Another disappointing Heinlein book

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Robert A. Heinlein

I waited a long time to read this book, and I was a little disappointed. I guess if many people say that it is one of the best science fiction books ever, how can you live up to that? This is my 3rd Heinlein book, and I’d say that it falls in the middle between Starship Troopers (very good) and Stranger in a Strange Land (quite disappointing). I could identify with all the characters in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but it was less a sci-fi book than it was a political revolution thriller, with a sci-fi back-drop. Now that’s not completely fair, since one of the main characters was an intelligent computer, but it was mostly about revolution.

As a book written in the early 1960’s (and read in 2016), Heinlein did a decent job of predicting the future. He correctly predicts that China is a major player in the future (not the case in the 1960s). He also predicts artificial intelligence nicely, and his description of living life on the moon was very accurate and believable.

He also seems to see that software would be important in computing, but missed the decreasing size and importance of hardware - that would have been tough to guess.

All of the tech - like space suits and pressure domes under the surface - made sense, and so did the ability of lunar inhabitants to modify laser drills into weapons. Spaceships orbiting, orbital dynamics and trajectory were all well thought out.

Forgivably, he did get a few things wrong - he came up with this idea that being in space (or on the moon) for any amount of time physiologically changed your body forever, meaning that you could not return to Earth (but maybe he needed that for the story).

Disappointingly though, he got communications all wrong - telephone sets, cables and a central office will apparently always be needed; didn’t foresee anything like cell phones (certainly walkie-talkies were around in the 60’s; that could have been a hint). And newspapers were still a thing for the latest news, however, that may have been tough to guess in the 60s.

He also dreamed up social structures that were unique to the moon - where there were too many men and not enough women. The result was complex sharing marriages with multiple women and multiple (and more) men.

The story plodded along for a long while detailing the progress of the revolution. It wasn’t until the final 50 pages (of 300) where the action got intense. After that, it was quite good.

However, I think I’m done with Heinlein. Well, at least for the foreseeable future...

5/10

Throwing a baseball

Growing up as a kid, nobody ever taught me to throw a baseball. I just learned by trial and error. In fact, everything I knew about baseball up until I was over 40, was learned by observation and trial and error. Well, there was the time when I asked Bob Allisat how to hit a fast pitch, and he told me to keep my feet together and step into the pitch as the pitcher threw the ball. He was mostly right, and it helped a lot. That's about it, though.

I learned from watching friends, and watching baseball on TV. I did have a certain amount of natural ability - I was a fast runner, which helped me overcome my many mistakes in fielding and my lack of knowledge of positioning. But I learned these things too, by watching friends, competitors and the Montreal Expos. Watching pro outfielders (especially Andre the Hawk Dawson, perhaps my fave player ever) cured me of throwing side-arm from the outfield. Watching other fielders taught me to communicate verbally with other fielders while tracking down fly balls and grounders.

But I didn't really understand the game until I was over 40 and started coaching my own kids (and other people's kids). At first, I was an assistant coach, and learned a heck of a lot from John, Warren, Pat and Rob. After two years, I could teach stuff that I didn't know two years earlier. Tons of stuff. Being strictly an outfielder, I knew very little about the infield. In fact, I had no idea how to play any of the positions. Not really. Two years later, I could teach them. The most important thing I learned was the "ready position" - that's 50% of it right there. Knowing what to do THAT PLAY, based on the number of outs, and where the base runners are. That's another 25% right there. 75% of the way to being a good infielder right off the bat (pun intended).

I then watched pitching coaches teach pitching to my kids - and learned a lot from both Dave and Warren. A whole lot. Now I can take a kid, show him a few things, and turn him into a pitcher. At least a relief pitcher. (Assuming he has some basic throwing skills already- which is not always the case.) Which takes me to throwing a ball.

As I said, I had some natural ability, a strong arm and some not totally bad technique. (Stopped throwing side-arm before high school.) There's more throwing than a strong arm, though. In fact, while arm strength is 50% of it, technique is everything else. You use your whole body - including your legs - to throw a ball. I see youth pitchers using only their arms, and doing well. I can only imagine how much better they could do if they would just use some proper technique. Eric, I'm talking to you.

