Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts

August 12, 2010

Life isn't fair and Eat, Pray, Love

One of the smartest people I know recently wrote a blog post on Eat, Pray, Love and the backlash against it; the post was something of a defense against that backlash.

She was speaking of a different type of backlash (namely women who've taken up Yoga and Spirituality and suffered dearly), whereas I belong to another group that's pretty well known: guys who hate Eat, Pray, Love. Hate is probably too strong a word, allow me to elaborate.

First things first: no, I haven't read it. I probably won't, either, so feel free to add that to a long list of reasons to discredit or grain-of-salt this post, because there are a many. But my criticism isn't so much based on the book itself, which I'm sure is fine, but on its cultural impact based on how I've observed other people react to it.

I'll start by citing a tweet: when PZ Myers was being criticized for being too mean to his opponents (calling them idiots, frauds, etc.), he more or less brushed it off. But then someone mentioned that many of his targets don't deserve it, as they're normally acting out of ignorance. His response floored me with how he could, in 140 characters, point it out so clearly:

"Deserve" is a red herring. Life isn't fair, you don't get what you deserve...just have to hope you get what you need.

My major problem with Eat, Pray, Love is that it is a product of - while bolstering - a vague, responsibility-absolving entitlement to "happiness," comfort, "enlightenment," and self-satisfaction. And that this is inevitable (you are a strong, wonderful person! You deserve it) and can be lots of fun! Note that while this book is overwhelmingly more popular with women, my observation is that the previous point affects both men and women pretty hard. Tons of guys I know get distraught over the fact that they don't feel good warm things all the time. I'll address the gender differential in the specific case of the book later.

Maybe it's just from attending private school followed by Brown, but I'm always observing people who are pretty lucky in their lives, are well-educated, but just don't feel happy, and feel deep anguish that they don't know what the meaning of their lives are.

I hate to burst your bubble, but you shouldn't. "Happiness," "inner peace," "enlightenment"... these aren't finish lines. You won't reach a point in your life when you're like *BAM*! I'm happy! Things are good! And I will never be insecure about my talents or role in the world again!

It's kind of like getting your first sexual urges in Middle School: sorry, but you will always feel this way. You never reached a point in your life where you suddenly stopped getting horny. You just acknowledged the urges, and learned to deal with them, incorporating those feelings in your life in a more healthy, day-to-day way.

Note that until you did, you struggled with the insecurities, exacerbated loneliness, and questions about sex and sexuality in society that came (lol) with those new sexual urges. It takes years (and some people never get there) to get over the social cattiness and mess that arises from those insecurities. There's a teething phase.

Similarly, there are big points in your life when you feel miserable, and mostly, untapped. You feel your life is shallow, you haven't made a dent in the world, your talents are unappreciated; you especially feel guilty that this bothers you because you are better off than many others.

To which I say it's true: you are shallow, you're not impacting the world that hard, and there are people who are much worse off. But that's just life, and it's no weakness or inadequacy on your part. There isn't anything you're missing (or that you reasonably could do with any significant probability) to change any of it. So learn to live with it, because, as we say in software, there is no silver bullet. Yoga might help, but probably won't. Same with eating in the long term.

Though, here's the hardest one: you have no guarantee (or even an unofficial right to the prospect) of a magical person you find lovely, wonderful, and attractive will walk into your life and love you. This might have nothing to do with how wonderful you are as a person; you can be the kindest, smartest person on Earth, and while this bumps up your odds a little, there's never a guarantee. You don't get what you deserve, just hope you get what you need.

As to how EPL fits in to all this, and why it bothers me: EPL shows the story of someone we (privileged, educated unsatisfied people) can all relate to and shows her either crossing the finish line, or making giant, giant steps toward it. It (without meaning to) exploited our misunderstandings and fetishism of Eastern Mysticism and Hot Ethnic Love Abroad and pushed desperate people wildly in that direction.

I feel about Elizabeth Gilbert and her talks, writing (i.e. the magazine articles I've read) the way I feel about most priests: you clearly believe what you preach and live pretty happily by doing so. You have every right to do it and I won't stop you. But overall, I happen to think your messages are snake oil/placebo, and ultimately takes us down further down a path I think we're already too far into.

People then start looking at Yoga, travel, and Eastern Mysticism and get conned they way they do at homeopathy, or chiropractors (note that I don't find the exercise component of Yoga nearly as toxic as those two. But lots of those "gurus"? Most definitely). I just wish people would stop looking for silver bullets, and I feel that EPL puts a toy carrot in front of everyone.

Regarding the gender difference: I think the book and its reception really highlights the impossible situation women are put into. See the Male Privilege Checklist: women are expected to be superbeings with contradictory measures of success, and we are taught that they fail if they don't.

