SmartRemarks

And now, a brief interlude from all the Sherlockiana for a bit of politics and economics. After hearing a radio interview today about a fascinating new book, I’ve done a bit of digging and realized I may have come a bit late to the game, for—at least in England—this book has been gathering serious attention for the better part of a year now. It deserves to do the same here in the U.S.

The interview was with Prof. Richard Wilkinson of Nottingham University, co-author (with Kate Pickett of York University) of The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. (The title is perhaps a bit less than apt; the authors apparently wanted to call it “Evidence-Based Politics,” which to my ear would have been superior.) Wilkinson and Pickett, epidemiologists both, started out studying data on public health outcomes and wound up with a project much larger than they had originally envisioned. Their data demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that economic inequality within a society, regardless of overall wealth, is the single biggest predictor of a wide range of other social ills, from life expectancy to violent crime and far, far more.

Read the rest of this entry »

My reaction to the new Star Trek movie led me to ask myself this unavoidable question. Yes, it’s certainly received a warm response—96% on the Tomatometer (which is phenomenal, even allowing that they inevitably mis-count some reviews like, e.g., the negative J.R. Jones piece I linked the other day) and a $76 million weekend box office—but I trust my critical sensibilities regardless of what the bandwagon says. My reasons for liking and valuing Star Trek have always been its intelligent storytelling and its social conscience—and this movie has neither. As Roger Ebert wrote,

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before.

The online discussion thus far among fans seems to have found an emerging consensus that the cast all did at least good and sometimes great jobs living up to their familiar characters, and that the production values admirably reflect the film’s $150 million budget… but also that the story is, to put it charitably, more than little flimsy. The real dividing line is between the majority who say that story problems don’t matter so long as it looks impressive and feels exciting… and the minority who say it doesn’t matter how much of an adrenaline rush it gives if the story insults the audience’s intelligence. I’m definitely in the latter camp. 

When everything is weighed in the balance, and all excuses and apologies set aside, this movie is crap.

What’s more, though—and this is what sparked the self-examination—the last Trek movie (Nemesis) was also crap. And the movie before that (Insurrection) was crap. And the last TV series (Enterprise), and the series before that (Voyager)—all crap. Really, there hasn’t been any reliably decent Trek on screen in at least a dozen years.

So why do I still call myself a fan? How can I still harbor any affection or loyalty for this franchise?

Read the rest of this entry »

In my personal opinion, naturally. YMMV. If this were in any way authoritative, it would have been carved in stone by a finger of flame.

But I have been pondering, of late, the sort of things I like to read and watch, and I find myself mulling over some commonalities. There seem to be four recurring characteristics that mark a piece of fiction for me as enjoyable, memorable, and (if it’s in serial form) worthy of further attention. None of these by itself is either necessary or sufficient to make a story effective, but the presence of at least two of them is usually enough to pique my curiosity, and the presence of three or four almost guarantees that I’ll become a fan.

What are these oh-so-crucial characteristics?…

Read the rest of this entry »

I am, not to mince words, a voracious reader. (I’m not as fast a reader as I’d like, so voraciousness only gets me so far, but that’s another discussion.) My reading appetites are fairly diverse—I spend time with a good deal of nonfiction material (politics, history, science, philosophy, etc.)—but I’ve never stopped enjoying fiction, either.

A look at what’s published and read these days, however, and especially how it’s received in the culture, reveals some odd disconnects.

Read the rest of this entry »

On October 16th, I picked up a new book by Bob Kuttner (longtime political journalist and co-founder of The American Prospect), titled Obama’s Challenge. I seldom buy brand-new books at retail—I like to wait until I can get them discounted or used—but this one seemed very much of the moment.

Indeed, I concluded with amazement that Kuttner must have finished writing it and had it rushed through production within the preceding three weeks or so:  he wrote in detail about the ongoing economic collapse that began in mid-September, and moreover wrote with the assurance that Obama would win the election and be the next president. In the last few weeks there has been no end of commentary, analysis, and speculation about what Obama can and should do, policywise, not just after his inauguration but right now… but Kuttner beat everyone out of the gate.

I’m going toss a few ingredients of my own into that bubbling brew of public discourse, in a linked series of posts starting with this one, today. My thoughts and expectations are evolving, and they may as well do so in print. And for a starting point, one could certainly do worse than to consider Kuttner’s book, and the distinctive historical perspective he brings to the topic.

Read the rest of this entry »