Now have a look at this picture. This is Nomar Garciaparra, who was a big star shortstop for the Boston Red Sox in the 1990s and early 2000s. Here, with the Cubs, while tossing the ball in the infield, he shows us one of the most important aspects of throwing a ball. A proper wind up. I'm not talking about the complicated pitcher's windup like in the way cool image below, but rather just a simple start to a basic throw. Like tossing the ball from shortstop to first base between innings, warming up before the game, tossing a ball with a pal, etc.

Football guys will do something similar, but will cradle that ball (like it was a football) with hand facing upwards. Incorrect for baseball. An extended arm with the hand (and ball) facing down is the correct way to start your throwing motion. Many good athletes can throw just fine (results-wise) not doing this. But like anything else, using proper technique will improve your game no matter how well you're doing with improper technique. If you're throwing accurately 90% of the time with poor technique, you'll get closer to 100% using proper technique.

More importantly though, a kid throwing accurately 50% of the time or less, using improper technique, will dramatically improve accuracy (and velocity) using proper technique. If you're not starting your throwing motion like that, do it, and see the difference. And even more importantly, get your kid to start his throwing motion like this. It matters, and it will definitely make a difference.

The skewing of the Political Specrum

I have been saying to my conservative friends - those who insist that they are just a bit right of center - that their views are skewed. Their perspective is distorted.  I'm talking about folks in the US who think that communism and socialism are the same thing (completely incorrect), and folks in Canada who think that liberalism and socialism are the same thing (equally incorrect).

For a while I was mystified by this obviously flawed perception - I mean, okay there are a lot of dummies out there, but for the most part, conservative people that I know personally aren't dummies, in fact many are quite smart.  So how do you explain a smart person being unable to tell the difference between two very different things? I mean socialism and communism are about as similar as sliced bread and a car battery. How can a smart person not see that?

I struggled with this for some time until about a year ago (or two?) I was engaged in a discussion on io9 or Quora with an American Republican who kept using the term "leftists" when describing people, and the 'leftist media' etc. I objected to the latter, but the former got me thinking. Clearly, there are few if any "leftists" in America. I mean the US Communist Party is and has been poison since the McCarthy era, and I wasn't aware of any actual official socialist parties in the US. So I asked him to please list some "leftist" organizations currently active in America. His answer threw me for a loop - he listed no fewer than 50 of them.

Well, the list contained the names of 50+ organizations. But they were all civil rights organizations like the NAACP, Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, National Voting Rights Institute, and many others. Egad!! Those are what he thought were "leftist" organizations? Then I had a eureka moment: It's all about perspective.
Have a look at this image:

On the left, we have the political left; on the right, the political right. Anyone who attended a single class of political science (or has ever strayed from the sports or funnies in a newspaper) will tell you that on the extreme left is communism (some would insist that we say 'ideal communism' but that's only a theoretical thing), and on the extreme right is fascism or nazism.

In a normal (or perhaps theoretical) world, we could map out where the American and Canadian political parties lay on this grid:

For the most part, they all tend toward the center, some being more left, others being more right, some more authoritarian, some less. I hope nobody is insulted by this map; I think it's fair from the perspective of the reasonable person, whatever their political leanings may be. Now to be honest, I really don't understand the Greens, so I just put them there for no reason. They actually don't interest me that much. Sorry.

So back to perspective. First, I have to say that I don't think there are many moderate conservatives or republicans anymore. Most of them have gone to the far right. This is a generalization of course- and while someone like Mitt Romney may actually be a moderate Republican, he has been soundly rejected by his party (and not just once), and does not represent mainstream Republican thinking today. Most Republicans are ideologically far to the right of Mr. Romney. So this movement to the right in and of itself affects the perspective of most Republicans - their position on the grid affects how they see others. I am focusing on the US Republicans here, but exactly the same can be said about Canadian Conservatives- at least the former Harper administration. The graph below illustrates what I mean:

For me, this explains a lot of things. How can a sane and intelligent person see different things, and think they're the same? By looking at them from a great distance.   From the far right, commies, socialists and dems look the same - so do those Canadian libs. They're all a bunch of "leftists"...

