Malola’s Comments (group member since Dec 07, 2021)

Malola’s comments from the On The Same Page group.

36. Fouché: Retrato de un hombre político

Zweig is quite talented when it comes to presenting an individual from behind because that one, for better or worse, marked the course of history while he was alive. It seems to me that Fouché had psychopathic tendencies. It's not "normal" to be such a SoB with such divided loyalties... no, erase that, without any loyalty whatsoever... so willingly to have people gunned down as if nothing and with the mask on for everything occasion. He reminded me a bit a psychopath, E.M. Thomas/Jamie Lund, who described herself as having "no form" but instead "becoming" what people wanted her to become.
It is clear that Fouché shone in all his psychopathic splendour precisely because of the historical moment in which he found himself... Perhaps it even maximized said impulses, since he KNEW that he would go unpunished as long as he changed sides at the right time .
The book is quite interesting, but here I must admit that I am not so much a fan of the "history" genre.

7. Letters of Emily Dickinson

I died. This book killed me. You're reading the review of either a zombie, ghost or a kami.

This book was amazing. It's just amazing to me how lively and frolicsome Emily Dickison's letters/letter-poems were... yet when needed to be, the seriousness and gravitas where present. Even at such a young age (18), she had such a witty and vivid mind.
The allusions to nature, the allegories, the imagery, the double entendre, the tenderness, the love, the care, her never-ending desire to think about thoughts... This woman was at a whole different level. A philosopher in her own right.
At one point I just decided that, since I need to digest some of her ideas, I had read only 15-20 pages per day (top)... to give it time to sink in.

“I find ecstasy in living; the mere sense of living is joy enough.”

So... it is a privilege to be alive... and it is a privilege to be able to read... and it is an even bigger privilege to be able to read Emily Dickinson's poetry, ruminate upon it and try to understand the many layers of it.

___
This is the edited version of Mabel Loomis Todd (MLT) which is public domain (that's why I got it). We all know now that she completely erased Sue Gilbert (SG) from history, so yeah... not one single letter dedicated to whom seemed to have been ED's one true love... But one can tell very easily that MLT really respected ED's talent. She recognised greatness and was smart enough to put into ink and have it published.
I can only imagine how good, candid and vulnerable are the letters addressed to SG.

21. The Wild Swans at Coole

The rhythm is very good. I believe I missed a couple of relevant points, since there seems to be a lot of symbolism and the Irish mythos goes way above my knowledge of world culture... So a "guide" probably would be an appropriate reading as well.
Since this is actually in preparation for Poets Thinking: Pope, Whitman, Dickinson, Yeats, hopefully there'll be some clarification once I start that book.

I liked quite a lot Mr. Peter Tucker as a narrator. He definitely has the voice for poetry and a good eye for the rhythm.

20. A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains

I must admit my mind was running far away, so I wasn't listening attentively.
It could easily be that I listened only half the book with my undivided attention. Maybe even less. (Hence, this is a VERY lenient score. Should I give a low star rating if it was me the one with the lost mind?)

Let this not be taken as an insinuation of poor writing kills of Miss Bird. Quite the opposite, since this is the second book from I've read/listen, I can say I enjoy her style. (And yes, I will read/listen more from her).
The parts where I was most present were exquisite. The fact that the letters addressed to her sister were descriptive and joyful easily tell that Miss Bird was of a most interesting and adventurous character. Her ordeals are quite impressive considering the distances she travelled alone.

Also, though Bird was English, somehow the (slightly) Southern (?) accent of the reader, Laura Caldwell, perfectly set the imagery in front. Somehow it "made sense".

35. Economic Facts and Fallacies

Excellent.
One can understand why PhD. Sowell is well respected as an economist.
He's quite thorough and explains very well.

I did find good points in his presentation on how cultures, resources, geographic conditions and so on either help or delay advancements. (Some points reminded me of PhD. Marvin Harris.)
He doesn't make a "desert" case, he explains phenomena and presents a very pragmatic point of view.

