Book review: The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side

Yet another Ag Christ; as wiki puts it The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side, a novel by Agatha Christie, was published in the UK in 1962... features amateur detective Miss Marple solving a mystery in St Mary Mead.

This makes it a fairly late book and the modern world begins to intrude: SMM has a Developement of modern housing, conveniently providing a source of new characters, though Ag herself feels firmly trapped in the past and the characters are perhaps less modern than olde tyme parlormaids transported into the then-present day.

Aanyway, I pat myself on the back for guessing the central plot line and therefore central plot twist: German-measels-causes-fetal-abnormalities, therefore our Actress is horrified in realising who ruined her life, therefore the poison really was intended for the Humble Victim, and the swap was deliberate not accidental.

I failed to work out how the HV spilt her drink, having been mislead, as intended, by the "her". In arrears I admired the subtle way the fact that they were close together at the time was introduced.

Weaker elements: that the Actress's first husband was the husband of the HV is both totally unbelievable and quite pointless; I really don't know what Our Ag was thinking of. Similarly the death of Ella and Giuseppe is nearly-totally-pointless and I think in a more elegant version would have been avoided. Indeed we don't formally discover who did kill them - or even if it was the same person - though I think in context we are lead to think that the husband did.

The central plot item, though not implausible, is definitely contrived; the sort of thing that you read about perhaps and think "oh that would fit well into a book" and it fits, but not I think quite well.

Book review: Hickory Dickory Dock

Hickory Dickory Dock is another Agatha Christie. Not one of her finest I fear.

As wiki notes, her attempt to broaden her character set goes badly: the African and Indians are charicatures - well, perhaps that's slightly unfair, most of her characters are usually charicatures, but these ones are badly cut-out. The number of dead bodies that piles up seems excessive; I can't see how any murderer would have hoped to get away with it by the time of number three, or even number two. We're forced to accept - yet again, I think - the idea of an amoral too-clever-for-his-own-good young son who would do anything.

The central idea - of drug smuggling via rucksacks - also seems ill-thought out. The idea that people wouldn't notice if you swap your rucksack for a similar one of the same make is rather odd; I suspect that AC didn't do a lot of backpacking. Similarly, the idea that the Wicked Woman would have a pile of passports seems dubious; they can't be that easy to get; and as a woman of couture she had every reason for frequent trips to Paris. And I guessed the swapping-the-diamond bit, not that that gets me far.

The social setup of the house also seems odd to me, though I am weak on 50s London: but surely retaining a "manservant" and a cook is more of a country house than a relatively cheap hostel.

Lastly, pulling out Mrs Nick as the WW's mother just comes from nowhere. I suppose it gives a reason for her to be living there, which would otherwise be unlikely, but really? No.

What was reasonably good was having a list of stolen things, which then separates out into various categories for unrelated reasons. But again, the kleptomania idea just rings false to me.

Book review: the War against the Rull

Another A. E. van Vogt. And - now I've seen a few the pattern is obvious - another fixer-up paste of several short stories into one semi-coherent novel. See wiki for details.

I first read this oh so many years ago and have owned this copy, with its lovely cover picture, for many years.

I think there's no need to detain you with any detailed analysis, it won't stand up to any such. The charm, now, if any remains is perhaps more in how things were portrayed in the 1940s.

I like the-lines-that-hold-men's-minds; a nice concept. I like "the sound", that whole chapter has an odd fairy-land touch to it, an aura of unreality far removed from sci-fi, more like growing up as a child in a machine town in the old rust belt perhaps.

And in the end the moral, if there is one, is of the virtues of cooperation.

Book review: the Nicomachean Ethics

The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. You may have heard of it. My Pingouin edition calls it just "The Ethics of Aristotle". The word "Nicomachus" is merely the name of his father; or perhaps his son; either way it is just a label. To put my prejudices up front: I didn't like it. Unlike Aristotle's physics it isn't total junk; but it also isn't good, and shares much of the discursive unedited nature of the Physics and I presume all his writings. He is also incorrigibly inclined to divide things up into types and make lists of them, and unable to restrain his pedantry in pursuing the most unimportant and uninteresting quibbles. More than anything else the book needs to be boiled down, perhaps to as little as one fifth of its present word-count.