It's like looking at the Rocky Mountains from downtown Calgary. There are a whole lot of mountains over there, and they all look pretty much the same. Some a bit taller, some less so. Most are gray-green, lots have white at the top. And they're all way over there. They're all a bunch of "mountains"...

Another Book: Rome and Italy by Livy

I read this book right after I read his "Early History of Rome" - and that was quite some time ago. Again, to salvage what I could from my memory (thanks to my margin markings), here is what I got from this piece. Spoilers ahead, many spoilers. But then, it's not like there are any secrets here...

Rome and Italy

Livy

This book continues from Livy’s “The Early History of Rome” with five subsequent ‘books’ - 6 through 10. This work covers the period from the Gallic (Celtic) sack of Rome in 386 B.C. until when the Romans began dominating most of Italy in 292 B.C.

Book Six re-summarizes some of the events leading up to and following the Gallic sack of Rome. Important figures were Roman general Camillus, who defeated the Gauls, and defended Rome against local rivals as Rome slowly recovered from the Celtic defeat, and Manlius, a former Consul who had aspirations of the throne, and was executed. (However, this may have been just a story to cover the fact that he championed the plebeians to the disgust and anger of the patricians.) In 367 B.C., the Gauls made another attack, but were easily defeated by the Romans this time.

Book Seven covers the period from 365 to 342 B.C. Socially, rebuilding the city was a crushing financial burden to the plebeians, so changes to the rate of interest improved their lot. Militarily, just 17 years after the defeat, the Romans were able to field 10 legions. Around 350 B.C. a large Gallic army again appeared in Latin territory, and was defeated with great loss to the Gauls. Greek pirates made a show near the mouth of the Tiber, but were easily defeated when they landed. Also covered is the first conflict with the Samnites of south and central Italy, with the Romans winning several battles.

Book Eight Covers the period from 341 to 322 B.C. generally known as the first Samnite war. However, it begins with another short battle with the Volscians. Livy takes the opportunity here to describe the make-up and fighting strategy of the Roman army. A good time because the Romans now had to fight some of their fellow Latins, who had long been allies, and with whom they had fought side-by-side, and used the same weapons and techniques. The Romans won, with the unlikely aid of the Samnites, but at great cost to both sides. Rome would recover, and retain much of the territory of the vanquished Latins. And of course, more fighting against the Samnites.

Livy mentions the rise of Alexander the Great at this time, as well as the founding of the city of Alexandria in Egypt. And in 326 B.C., the Romans made a law that a creditor may seize the property of a debtor, but may not seize or imprison the debtor’s person.

Book Nine Covers the period from 321 B.C. to 304 B.C., generally known as the second Samnite war. It starts with the Roman army coming to the aid of allies being besieged by the Samnites. On their way they are ambushed by a Samnite army, and forced to give up hostages (their cavalry), to strip their uniforms and their arms, and to proceed under the yoke. Here is a paining of the event (click for more info).

Romans passing under the Samnite yoke

Having considered two options - let the Romans go, and guarantee friendship, kill them all, and guarantee a weakened Rome for a generation, they instead chose to humiliate- a decision that would do them no good in the end.

A second Roman army laid siege on an Apulian city garrisoned by Samnites and won a victory, freeing the hostages, and forcing Samnites under the yoke. The general here was Papirius Cursor, whom Livy insists could have bested Alexander the Great, had he came the way of Italy. (A bit of hubris, perhaps?)

