A slightly surreal graphic novel about a man who is isolated for an extended period repairing a wall on a giant tower whose history, purpose and organA slightly surreal graphic novel about a man who is isolated for an extended period repairing a wall on a giant tower whose history, purpose and organization he does not fully understand. After failing to get spare parts or a visit from the inspector he embarks on a journey where he finds an entire system and set of processes revolving around it in strange ways. Mostly beautiful black and white etchings with some powerfully interspersed color. Will read more in this series....more
I've spent a lot of time working for think tanks, working with think tanks, and consuming the output of think tanks both while in government and outsiI've spent a lot of time working for think tanks, working with think tanks, and consuming the output of think tanks both while in government and outside it. And I still learned an enormous amount from this book. The overall story is familiar to people who have paid a lot of attention: as government grew the demand for expertise grew, for a while this was satisfied by ostensibly "neutral" and "non partisan" sources like universities, RAND, Brookings, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), etc. But then the conservative movement decided these were all actually liberal sources so it set up the Heritage Foundation as a counterweight, the first think tank that was explicitly partisan as well as emphasized communications and relations on Capital Hill. This was the creation of an alternative conservative "knowledge regime." Then progressives set up the Center for American Progress as a counterweight to Heritage, in part mirrored on its rapid response, easily digestible information and relations with Congress and the media. The book also intensively studies two other think tanks it considers "partisan," the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). It considers a range of others as well.
What makes the book novel is how much original data and analytics it brings to bear on a range of questions as well as a little bit more political and international context. For example, the American system is contrasted to many other countries which have explicit party think tanks that serve the party. Here the think tanks that work on a range of issues have both spare capacity to devote to the topic of the day (rather than narrower think tanks) as well as can help parties prioritize and set the agenda. One of the books more audacious claims is that partisan think tanks have played a meaningful role in polarization by supplying each side with different facts and interpretations. That the difference between the parties is less normative than the way they read the positive analysis and data.
There was some intriguing data that coded the distribution of policy papers by think tanks showing that they are skewed towards partisan topics when measured against the CRS. For example, think tanks do little on public lands, agriculture, transportation and science relative to CRS but they do a lot on health, civil rights and macroeconomics. The book also shows empirical evidence that issues partisan think tanks devote more attention to (as measured by white papers, citations by members of Congress, and testimony) are more polarized--although it is unclear what is cause and what is effect.
Other intriguing data documented the decline of witnesses at Congressional hearings from universities and "non-partisan" sources and the increase in witnesses from partisan think tanks.
The book differentiates between the think tanks. Left ones are more inclined to cite university research and accept/interpret/repackage CBO numbers. Right ones are less inclined to cite university research and do more of their own modeling. In his case studies Fagan finds that both Heritage and CAP produce biased estimates of policy but CBPP does not. He is particularly scathing on the role that money has played in shifting conservatives on the topic of climate change.
One of the weaknesses of the book was that it implicitly assumed that think tanks were the exogenous, independent variable causing lots of stuff as opposed to taking more seriously the ways in which they were reflecting and internalizing changes in the political system. How much were they driving politicians or supplying what they wanted? The book does provide some time series evidence on this issue but for a variety of reasons I was not completely convinced. Perhaps a bigger one is that it probably does too much to accept the neutrality of universities, Brookings, and the "non partisan" knowledge regime. While Heritage dramatically overstated their case against all of this they were not completely wrong. Which also means that CAP citing academic research more than Heritage does is partly a reflection of CAP being more scientific but also partly because scientists are more liberal.