So if you're a woman, you get told by society as a whole, implicitly and explicitly, that you're a failure or 'failing to perform' much more often than guys. Guys like you a lot less, unreasonably soon.

Given all this, I find it not at all surprising that when you read a book that appeals to your wants and wishes, that you too could go to eat and pray and love and feel warm and fuzzy and find what you've lost and oh my god it's you!, that they love it. Again, guys fall for this mindframe too, but this book in particularly highlights the troubling situation women are in.

Personally, I'd rather put energy and resources in addressing the sexism in society, trying to prevent insecurity and doubt becoming a problem in the first place, rather than setting people up to fail by filling their heads with fantasies of ashrams and vague, impossible notions of fulfillment.

I'll end with a favorite quote. It comes from _why the lucky stiff, a minor genius of our time, more or less prescribing what I think is the best way out of these loops of self-futility and doubt: create. Write plays, or short stories, or code, or fan fiction, or sand castles, or design model trains. Do something you care about and can share with people. Give back. As he says:

When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create.

April 6, 2010

Common Lisp

I've been playing around with Common Lisp recently, using Practical Common Lisp and Let Over Lambda as guides (not gonna lie, having LOL on the spine of your book is wonderful). Last year when I went through my Scheme phase (the original URL of this blog was littleschemer.blogspot.com), I never thought I'd see the day that I'd switch sides.



FWIW, this is my iPhone background image.


I do feel like a traitor though, since even though I'm a theory-head and advocate of FP, I'm loving Common Lisp. There are a few reasons for this:

  • Simpler macros. I'll bet some hardcore Schemers will disagree with me on this, but I feel that defmacro is much, much simpler to learn than syntax-case, and syntax-rules always leaves me wanting more. Maybe I'm deficient, but I took to defmacro immediately, whereas when I want to do anything non-trivial in Scheme, I feel myself always going back to Dybvig's explanations, taking far longer than I'd like.

    While in principle I'm for hygiene as the default, it's not too big an issue in practice. Hoyte gives a great little macro (one of the first in his book) that ensures you fresh variables whenever you want them, without even having to declare them!

  • Language libraries. CL comes with every function you could ever want. It comes back to what Peter Norvig said in Paradigms in Artificial Intelligence Programming (paraphrasing): Scheme is one of the smallest languages to define (< 50 pages), whereas CL is one of the largest (> 1200 pages).

    While some Schemes provide these, since they aren't part of the standard you aren't guaranteed anything across implementations. In fact, my favorite Scheme in terms of libraries (good ole' PLT) even broke across versions when they enforced module declarations at the top of every file.

    Besides, once a Scheme gets these, they stop wanting to be called Scheme.


This isn't to say its all peaches and cream: I still prefer Scheme's single namespace over Common Lisp's, I prefer Scheme's naming conventions (map vs. mapcar, or worse, loop for elem in list collecting). And issues with lambdas, namely sharp-quoting and not being able to place functions in the function position (especially after learning the beauty of Scheme's semantics so well last semester) still throw me for a loop.

But after a year of mounting tension with the residents of Shelbyville, I realize they've got quite a bit right ^_^.

March 23, 2010

Books, Books, the Musical Fruit

A lot of big-time, 'real' bloggers are writing about their 10 most influential books. I'll present mine here, stealing some terminology: this is my 'gut list,' not my 'I've thought about this for a long time' list:


Don Quijote (Cervantes)

'Misfit' entertainment is on the rise: Napoleon Dynamite, Eagle vs. Shark, and pretty much everything starring Michael Cera are examples of movies where we celebrate and flesh out the weirdos, oddballs, and losers of society into something a little higher. This 'not-like-the-others' quality is all over my list.

None of them hold a candle to Don Quijote, however. He embodies that cute Akira Kurosawa line: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane." While you the reader know he's off his rocker, and that you're "better off," you sort of envy him. He's happy as a clam! He's living the adventure! You can almost always open up to a random point in either of the two volumes to see Quijote having a good time, and Sancho being completely lovable.

I feel like my connection with this book is like a lot of religious people's with their Holy Text: I haven't read every word of it, and its been so long since I read it that I'm probably just taking what I want to remember out of it. I'm sure my many memories are easily amended and disproven by someone who's really studied it. But it left enough of a mark on me to bring my dog-eared, notes-in-the-margin copy everywhere I go.


Short Stories (Jorge Luis Borges)


My former Spanish teacher quipped that Borges probably wasn't the most read Spanish author, but the most reread. You can see why: his short fiction is jam-packed with beautiful imagery, contradiction, love and meaning. They're Everlasting Gobstoppers.


The White Tiger (Aravind Adiga)

A recent addition, I just finished this about a month ago and absolutely loved it. Murder is one of the most interesting themes in fiction, especially how we can make someone else killable. The character's progression/descent into murder in a modern capitalist society is entertaining and evocative.