After some treaties with Samnites and some lesser Greek cities (in the east and south of Italy), the Romans began sending envoys (patrons) who purpose was to introduce Roman law, and thus began the spread of Roman law (and culture) though Italy. As the second Samnite war drew to a close, the Romans began to be concerned with the Etruscans, and they began fighting on two fronts. Etruscans had great numbers, but were not as organized, and soon paid a heavy price for that, after which the Romans granted them a 30 year truce. At the same time, the Samnites prepared for a great push, but were badly beaten, and agreed to supply Rome with corn and payments. Livy mentions that at this time a treaty with Carthage was agreed to, extended for a third time.

Roman Conquest of Italy

Book Ten Covers the period from 302 B.C. to 292 B.C. Generally know as the third Samnite war. Starts with the Aequi revolting and being crushed, followed by the invasion of a small town in the east by Spartan Greeks, who were beaten quickly and driven back to their ships. The Marsi were also put down, and so were the Etruscans again. Finally, on suspicious grounds, the Romans decided to war again with the Samnites. In 296 B.C., the Romans faced the combined forces of the Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians and Gauls- it seems that the Romans were on a rampage, and they were generally feared by all in Italy. Again in battle, both Samnites and Gauls were fierce, but lacked technique, and were defeated in long, pitched battles. Livy says that the Romans defeated combined armies of 600,000 infantry and 45,000 horse, but implies that these numbers may not be reliable. After more skirmishes (where many thousands more fell), the Samnite armies were wiped out, and the Romans were left to besiege their cities.

After this book, presumably Livy covers the final Roman dominance over the whole of Italy, but Books 11 thru 20 are lost to history. Fortunately, others covered this period.

This book was very similar in style to the first, and to be fair, the arrangements of books are a function of the translation, so the similarity is no surprise. I still really liked this subject matter, so I had to give it 4 stars again...

4 starts out of 5 ****

Sock folding

For those interested in a better way to fold your socks, I suggest the following:

Livy: The Early History of Rome

Since I recently reported on a book that I read about ancient Roman history, that I did not find interesting, I thought I'd report on one that I really liked. I actually read this many years ago, but made notes in the margins to help my (very bad) memory. Anyway, here it is-

The Early History of Rome, Livy

A captivating, almost year-by-year account of the early history of Rome from about 1200 B.C. to 750 B.C. until about 385 B.C., summarized in five “books”. Spoilers ahead...

The city itself was founded sometime around 750 B.C. but the book starts long before that in an attempt to show (prove?) that the Romans (or more correctly, the Latins), originated from the Trojans of ancient Troy. That may or may not be true, and Livy settles quickly into a period of time during which Rome was ruled by kings, beginning with the story of Romulus and Remus -- one brother killing the other, and their city taking the name of Romulus.

Book One covers this period - from 750 B.C. (ish) to 507 B.C. Romulus was the first of seven kings, the last being Tarquin, who was ousted, the Romans tiring of being ruled by tyrants. With the election of the first Consuls, Brutus and Collatinus, the beginning of the Roman Republic was set in motion.

Book Two covers the time of the early republic - of wars with their neighbors, the Sabines, the Etruscans, Aurunci, Volscians, and more - and also of social change, particularly of friction between the patrician ruling class and the plebeian masses. Debtors were made slaves; creditors or lenders had the power of life and death over them. The plebs on the whole were indebted to the ruling class. The friction reached a climax where the plebs left the city of Rome in secession for an adjacent hilltop (the sacred mount) in 494 B.C. From here was born the concept of the Tribunes - representatives of the common people. With this crisis averted without bloodshed, the Romans refocused on fighting their neighbors. In this times, the Romans showed that they were capable of engaging in armed conflict on two fronts, simultaneously and separately engaging their rivals in Veii and the Aequians. By 480 B.C., Rome had arrived as a formidable military power. At the same time, the friction between plebeians and patricians continued - Consuls were put on trial by Tribunes at the end of their terms, and Tribunes were murdered.