I also would love to read Fagan's thoughts and analysis on what has happened more recently. In effect the book is about the period the data covers, from the 1970s through about five years ago. But since then the Roosevelt Institute has, for example, played a big role in staffing the Biden administration on economic policy. Other groups, like Groundwork Collaborative, are challenging the approach of more traditional progressive think tanks. These are barely, if at all, mentioned in the book which does give a little more attention to the alternative right-of-center think tanks like Niskanen. But hopefully this is not Fagan's last word on this topic....more
Just like the first one: A free download, the first paragraph is addicting, a few hours later I'm done (this time on a plane flight). Light reading, vJust like the first one: A free download, the first paragraph is addicting, a few hours later I'm done (this time on a plane flight). Light reading, various twists and turns, engaging characters. But you leave feeling like you've eaten a bowl of too many sweets....more
I thought this was fine but well below the expectations I had from it being on my TBR forever. It felt a bit generic and clichéd version of Italy and I thought this was fine but well below the expectations I had from it being on my TBR forever. It felt a bit generic and clichéd version of Italy and what should be in a historical Italian novel. Perhaps that is unfair and I'll read it with fresh eyes again in the future....more
An enjoyable blend of biography, literary criticism, literary influence, and travelogue. I downloaded the sample after seeing it recommended by the AmAn enjoyable blend of biography, literary criticism, literary influence, and travelogue. I downloaded the sample after seeing it recommended by the Amazon algorithm, enjoyed it, and so read all of it.
Kafka is so impossible to place geographically, linguistically, ethnically. Is he Czech? Austro-Hungarian? German writer? Jewish? He was all of these and none of these. To learn more about him Karolina Watroba travels around to all of these places and more--including Oxford where many of his papers are and Korea. We learn a little more about Kafka's person, writing and impact in each of these places. She has a deeper discussion of a few of his works (Metamorphosis, The Judgment, The Trial) and also some discussion of a lot of works influenced by Kafka.
Most of all Watroba's relatively light and enthusiastic and curious tone shows through from beginning to end, making the book particularly enjoyable....more
I like to read books by my friends. But Cass writes more quickly than I can read. I confess that I only read this one out of guilt because he handed mI like to read books by my friends. But Cass writes more quickly than I can read. I confess that I only read this one out of guilt because he handed me a copy that he had just purchased for me at full price in a bookstore. But I'm really glad I did.
In lieu of a review I'm pasting the email I sent to Cass after reading it (with a few names of friends and former classmates redacted to XX's, sorry you won't know the other great actors in Harvard's Class of 1992):
---- From: Jason Furman To: Cass Sunstein Subject: A few comments on your book Date: June 13, 2024 9:41am
1. It is outstanding. A lovely combination of social science, speculative thinking, literary appreciation, and being inside your strange mind.
2. In the paperback you should fix the only error in the book: deleting the words “still is” after talking about the importance of Scientific American. At least on gender issues it is deeply unscientific and an embarrassment.
3. You are reasonably objective about the Yesterday thought experiment, even managing to be objective about the role of chance in such world historical geniuses as The Beatles and Bob Dylan. But I found you lost all objectivity and reason in discussing Star Wars which came across as something that surpassed and transcended all contingency to be pure, unadulterated timeless fame.
4. You don’t appear to read enough foreign language fiction, just about the only foreign reference was to Tolstoy and you didn’t provide any evidence that you read past the first sentence of Anna Karenina. In my book about how to become famous there will be an entire chapter on Cervantes and the only element of luck will be that the bullet that hit him in the Battle of Lepanto missed his head/heart by a foot. Other than that his fame was inevitable and based on the fact that Don Quixote is even better than Star Wars. I would also have Pushkin, Gogol and Kafka. And more Dickens, but I was glad to see the enthusiasm for Great Expectations even if it is not as good as Bleak House.
5. I often do the “run history 100 times” thought experiment with various things. Like Obama’s effort to pass an immigration bill (it passed in 25 of the times), XX being successful (80 of the times, part of the evidence is the “independent draws” of his success in different context that were not just the Matthew Principle), or fame.
6. I’ve had this idea, possibly infeasible, that we might be able to get at some of the issues about “objectivity” vs. information cascade/polarization/chance with LLMs. The idea would be to train a model only on data through, say, 1860. And then give it all the books published in 1861 without telling it the authors and ask it to rank them. Would Great Expectations be first? If you’re worried that it already formed its views about what greatness was based on earlier Dickens novels and their reception then cut the training off in 1836.
