What BOOK are you reading right now?

I remember the name Junot Diaz, and not immediately why.

NY'er, probably.

There is NO historical perspective in "Shock Doctrine"

Note--Review below:

Rarely are the simplest facts, many of which complicate Ms. Klein's presentation, given their proper due. First, the reach of government has been growing in virtually every developed nation in the world, including in America, and it hardly seems that a far-reaching free market conspiracy controls much of anything in the wealthy nations. Second, Friedman and most other free market economists have consistently called for limits on state power, including the power to torture. Third, the reach of government has been shrinking in India and China, to the indisputable benefit of billions. Fourth, it is the New Deal ?- the greatest restriction on capitalism in 20th century America and presumably beloved by Ms. Klein ?- that was imposed in a time of crisis. Fifth, many of the crises of the 20th century resulted from anti-capitalistic policies, rather than from capitalism: China was falling apart because of the murderous and tyrannical policies of Chairman Mao, which then led to bottom-up demands for capitalistic reforms; New Zealand and Chile abandoned socialistic policies for freer markets because the former weren't working well and induced economic crises.

But the reader will search in vain for an intelligent discussion of any of these points. What the reader will find is a series of fabricated claims, such as the suggestion that Margaret Thatcher created the Falkland Islands crisis to crush the unions and foist unfettered capitalism upon an unwilling British public.

The simplest response to Ms. Klein's polemic is to invoke old school conservatism. This approach, most prominently represented by classical liberal Friedrich Hayek, rejected the idea of throwing out or revising all social institutions at once. Indeed the long history of conservative thought stands behind moderation in most matters of social and economic policy. That tradition does advise a scaling down of free market ambitions, no matter how good they may sound in theory, and is probably our best hedge against disasters of our own making. Such a simple ?- indeed sensible ?- point would not have produced a best-selling screed, however. And so we return to charging Friedman as an enabler of torture. The clash between democratic preferences and policy prescriptions is, if anything, a problem for Ms. Klein herself. Ms. Klein's previous book, "No Logo" (2000), called for rebellion against advertising and multinational corporations, two institutions which have proved remarkably popular with ordinary democratic citizens. Starbucks is ubiquitous because of pressure from the bottom, not because of a top-down decision to force capitalism upon the suffering workers in a time of crisis.

If nothing else, Ms. Klein's book provides an interesting litmus test as to who is willing to condemn its shoddy reasoning. In the New York Times, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz defended the book: "Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one." So nonacademics get a pass on sloppy thinking, false "facts," and emotional appeals? In making economic claims, Ms. Klein demands to be judged by economists' standards ?- or at the very least, standards of simple truth or falsehood. Mr. Stiglitz continued: "There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification." Have we come to citing the failures of one point of view to excuse the mistakes of another?

With "The Shock Doctrine," Ms. Klein has become the kind of brand she lamented in "No Logo." Brands offer a simplification of image and presentation, rather than stressing the complexity, the details, and the inevitable trade-offs of a particular product. Recently, Ms. Klein told the Financial Times, "I stopped talking about [the campaign against brands] about two weeks after ?'No Logo' was published." She admitted that brands were never her real target, rather they were a convenient means of attacking the capitalist system more generally. In the same interview, Ms. Klein also tellingly remarked, "I believe people believe their own bulls---. Ideology can be a great enabler for greed."

MarySzy, we have a vigorous political forum here at a2k.. which I welcome you to, by the way, both the forum and the whole website.

This Books' forum deals more with the art of writing.. so, if you could address why, given your distaste or liking for a book author's views, you also don't like the presentation of the views, you'd get more interest.

Oh, great. Now we having Beth running around, going "Woof! Woof!"

Ah, I wondered what had become of you, VNM!

(Hope the feline menagerie is thriving! )

I recently saw Atonement (the film) but have not read any of McEwan's novels yet .... I must say, though, always excellent reviews!

Which would you suggest might be a good one for a first read?

Now?


You have got to try to pay attention.

A rather bold statement given you haven't read the book.

You are new here and should be informed that we follow the standard academic protocol of noting sources. Indeed, we ask that links to sources be provided so that readers can verify.

Your source, no surprise, is the NY Sun. Here's the link... http://www.nysun.com/article/63867

Does the fact that the review was published in the NY Sun mean that it is therefore of no merit?

Actually this site is relatively free of rules, and I have (happily) seen damn little of academic protocol here.

I'm currently reading "Sailing from Byzantium", by Colin Wells, a cultural study of the influence of the Eastern Empire on Western Europe, the Islamic World, and the Slavic world. Very interesting material on a subject we generally see too little of.

Great author, have you read any of his other books?

george wrote

I'd ask whether you are familiar with the publication, george, but we know what your answer will be, don't we.

But aside from any issue of bias, the review is non-substantive and non-specific. It is as poor an example of a book review as I've seen in a long while.

And aside from all that, you yourself provide notation to demonstrate sourcing of your quotes and information when you paste them. You do it not because it is a "rule" but because it is dishonest to do otherwise.

I don't care so much about rules, and less about sources. unless people are quoting. I prefer no diatribes, quoted or otherwise, that better fit under, say, religion or politics. Diatribes about writing style, especially by the poster him or herself, are fine with me, though I prefer pithy diatribes. (I'm sure you'll all feel free to disagree.)

Angela's Ashes. However, I catch meself reading this wit a broughe a wee bit like Frank McCourt.


At least I now know the origin of the tales of Chichulun (ne' Setanta).

Yep. One of the chapters from the book appeared in the NY'er. He's had a couple of other stories in the NY'er too, at least one I remember.

The one from the book had a really good illustration of two of the three main characters in the book that has been in my mind's eye since I started.

Another set piece now... following 4 people (secondary characters) who you know from early in the book will die, and not wanting to read but of course wanting to know what happens.

Some pretty good history too. Love the footnotes. Trujillo -- whew. (Zafa.)

[quote="urs53"]Bohne, how are Cornelia Funke's books? I have been thinking of reading them. Would you recommend them? Danke![/quote]

They are generally children's books.
Not silly though, so if there is still a child in you, you might like them!

The Inkspell (part one of the trilogy) book can be read on it's own.
I just sent that to my stepdaughter, but she has not come back to me on it, yet.

Part two needs part three to end the story.
Part three however has not been translated into English, yet, though, as far as I know!

My UU group (and I) are reading Jeffrey Toobin's, THE NINE, Inside The Secret World of the SUPREME COURT...easy read, interesting.

Breath: Poems, by Philip Levine.

Hi again, Olga! I just started with "Saturday" and couldn't put it down! I got "Atonement" long before the movie came out, read it second, and now I am hooked on his writing. "On Chesil Beach" is next whichI will read when I finish "The Coldest Winter"...Halberstam's jewel.

Blatham...agreed that Naomi Klein's book is a shocker...er, eh "The Shock Docrtine" but I think we talked about that before on another thread.

So many books, and soooo little time to curl up. At least curl up without guilt!

They are generally children's books.
Not silly though, so if there is still a child in you, you might like them!

The Inkspell (part one of the trilogy) book can be read on it's own.
I just sent that to my stepdaughter, but she has not come back to me on it, yet.

Part two needs part three to end the story.
Part three however has not been translated into English, yet, though, as far as I know![/color][/quote]

Thanks, Bohne! Yes, there is definitely a child in me And I'd read them in German anyway... I guess I'll have a look.

What about the rest of us? Should we read it, too?

I am with Ossobucco and think she needs to go to the political threads.