. The best part is when Diamond makes a compelling case that if we really thought there was intelligent life out there then we should try to avoid it as our history tells us that when two groups of humans meet the technologically superior group wipes out the other. So sending out a radio broadcast telling whoever is out there exactly where we are probably wasn't the best idea ever.
Finally the rest of the book presents some early ideas of Diamond's that were expanded in Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. If you've read those two books, you'll find some of this repetitive, but the first half of the book more than makes up for it and a little redundancy never hurt anyone.
I guess my only other qualm is that Diamond tends to over exaggerate at times. He has a tendency to make statements like "This evidence is indisputable" or "This theory is unquestionable" which is obviously false. A theory that is not questionable is not a theory. I agree 100% with the majority of Diamond's theories and conclusions, but that does not mean that they should be beyond questioning. We should remember what Norbert Wiener knew at the age of 10 when he wrote of "the impossibility of man being certain of anything".
Basically, Diamond makes the case that man is nothing more than another chimpanzee. We share over 98% of our DNA with chimps, and Diamond shows that everything we consider to be uniquely human traits have animal precursors or equivalents (with the possible exception of drug abuse). Sure humans use tools, but so do some animals (such as chimps using sticks to get termites). Well, humans have language another person might say. So does a species of monkey Diamond discusses that have different vocalizations for eagles, leopards, and snakes. Humans lie! Diamond mentions that some of these monkeys will vocalize a leopard warning when their tribe is losing a fight with another tribe to send their rivals scurrying up trees.
The list continues! Diamond showed that bower birds create "art" and that various animals commit "murder" and even genocide. He also speaks of how ants have domesticated aphids and use them as a food source, thus having a kind of agriculture. In fact, the only thing that seems to be uniquely human is drug abuse, and even that seems to have some animal precursors.
Diamond's main point is that humans have clearly evolved from animals and that the dividing line that we tend to draw between ourselves and animals isn't as distinct as we'd like to think. In fact, almost all the behaviors that we consider to be uniquely human appear to have animal equivalents, or at least precursors.
The next section of the book spends time detailing the evolution of man from our separation from a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas 7 million years ago to the arrival of Cro-Magnon Man 40,000 years ago. The speculation about the extinction of the Neanderthals being caused by Cro-Magnon Man is convincing and the discussion of the spread of languages is interesting as well.
Diamond also takes some time to point out the flaws in the Drake Equation that predicts a universe teeming with intelligent life. The best part is when Diamond makes a compelling case that if we really thought there was intelligent life out there then we should try to avoid it as our history tells us that when two groups of humans meet the technologically superior group wipes out the other. So sending out a radio broadcast telling whoever is out there exactly where we are probably wasn't the best idea ever.
Finally the rest of the book presents some early ideas of Diamond's that were expanded in Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. If you've read those two books, you'll find some of this repetitive, but the first half of the book more than makes up for it and a little redundancy never hurt anyone.
I guess my only other qualm is that Diamond tends to over exaggerate at times. He has a tendency to make statements like "This evidence is indisputable" or "This theory is unquestionable" which is obviously false. A theory that is not questionable is not a theory. I agree 100% with the majority of Diamond's theories and conclusions, but that does not mean that they should be beyond questioning. We should remember what Norbert Wiener knew at the age of 10 when he wrote of "the impossibility of man being certain of anything".
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Book Review (4/34) Dark Hero of the Information Age: In Search of Norbert Wiener the Father of Cybernetics
Now that my qualifying exams are finished I can get back to my education. For the first time in three years I am experiencing guilt free reading and it is a wonderful feeling. Of course I still have my dissertation to worry about and I believe that this book is a nice gentle step in the proper direction.
Norbert Wiener was an American Scientist who found the field of Cybernetics, which is basically the study of complex systems and has a lot in common with control theory. My advisor is a control theory guru and suggested this book as a way to get my feet wet so to speak. I've always admired authors like James Gleick and Richard Feynman who can turn complex subject matter into easily readable material and I'm happy to report Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman do the same with their biography on Wiener.
I think above all else, Conway and Siegelman portray Wiener as a tragic hero, a child prodigy turned into one of the most influential and prominent scientists of his day, who was haunted by self-doubt and had personal and political influences which had negative effects on his career (and in turn the course of scientific history and with that human history). In fact, based on the description of his upbringing by his father and the machinations of his wife to isolate him from his colleagues it's amazing what Wiener was able to accomplish. It is a tragedy that a lie created by his wife led to his ending his collaboration with Warren McCulloch, Walter Pitts, and Jerome Lettvin.