The parts related to race, gender and universities were quite interesting. However, can't help but think there's some level of petitio principi. Sure, he states things to the best of this knowledge and brings statistics to the table in a way to compare or contrast the many wrong conclusions others have made. But even so it's not very clear to me that that he's not just going in a loop.

On the bad side, he makes a case that certain things create unintended consequences. Well, duh. I doubt taking away public education and whatnot will better society's wellbeing. Even if not all the consequences are OK, taking some social help away will not necessarily be the better choice.
Same with racism. Would it be better to not put pressure on illegitimate discrimination? I can see that it brings a cost... but I'm not sure if the racist would understand such cost therefore it'll render it useless as a penalty.
We, people, are not quite rational, we're highly emotional and as any economist, he starts with that flawed premise.

Not that say that, internationally speaking, one of the reasons why some countries have been held back is actually USA's aggressive policies... You know, kind of like they stage a coup d'état and then pretend it's to help throw down "tyrants" and not... hegemony.

I do think it's worth the read. Also the narrator, Jeff Riggenbach, is really good. His voice is nice, good intonation, good pacing, gravitas. Excellent work.

19. A Father of Women and Other Poems

Well, she knows how to rhyme, but I don't think her poems have that much gravitas.
It's like a laid-back read or just for listening while strolling.
It doesn't have that much philosophy on it, but overall it's nice.

The LibriVox readers did a fine job.
Their intonation was good.

34. Más allá de la filosofía: escritos sobre cultura, arte y literatura

Well, Hannah Arendt, excellent as always.
The essays are quite good, I liked the type of analysis she presents and how she links it to "reality". Her unspoken dissertation on how art influences society and vice versa, as well as the value of art itself, magnificent.
I think I would have enjoyed the essays more if I were familiar with the works she is examining. Given my ignorance, I guess a good chunk of points went over my head.
He still gave me a good list of works that go to my TBR.

33. Woman and the New Race

Well, this definitely didn't age well, that's for sure.

It was somewhat interesting. Margaret Sanger (MS) clearly tried to be as thorough as possible bringing as many statistics as she could to present her point properly.
I definitely believe her position is mostly out of compassion rather than racism or eugenics and whatnot. (But she was racist and she was pro-eugenics.) However, given that her statistics don't apply now (we understand a lot better of nutrition and overall health), a good chunk of her arguments go out the window.

Given how we understand ethics/morality nowadays, I can see why many people find this unappealing.
Well, as someone who's very pro-choice, I have to say that at least the overall message is good: Women should have autonomy over their own bodies... even in cases of conflict in rights. Stripping women from agency over their bodies is wrong and abortion does allow better family planning.
Is it better not to get pregnant in the first place? Well, DUH! But there are many events in a person's life (even during pregnancy) that make me her make that decision.

Anyways, the presentation of her ideas was mostly good, the content was good as well... But as I've postulated, some of her arguments hardly pass.

As for the narrator, Becky Cook, her voice suits well for this type of readings. Good intonation, very well paced. Definitely a reader I'd follow.

18. Calling a Wolf a Wolf

Well, this is something.

It's self deprecating and the statu of the narrator is... extremely pathetic. He's been painfully honest and shows who he is while his drunken stupor... and who he's trying to be while trying to abstain from alcohol (which also has him in a fog-like state.)

I don't think I understood everything. For one, I don't have that subjective experience of being an alcoholic (he did make it clear that I would hate myself if I were to become one) and two, the way he phrases words is... erm... uncommon.

As for one, the overall feeling of that pathetic sentiment lingers even in the poems where he's trying to be slightly more optimistic. But somehow that wasn't off-putting. Somehow you, as the reader, don't end up asking yourself "Geezus Christ, is this motherf*ck3r gonna complain all the time?". He's showing his pustules and open sores and, though maybe disgusted, you don't turn your eyes away... you just keep on staring and even move your hand close... maybe just to poke them a little bit.
So, yeah... It was a nice presentation of that subjective experience.