Book Three covers the social upheaval in more detail, and covers the period from 467 B.C. to 446 B.C. It should be noted that Livy himself was a patrician, and outwardly criticizes the decisions and the actions of the Tribunes, and at times seems quite biased. There were patrician politicians who made concessions to the plebeians in the interest of better relations, but were often chastised by their own class. But there were advances and setbacks in the relationship. And focus often returned to external conflict- during this period, the Romans were at war again with the Aequians and the Henrici, and virtually wiped out the Volscians. (Apparently a cow talked in 461bc. o_0.) To help with their social problems, the Romans turned to the Greeks for advice, and sent envoys to study Greek law. A group of learned men were appointed - the Decemvirs (there were 10 of them) to temporarily replace the Consuls, and to publish laws that would govern Roman society. Consular and Tribunal positions were eliminated. This was a success to a certain extent, but the Decemvirs grew accustomed to their power, and the plebes, now without representation, were resentful. Again in 450 B.C., the entire plebeian population left Rome for the sacred mount; and again, there was no bloodshed. The crisis ended with the Consular and Tribunal positions reinstated.

Book Four covers the period from 455 to 404 B.C. This period stars with the Plebs requesting the right to elect one of the Consuls- a position strictly intended for patricians only, and was seen as a threat to the particians. But war got in the way again, and the Romans now faced renewed hostility from without, and to deal with it, the patricians in 444 B.C., allowed ‘Military Tribunes’ to hold Consular powers, to that Rome could get on with defending/attacking their external enemies. Famine and plague afflicted the city, and in 430 B.C., the Carthaginians landed in Sicily, but this was not seen as relevant at the time. Fighting continues against Veii, Aequians and Volscians.

Book Five covers the period from 403 B.C to 386 B.C., and this is when the rivalry between Rome and the Etruscan city of Veii came to a head. As the Romans laid siege upon Veii, armies of Capena and the Falerii attacked the Roman camps, however Roman preparedness and tactics resulted in the capture of the city, followed by the killing and enslaving of the entire population. At this time, Veii passes into history. For a century or more up to this time, the Celtic Gauls were gradually populating Etruscan territories in the Po valley and south of the Alps, and now they were on the move south. A Roman army met them, but Celtic victory was swift, and the Gauls proceeded to sack Rome. Livy says that the citadel remained intact and that the Romans paid a fortune in gold to persuade the Gauls to leave. He also says that a remnant Roman army surprised the Gauls outside Rome, and put them to slaughter. Some of these details are disputed, but the facts are that the Gauls came suddenly and were gone suddenly, and while Rome was vanquished, it remained, and after a generation, grew much, much stronger.

Unlike some of other Roman classic literature, I really enjoyed reading Livy. For the most part, he moves quickly from event to event, covering historical facts without too much bravado and embellishments. Well, for the most part, anyway. Aubrey De Selincourt's translation was easy to read, and Robert Oglivie's introduction was informative without being overly analytical.

**** 4 stars out of 5!

That's right, another book. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome

The Annals of Imperial Rome

Tacitus

One of my fave subjects is ancient history, and of that, ancient Roman history interests me the most. In this book, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Hadrian-era writer and senator, retells the stories of the Emperors from the death of Augustus to the downfall of Nero. Written sometime around AD 120, covering events from AD 14 to AD 66. Along with Suetonius, these works are the basis for our knowledge of the early Roman empire. Tacitus suggests that earlier authors were biased because of their being alive closer to or during the events, they wrote about, either in fear of retribution, or, more likely, in retaliation for poor treatment (personal or reputational injury) by the subjects of the text. I’m not sure who he was referring to- probably not Suetonius - he wrote after him - perhaps some lost works.

One interesting tidbit- Tacitus, a wealthy aristocrat, believed that the non-wealthy were all lazy. How things have not changed in 2000 years…

Tacitus describes Tiberius as aloof and absent from the Senate, and describes the climate in the Senate as one of predatory behavior - accusations of treason for the purposes of being awarded the property of the victims. He compares Tiberius’ adopted son, Germanicus, to Alexander the Great, showing an unexpected amount of love for a young warrior-politician. Maybe in the same way that Americans idolize JFK?