Leaving all that aside, I shall try to make some sense of it. My main complaint is that it is very "flat" and hard to summarise; try reading wiki's article, for example. My own reference is The Foundations of Morality, which provides a correct theory of morality. Big A, I think, doesn't have a correct theory. One problem he has is that the only morality he knows of, or can conceive of as being right, is the Greek one he knows. He does know that the fundamentals underdetermine any given moral code - he is aware of the difference between areas where there are fundamental rules, like though shalt not kill, and mere conventional morality. But he makes little of that.

Quite often, he takes "the good" as semi-assumed, and so his account becomes circular. Towards the end - but alas I cannot be bothered to look up exactly where - he does say that the good is what a good man would want and do. FFS. There is some discussion of, well, effectively whether a "good man" is a thing, or whether a good man is merely a bundle of choices-of-doing-good-things, if you see what I mean. Big A doesn't state it any more clearly, if I recall correctly, though I think is very much on the side of there being "good men". Some of the value is in the discussion around this; effectively, excellence is a habit, not a virtue. By repeatedly doing good deeds, we form ourselves into the sort of people that do good deeds, for the right reasons, because we want to.

From nowhere, he derives an ultimate good, and this must be what moral actions are aiming for. Since this is wrong, it gets in the way, but I don't think he uses it much, except to muddy his thinking.

There's a long discussion of continence and incontience - the moral sort, obvs, not the affair of bladders - and the old Socratic puzzle of how people can intentionally do what is wrong. Totally missing from this is the economic insight of time-preference: incontinent folk have a strong preference for immeadiate gratification and strongly discount the future.

Big A is keen on moderation. I think at one point he discovers that virtue is a mean: you must neither want too much, or too little. Whilst this is an excellent principle for life, I don't think it fits ethics well.

In the end, he drifts from morality to politics. This could be interesting, but in his hands it isn't. To what extent is the law intended to provide merely a framework for free citizens to live their lives in peace and security - without the state forcing them to also be "good" in the ways that morality extends beyond the law - and to what extend should the state try to enforce what-it-considers-moral on its citizens? Big A touches on these questions, but he doesn't really formulate them clearly or have any answers, other than education.

Russell

Uneasily sensing that I haven't been entirely fair to Big A, I bolster my case with some quotes from Russell:

The views of Aristotle on ethics represents, in the main, the prevailing opinions of educated and experienced men of his day. They are not, like Plato's, impregnated with mystical religion; nor do they countenance such unorthodox theories as are to be found in the Republic concerning property and the family. Those who neither fall below nor rise above the level of decent, well-behaved citizens will find in the Ethics a systematic account of the principles by which they hold that their conduct should be regulated. Those who demand anything more will be disappointed. The book appeals to the respectable middle-aged, and has been used by them, especially since the seventeenth century, to repress the ardours and enthusiasms of the young. But to a man with any depth of feeling it is likely to be repulsive. 

and

There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends. More generally, there is an emotional poverty in the Ethics, which is not found in the earlier philosophers. There is something unduly smug and comfortable about Aristotle's speculations on human affairs; everything that makes men feel a passionate interest in each other seems to be forgotten. Even his account of friendship is tepid. He shows no sign of having had any of those experiences which make it difficult to preserve sanity; all the more profound aspects of the moral life are apparently unknown to him. He leaves out, one may say, the whole sphere of human experience with which religion is concerned. What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgment, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance.