As for two, yeah, his wording was odd.
Some stuff seemed kind of like stream of consciousness or something like that where one thought would remind him of something else and he'd show you pieces of his childhood or beloved memories.
I think some poems that lack grammar signs (e.g. commas, exclamation points and so on) are meant be read from several points. That is, some phrases connect each other in several different ways. I think maybe the object at the end of a phrase is meant to be the subject of the next one, but not necessarily. Therefore you could read them both ways or not. I think.

It was an interesting read. Not for the fainted heart, I guess.

32. Supreme Court DOBBS,. v. JACKSON: The ruling overturning Roe V Wade

Well, this is something.

The majority's opinion, though quite elaborated and eloquent, fails to even consider the most basic standard for people's rights over their own bodies. And, as an excuse, of course, insist that that's not the point of that particular case. At the end it reads like a big "not my problem what will happens next" and it just fall flat... but they are the majority and things are what they are.
The minority does make a good case stating that that shouldn't be changed to state decisis given that there haven't societal and technological changes that would make it a compelling case and overall considering women's choices and autonomy at stake.

Clearly all one needs to manipulate the Law and take away rights is having a majority of Judges in the Supreme Court. Sad realisation, but I don't think anyone was that surprised.

As for today, given other jurisprudences, I'm afraid conservatives will go after Loving, Obergefell and other jurisprudences. *shrugs*

5. El gen egoísta. Las bases biológicas de nuestra conducta

Very good.
Now, to be honest, I really wanted to give it five stars, but I just can't.

Of the things that I liked are:
i) In general, I think Dawkins is VERY good at explaining. I do think he is a good teacher... or so he gives me the impression by how he tries to simplify complex and ramifying theories.
ii) It is noted that he is very imaginative and quite a scholar in ethology and biology.
iii) Some time was taken to include objections and opposing positions.
iv) I applaud his continued insistence on the use of language by levels and that certain language is technically not the most appropriate, but it is the most useful to explain given the context.

Of the things that are farting:
i) Geezus Xrist (:v), what a way to write BS when he writes about philosophy, let alont when he talks about moral/ethical philosophy.
There is NO moral dimension in science; therefore biology (evolutionary or not) can NOT give me answers as to whether racism is "bad" or whether speciesism is "bad". Science has NOTHING to say about ethics, even worse about metaethics.
ii) The statement in some reviews that the guy has an air of condescension and conceit is true.
iii) Talking with my friend Aurora, who specializes in Molecular Biology, it seems that Dawkins tends towards reductionism. (That is to say, it is not a mere "simplification" as I postulated in (i) of the first group.) I had this intuition (that is why I shared it with my friend), but my incredible ignorance about biology/ethology forces me to take prima I do whatever Dawkins or Aurora tell me, and thus obliges me to be cautious with any kind of rebuttal or criticism that I may posit. That is to say, I believe Aurora when she confirms that Dawkins is a reductionist, but I wouldn't dare to contradict him.
iv) I think having a little more confidence in my philosophical intuitions to assert with more certainty (than I would in biology/ethology) that his presentation of the "meme" (cultural unit) is de facto reductionist, therefore disposable . (But as an explanatory model, it is quite interesting.)

Anyway, the book itself is very enjoyable and, of course, I do think I learned new things.
I wouldn't read it again, but I will read other works by Dawkins.

17. Letters of a Woman Homesteader

Knowledge and strength come from doing.

Recommended for people who are into epistles or narrations about the rural life.

As for the content of the book, it started slow and I felt like Elinore Pruitt Stewart (EPS) was sort of rambling sometimes; but the more I advanced (especially the second half), the clearer it became how lovely and lively this woman must have been.
How she found space for loving her neighbour while being cautious, to learn, to build bridges, to get upset at condescending people, to grief her boy and her husband, to enjoy her work, to believe again.

And her descriptions of how uplifting work can be or how beautiful trivial things like the moon shining behind the trees are, uff... Geezus. Beautiful and quite touching.
The book definitely stole a couple of smiles from me.