Despite these struggles (and the United States focusing on artificial intelligence concepts more than cybernetics) Wiener contributions to science cannot be overstated. Reading through the book it was amazing how many different fields benefited from his research. He was truly interdisciplinary. And beyond his scientific accomplishments and his estrangement from his daughters, he was a truly ethical and moral man who was more concerned with improving the human condition than chasing the almighty dollar. Wiener constantly spurned the defense industries and corporations after seeing the devastating effects of the atomic bomb and realizing the negative impact automation could cause humanity when motivated by sheer greed.
Wiener also had some great insights, even from an early age. Conway and Siegelman wrote that at ten, he wrote of "the impossibility of man's being certain of anything" and disputed "man's presumption in declaring that his knowledge has no limits". This brilliant insight (which I didn't accept until I was 26 and had to be pointed out to me) came to him at 10 years old. Additionally, the statement that "There is something against the grain in the ... wholesale acceptance of any creed, whether in religion, in science, or in politics. The attitude of the scholar is to reserve the right to change his opinion at any time on the basis of evidence produced" is something that I agree with one hundred percent.
I definitely think that Wiener's scientific approach match nicely with the philosophical views of James and Pirsig, and may indeed be the place I need to stick my shovel in the ground and say, "Here is what I think is happening". This book is an excellent introduction to Wiener and I think that I will start with his books Cybernetics and go from there.
Norbert Wiener was an American Scientist who found the field of Cybernetics, which is basically the study of complex systems and has a lot in common with control theory. My advisor is a control theory guru and suggested this book as a way to get my feet wet so to speak. I've always admired authors like James Gleick and Richard Feynman who can turn complex subject matter into easily readable material and I'm happy to report Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman do the same with their biography on Wiener.
I think above all else, Conway and Siegelman portray Wiener as a tragic hero, a child prodigy turned into one of the most influential and prominent scientists of his day, who was haunted by self-doubt and had personal and political influences which had negative effects on his career (and in turn the course of scientific history and with that human history). In fact, based on the description of his upbringing by his father and the machinations of his wife to isolate him from his colleagues it's amazing what Wiener was able to accomplish. It is a tragedy that a lie created by his wife led to his ending his collaboration with Warren McCulloch, Walter Pitts, and Jerome Lettvin.
Despite these struggles (and the United States focusing on artificial intelligence concepts more than cybernetics) Wiener contributions to science cannot be overstated. Reading through the book it was amazing how many different fields benefited from his research. He was truly interdisciplinary. And beyond his scientific accomplishments and his estrangement from his daughters, he was a truly ethical and moral man who was more concerned with improving the human condition than chasing the almighty dollar. Wiener constantly spurned the defense industries and corporations after seeing the devastating effects of the atomic bomb and realizing the negative impact automation could cause humanity when motivated by sheer greed.
Wiener also had some great insights, even from an early age. Conway and Siegelman wrote that at ten, he wrote of "the impossibility of man's being certain of anything" and disputed "man's presumption in declaring that his knowledge has no limits". This brilliant insight (which I didn't accept until I was 26 and had to be pointed out to me) came to him at 10 years old. Additionally, the statement that "There is something against the grain in the ... wholesale acceptance of any creed, whether in religion, in science, or in politics. The attitude of the scholar is to reserve the right to change his opinion at any time on the basis of evidence produced" is something that I agree with one hundred percent.
I definitely think that Wiener's scientific approach match nicely with the philosophical views of James and Pirsig, and may indeed be the place I need to stick my shovel in the ground and say, "Here is what I think is happening". This book is an excellent introduction to Wiener and I think that I will start with his books Cybernetics and go from there.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Book Review: The Ballad of the Whiskey Robber
There's just something about crime. Whether it's enjoying capers like Ocean's 11 or The Great Train Robbery, we tend to romanticize the dastardly wrongdoer despite whatever his or her heinous crimes might be. I've yet to meet someone who was rooting for the cops to catch Hannibal Lector when they were reading Silence of the Lambs. Whatever it is, something happens when we hear the story of someone who flaunts authority and just does something so outside the bounds of society's rules that despite our professed outrage.... we admire the audacity.