He doesn't say much about Caligula, whom he refers to as Gaius; most of these sections are lost. Much of the sections on Claudius were lost as well, although from what is left, we seems to shine a more favorable light on him. There is quite a lot of coverage on Nero, whom he portrays as quite a monster - especially after a failed coup by a group of senators, members of the guard and others. Paranoia seems to have played a major role in his spiral downward.

The drama of the political court is interesting when the players are generally known - for example, the emperors themselves, Germanicus, Sejanus, various well known senators, etc., but less interesting when the players are unknown (at least to me), and this tends to drone on and on.

I stalled on this years ago (2005?) near the end of the section on Tiberius. Later in 2015, I made it past that, and into the Claudius section, but faltered again. Finally finished with Claudius and the final sections on Nero in 2016. Again, a lot of court intrigue between unknowns (plus the fall of Neros’s mother Agrippina, which was far less interesting than I imagined that it would be).

For me, one of the ultimate goals was to read about Tacitus’ off-hand mention of a certain Christ executed by a certain Pilate, and how depraved these crazy Christ followers were. Just a small passage, but one of the few mentions in all ancient Roman works. Depravity is a term used often in Tacitus’ work; he uses it to describe the sexual perversions of Nero and others, but also Nero’s mere undignified habits as well - i.e., singing and acting. I guess ‘depravity’ can have many meanings. To be fair though, from other readings, it seems there was a lot of misinformation regarding Christians of the day (apparently, some Romans believed that they sacrificed their own children to their God, etc.).

I found myself questioning some the the prose in this book- having been written so many years after the events, and including minute details about people’s motivations, etc. While Tacitus did have access to senatorial records, did they really contain that much detail? I feel that much must have been hearsay at the very least, or perhaps even just made up. Now I know that many ancient authors, when writing about important events decades or centuries earlier, detailed long speeches made by relevant historical figures, and that they were just ‘capturing the mood of the moment’ in and around these events. But to me, at times it feels a little bit like fiction.

I’ve read both Suetonius and Tacitus covering the same period, and I definitely preferred Suetonius. Tacitus does bring a lot more detail, but for me, much of that extra detail wasn’t the interesting detail. I have ordered Tacitus’ “Histories” but won’t get to it for while. I don’t find Tacitus an easy read. I'd recommend it only to those with an extremely keen interest in the subject matter.

Another book, The Martian

First post of 2016, but I read this book sometime in 2015, a few months before the movie came out.
No real spoilers here...

The Martian

A. Weir

A book that is sort of a remake of Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Well, not really, but the novel The Martian captivated me as an adult, every bit as much as the movie Robinson Crusoe on Mars did all those years ago when I was 10. The book starts right off with a catastrophe that maroons the protagonist on Mars for what is all but a certain death sentence. Unconscious, stabbed in the abdomen by flying debris, and losing breathable air in his suit; he is all but done for. His crew-mates on the aborted Mars mission assume that he has died, and make their escape before a sandstorm dooms them to certain death as well. Well, he survives. And boy, does he. A brilliant botanist and a skilled technician, he is armed with just enough equipment, supplies, know-how and survival instinct to make a run at survival.

Most of the book is written in the first person in the form of a daily log recording summarizing what happened on a particular day. Later in the book, it breaks into a narrative to describe what others - his crew-mates, NASA - are doing, and in some cases, the events that lead to a crisis for the protagonist. As readers, we are drawn in and immediately identify with him; the intensity of events keeps us engaged through the whole book. It was very hard to put the book down and go to sleep at 1am.

I found that I would peek ahead to see if the format was changing to narrative mode - which might signify another event that would further threaten our hero's survival. I cannot remember a book that grabbed my attention so fiercely, and so adamantly refused to relent. I was so worried that the end would be revealed to me that I refused to watch the trailers for the upcoming film version of the story.

The technical details are very well thought out, and not a single event or setback felt manufactured or even hinted at being implausible; it all rang so true. The long hours of boredom were punctuated with humour and little bits of terror.

Btw, speaking the Movie, go watch it now, if you haven't seen it. And those trailers for the movie? Go watch all of them too; you'll be pleasantly surprised...