Also, I thought a good add one of her girl's letters (and then EPS mentioning her reader/recipient about it). It had and underlying childhood innocence tone imprinted in every sentence (which fortunately the narrator caught and presented adequately). That was a nice show of an event told from two different perspectives.

As for the narrator, Ms. Lynne Carroll, it was mostly good but I think she should regulated her voice a bit more.

31. The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe

It was quite interesting and easy to follow.

The narrator (Mr. Michael York) had a beautiful voice (which gave a sense of gravitas) and quite a nice diction.

The book is basically a bunch of PhD. Hawking's lectures. Gladly, the style is such that mere mortals can understand it. XD (So, kudos to him for transforming complex subjects and making to em digestible. That's a quite especial type of genius.)
Still, some stuff was hard to imagine... both from the scientific point of view to the philosophical one.

30. Yo acuso. El caso Dreyfus

What a tongue!

What a way to shake a nation, with such eloquence, with statements... viperine (but true).

This version (edited by the Court) contains several of the open letters written by Zolá with a short prologue by Fernando Tinajero; I would have liked a little more historical background, but, well... You can't have everything in this life.
Émile Zolá was for sure committed to the truth...

16. Yo acuso. El caso Dreyfus

What a tongue!

What a way to shake a nation, with such eloquence, with statements... viperine (but true).

This version (edited by the Court) contains several of the open letters written by Zolá with a short prologue by Fernando Tinajero; I would have liked a little more historical background, but, well... You can't have everything in this life.
Émile Zolá was for sure committed to the truth...

Thanks, Carolien. :)

29. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Well, this is one of those cases where I am divided.
So, since what I found positive/good/right/well presented is quite intertwined what I consider to be negative/bad/wrong/poorly presented, I will write the CAVEAT in italics.

i) Her writing is OK. It's easy to read, quite a good use of the language. She's mostly clear.
CAVEAT: It takes her until the second half of the book to even define the term "transgender" and then she complaints about it being a tautology. Girl... Definitions ARE tautologies. If I say: "a human male is someone with a XY chromosome"... it is the same as saying "XY is a male".
But that's not even the issue. She could present her own definition and test it, yet she doesn't. She just tries to poke holes at something that she DOESN'T delimit AT ALL. I definitely think the problem is that she doesn't want to concede that, though sex and gender are linked, they cannot be defined as perfect synonyms. This is a huge problem for her thesis because it's not even clear what she is even presenting... let alone criticising.

ii) Though she doesn't give ANY ontology whatsoever (she can't, since she refuses to define the word), she does try make an epistemological case; hence she criticises some of the criteria for diagnosing transgenderism.
I do think she makes a good point with some of her criticism to DMS-V.
CAVEAT: My two cents that there are other protocols that complementary, that she didn't present in her book.
Also, in the criticism she makes, she mentions that transitioning doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing... Then why would it be a problem if certain trans men don't want surgery? If a trans man gets a double mastectomy, the fact that they don't want bottom surgery shouldn't mean there are less of "trans". Don't get me wrong, I do think that if a person wants to be treated as a "man", they should present themselves in a man-like fashion. But if Shrier wants to make the case that there is a middle point where "mutilation" is not need, then she needs to revise her position about what constitutes a transgender. She seems to believe that a transition that is not completed means that a person is not fully transgender.

iii) Her main thesis is quite interesting. I do believe SOME of what she says is at least a "fair enough point"; including her insistence that transgenderism in AFABs has spiked in the last few years.
Scientists have to investigate this and answer "why" and, though I can accept the assertion of "oh, well, trans people are 'oppressed' since there's a lot of transphobia" is at least to a degree, affirming that that is the ONLY reason why this spike exists is just overreaching.
It begs the question, why are not middle-aged AFAB transitioning at the same amount as middle age AMAB. Historically speaking there have been a lot more males transitioning, is it all due to misogyny and transphobia?? If it's easier to be a male, why hasn't that been an "incentive" for AFABs to transition before? Is such a difference entirely because of society... or there might be biological differences to consider? Why do all these AFABs present these issues while teens and not infants?
How should the scientific community improve the criteria to find out who could be a "false positive"? How does transgender ontogenesis begin to happen? Which teens are to be understood as the ones that are "really trans" and for it which might be a good idea to transition?