7. I wish you had more on scientific genius and fame. You mostly deal with “subjective” greatness but there is something objective about how much more Newton got new and right than anyone else in his time. The big issue raised by scientific fame (and possibly is related to artistic fame, although a bit less obvious), is the issue of “inevitability’ and “simultaneous discovery”. If there was no Newton we would have had calculus (in fact was simultaneously discovered), would we have had everything else and in short order? Darwin is enormously famous but mostly because he accelerated publication and wrote a bit better, we would have basically had the same theory even without him. Most of quantum mechanics seems like simultaneous discovery where if this person didn’t do it then would that person. Is Einstein different? Special relativity comes straight out of Michelson-Morley, the Lorenz Transformations, etc., hard to believe it wouldn’t have been found soon after 1905. But general relativity? Is it possible that absent Einstein we still would not have it? I’ve had the same fantasy about the LLM experiment, but might need better AI, but train it on data through 1910 and see if it figures out general relativity.
8. Next time we’re together I have to tell you about my family’s friendship with the Dylan family when I was young. It is related to fame.
9. The example I use with people on fame, chance, hard work and ability is my freshman year roommate (and still friend) Matt Damon. Matt was one of the 4 best actors in my class (along with XX, XX and XX), I’m reasonably confident in the objectiveness of that assessment, ability to do different voices, characters, etc. He was one of the 2 most focused on being a movie star in my class (our first conversation was about how he would be a movie star), tied with XX. So relative to Harvard he was a 1 in 800 talent. Harvard recruits based on exceptional talent so I’m willing to stipulate, guessing here, he was a 1 in 4,000 talent for people born in 1970. But that means there were 1,000 people who were just as good at acting born in that year and luck was the reason he did better than the other 1,000 of them (including Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Rachel Weisz).
10. I’ve always meant to read Joyce Carol Oates. But I’m a bit of a completist which would be rather dangerous in her case (or yours for that matter).
11. I enjoyed the Houdini chapter but wasn’t sure I understood the point of it.
What’s your address, I want to reciprocate by sending you a great novel about how to become famous—and reversals of fame. [NOTE - Cass will be getting a copy of [book:The Fraud|66086834] which, in part, illustrates some of the reversals in fame that he discusses in the book--with William Harrison Ainsworth getting massively eclipsed by Charles Dickens over time, a reversal from their contemporaneous positions.]...more
I was thinking about how I was missing Kafka when I saw this on the bookstore table (before all the hoopla on the 100th anniversary of Kafka's death) I was thinking about how I was missing Kafka when I saw this on the bookstore table (before all the hoopla on the 100th anniversary of Kafka's death) and I snapped it up. I love new translations of old favorites as an excuse to re-read. Plus I have a naive and unfounded belief that newer is better. And an even less founded and quasi mystical belief that all the different translations I've read merge together in my head into something approximating the original.
1. This had far and away the best introduction of any of the volumes. A masterful 66 page mini biography, literary appreciation--plus lots of great pictures.
2. This had far and away the best introductions to each story along with very detailed and informative footnotes (two types--commentary on the translation on the bottom of the page and then endnotes with more academic discussion and exegesis). Whether this is a plus or minus depends on your taste. In some ways I loved reading The Unhappiness of Being a Single Man: Essential Stories because it did not have any of this and left you alone with the stories and your thoughts. But I'm also glad that on re-reading I did read the footnotes.
3. The selection of stories in this is excellent. It has most of Kafka's published work (including "The Transformation," his translation of "Metamorphosis") and a few unpublished gems. It was basically just the right amount for me, I prefer a higher average quality selection to anything overly long let alone complete for short stories.
4. The translations seemed excellent too. Certainly extremely thoughtful. I did not compare (and don't read German so there is a limit) but think this is yet another excellent translation. In fact, I would trust most anything done since the original translations by the Muirs.
As for the stories themselves, I found that they grew on me reading them yet again. They are so funny. And so strange. And so incredibly hyper-realistic while at the same time being utterly fantastical. And totally original. Much imitated but not remotely matched. I came to appreciate even more some of the ones I paid just a little less attention to before, including "The Judgment," "Before the Law," and "A Report for an Academy." But it feels wrong singling those out when everything in this collection is a 10 out of 10....more
Loading...