So of course the non-fiction book by Julian Rubinstein detailing the life and crimes of Hungarian bank robber Attila Ambrus was a fascinating read. A friend had lent me the book a few years ago and I just now was inspired to read it. I'm sorry I waited so long. Rubenstein's story flows so well and the story of Attila's life is so far-fetched you'd swear it was fiction. Rubinstein's painstaking research shows as he portrays the struggle of Attila's early life and his turn towards crime in vivid detail. By the end, you come to view Attila as a victim of the times.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the power vacuum left behind in Hungary led to corruption at all levels of government and this not only provided the perfect opportunity for men like Attila, but also endeared men like him to the public. Though Attila's life is fascinating enough, the window Rubinstein provides us into the state of Hungary after the fall of the USSR is equally thought provoking. Rubinstein often cites that while Poland had Lech Wałęsa and the Czech Republic had Václav Havel, Hungary did not have a similar charismatic and effective leader.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good criminal tale (and who doesn't?). But beyond that, I love this book for giving me insight into a country I had little knowledge of, and reminding me that I need to read something by Havel who I've admired since I read this quote: "All too often living normally begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society"
Additionally, and this will probably only make sense to myself, I found that the idea that Hungary was much worse off than Poland and the Czech Republic because of its lack of a certain type of leader might lend support to the ideas present in The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, which despite the title, proposes that the most effective combination would be a hybrid organization that contains elements of both decentralized and centralized control. At some point I'd like to explore this thought a little further.
Finally, since it was a non-fiction book and a recommendation I can cross a few numbers off my list!
So of course the non-fiction book by Julian Rubinstein detailing the life and crimes of Hungarian bank robber Attila Ambrus was a fascinating read. A friend had lent me the book a few years ago and I just now was inspired to read it. I'm sorry I waited so long. Rubenstein's story flows so well and the story of Attila's life is so far-fetched you'd swear it was fiction. Rubinstein's painstaking research shows as he portrays the struggle of Attila's early life and his turn towards crime in vivid detail. By the end, you come to view Attila as a victim of the times.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the power vacuum left behind in Hungary led to corruption at all levels of government and this not only provided the perfect opportunity for men like Attila, but also endeared men like him to the public. Though Attila's life is fascinating enough, the window Rubinstein provides us into the state of Hungary after the fall of the USSR is equally thought provoking. Rubinstein often cites that while Poland had Lech Wałęsa and the Czech Republic had Václav Havel, Hungary did not have a similar charismatic and effective leader.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good criminal tale (and who doesn't?). But beyond that, I love this book for giving me insight into a country I had little knowledge of, and reminding me that I need to read something by Havel who I've admired since I read this quote: "All too often living normally begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society"
Additionally, and this will probably only make sense to myself, I found that the idea that Hungary was much worse off than Poland and the Czech Republic because of its lack of a certain type of leader might lend support to the ideas present in The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, which despite the title, proposes that the most effective combination would be a hybrid organization that contains elements of both decentralized and centralized control. At some point I'd like to explore this thought a little further.
Finally, since it was a non-fiction book and a recommendation I can cross a few numbers off my list!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Duma Key
Well, this doesn't have anything to do with my 101 Things list, but I just finished reading Stephen King's new book Duma Key. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, and judging by the amount of Stephen King books on my bookshelves (62 at last count) he far outpaces his nearest rival on my favorite list (Orson Scott Card - 29).
What I really love about Stephen King books is that when I read them I always feel like I've come home. When I'm reading a SK book I get the same feeling I get when after weeks of traveling I finally get back to my own bed. Duma Key was no exception.
I won't spoil the book (and if you want Im sure you can find a plot summary on the Interwebs) , but I think Duma Key is one of the best books SK has put out recently. Though I enjoyed Cell, Blaze, and Lisey's Story, Duma Key was a book that really hit me on an emotional level. I really felt for Edgar Freemantle and grew to love his daughter Ilse. If you aren't a fan of slow buildups this probably isn't a book for you, but I'm very content to settle in and enjoy King's slow simmer with the knowledge that even though things will eventually come to a full boil half the fun is getting there.
And yup all the usual SK things are present. 19s are all over if you look hard enough! There were also several laugh out loud moments (which got me a few interesting looks when I was reading in Market Square).
Also... the 2nd comic book series for The Dark Tower comes out in March. Whoo-hoo!!!
What I really love about Stephen King books is that when I read them I always feel like I've come home. When I'm reading a SK book I get the same feeling I get when after weeks of traveling I finally get back to my own bed. Duma Key was no exception.
I won't spoil the book (and if you want Im sure you can find a plot summary on the Interwebs) , but I think Duma Key is one of the best books SK has put out recently. Though I enjoyed Cell, Blaze, and Lisey's Story, Duma Key was a book that really hit me on an emotional level. I really felt for Edgar Freemantle and grew to love his daughter Ilse. If you aren't a fan of slow buildups this probably isn't a book for you, but I'm very content to settle in and enjoy King's slow simmer with the knowledge that even though things will eventually come to a full boil half the fun is getting there.
And yup all the usual SK things are present. 19s are all over if you look hard enough! There were also several laugh out loud moments (which got me a few interesting looks when I was reading in Market Square).
Also... the 2nd comic book series for The Dark Tower comes out in March. Whoo-hoo!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)