iv) She brings several sources to the table, including people who have transitioned and are happy to have done so.
CAVEAT: She references Wikipedia... I mean, WTF?
She mostly interviews detransitioners which seems biased, then again one of her points is on that specific demographic, so...
Also, she does present people who are clearly transphobic. The example of the mother who "didn't know what could have happened" with the trans woman in the dressing room is plain condescending and insulting. What did she think would have happened? She clearly was implying that the worker was a pervert (possibly a sexual offender) just because she's a trans woman. Yes, I agree with Shrier that many women (including myself) feel better/more comfortable with other females in certain jobs, I do think female OB-GYNs have better bed side manners than their males counterparts... but that's not to say that male OB-GYNs are possibly perverts/sexual offenders and that "I don't know what would happen" if one were to attend to me. What would happen? Nothing. That person would do their goddamn job and that's it.

v) She has said that she believes conservatives should extend the courtesy to use the pronouns and names of which the person feels most comfortable with.
CAVEAT: Yet she dead-names people... and uses the wrong pronouns with people who are adults. (Despite the fact that she pretends that she only does that with teens because they can't know for sure.)

vi) She makes a point in finding ways of reconciling children with their parents.
CAVEAT: At moments she sounds really naive considering that some parents might not be supportive AT ALL. It's not like people will openly say they're transphobic or homophobic... and even if they were to say that, the moral dimension would be such that probably such behaviour is perceived as "good".

vii) She makes a good case that the internet, Tumblr and whatnot are garbage, that teenagers look for information there and that some ideologues are too eager to push their agendas.

viii) I definitely agree with her that in case of doubt (ANY doubt), NOT doing anything permanent is better... and that in ambiguous cases, it might be better to wait.
CAVEAT: She seems to believe that even social transitioning is bad and presents an really bad anecdote of a Jewish woman who was made to pass as Catholic as a child in WWII as an example. Erm... What? As cherry on top of the cake, she presents this woman as a sad, pathetic excuse of a spinster Jew who doesn't even "feel" Jewish. WTF? How frigging condescending to that poor woman. Maybe she didn't want to get marry because she hates men or * insert whatever dumb reason *... but implying that all the misery in her life is because she had to pass as a Catholic is insane. Catholics are not that bad, for crying out loud. Not to say THAT HER WHOLE BOOK IS ABOUT HOW "FEELINGS" ARE NOT A DIAGNOSIS FOR TRANS PEOPLE... YET SHE CLAIMS "NOT FEELING JEWISH ENOUGH" IS A GOOD REASON TO PITY THIS WOMAN. It's like she picked the most subjective, tragic and convoluted example she found... the most disconnected from her point and then went "oh, well, here you go".

ix) I learned a couple of new things about the surgeries and hormone suppressors that I found interesting, like how losing your boobs makes your hips look wider. (So, trans men better be sure they want to go the whole way lest the mastectomy give them bigger dysphoria.)
I had read some stuff similar before about rhinoplasty and how a smaller nose makes the ears look bigger.

x) She makes a good case some stereotypes and wording for "females" is just plain insulting. Bleeders? Breeders? Way to demean women to just their genitals.

__
Definitely more research is needed in this area.
It's an interesting I'll be reading more about.

Thank you, Beth. :)

15. A Year Spent Lost: A Collection of Poetry

Well...

I understood nothing of it.
Honestly I'm not sure where she was going.
It's hard to feel identified, since not even the topic is clear.

14. Who Are You?: Poems and Inspirational Writings About a Journey to Rediscovering Self

Good.

It's very nice to read how the author conveys important messages through her poetry. Definitely her poems are better than her little essays/introductions.
She has good eye for rhythm, however I do think she played it safe at times.