Grok

I asked the well-known philosopher Grok to "tell me the value of aristotle's nichomachean ethics"; the Answer was:

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics holds immense value both historically and philosophically, impacting ethics, politics, and the study of human behavior across centuries. Here are several key aspects of its value:

Foundation of Virtue Ethics:

Nicomachean Ethics is central to the development of virtue ethics, where morality is not just about rules or outcomes but about developing good character traits or virtues [WMC: notice how muddy this is, when considered carefully. Does this mean that a person of "good character" can do bad things, and yet remain good? If so, that doesn't inspire confidence in "good character". If not, what's the meaning of "good character"?] 

Aristotle's discussion on virtues like courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom provides a framework for personal and moral development that remains influential today.

Concept of Eudaimonia (Happiness or Flourishing):

Aristotle introduces the idea of eudaimonia as the highest human good, not merely pleasure or wealth but the full realization of human potential. This has shaped Western thoughts on what constitutes a good life, happiness, and human flourishing.

Doctrine of the Mean:

One of Aristotle's most enduring contributions is the doctrine of the mean, suggesting that virtue lies in finding the right balance between excess and deficiency. This nuanced approach to ethics encourages moderation and context-sensitive decision-making in moral judgments.

Ethical Rationality:

Aristotle emphasizes practical wisdom or phronesis, which integrates moral virtues with intellectual virtues. This approach to ethics as a rational, deliberative process has influenced both ancient and modern ethical theory, promoting the idea that ethical living involves thoughtful decision-making.

Impact on Political Philosophy:

The Nicomachean Ethics sets the stage for Aristotle's Politics, where he discusses how individual ethics translate into good governance and the ideal state. The ethical principles here influence his views on citizenship, justice in society, and the role of law.

Educational Value:

The text is a cornerstone in philosophy education, teaching critical thinking, the examination of life's purpose, and the application of philosophy to daily life. It's often part of curricula in philosophy, classics, and ethics courses.

Historical Influence:

From medieval scholasticism (where Thomas Aquinas, for instance, integrated Aristotelian ethics with Christian theology) to contemporary philosophy, the Nicomachean Ethics has shaped ethical discourse. It has been a point of reference for philosophers like Kant, who, despite his criticisms, engaged deeply with Aristotle's ethical thought.

Cultural and Literary Impact:

Beyond philosophy, Aristotle's ethical considerations have influenced literature, art, and popular culture by providing archetypes of character and explorations of what it means to live a good life.

In summary, the Nicomachean Ethics is invaluable for its foundational role in understanding human virtue, the pursuit of happiness, and ethical living. It remains a living document in philosophy, continuously interpreted and debated, offering insights into how we should live, think, and govern ourselves and our societies.

I consider this a good answer; in that it is a useful summary of conventional wisdom, of approximately the correct length.

Refs

* ethos anthropoi daimon.

* Aristotle's politics.

* Spinoza, Ethics.

* The burden of thought.

* They call her Natasha when she looks like Elsie.

Book review: Dumb Witness

Dumb Witness is a detective fiction novel by British writer Agatha Christie. It is yet another fun-enough spirt-of-the-times type of thing; as usual the plot is driven by money, inheritance, within one of her fading English families, this time in the countryside: a worthless son, an elegant but profligate daughter, another dowdy daughter who has - horrors - married a foreigner, some greasy Greek; faithful servants and of course M. Hercule Poirot. And all narrated by the faithful Hastings.

Of the plot I got one Key Element and you'll probably want to look away now if you haven't read it; that is, that the brooch seen in the mirror is of course reversed, and so TA becomes AT and of course Bella is really Arabella. This fixes her as heavily involved; but early on the book has carefully poisionned our minds against her husband - she is weak and would do anything for him, etc - so I wasn't sure Shedunnit. In fact I went for Shedun the nail, but that someone else did the poisonning; I think you could have made a perfectly acceptable story out of two murderers. The brooch, though, feels very heavy; like an externally constructed item dropped fully formed into the story, and it doesn't quite fit. Poirot, for example, discusses her brooch with Theresa in detail, including the yeah-I-had-mine-new-but-now-any-fool-has-one and yet at no point does T say "oh yes Bella had one", as she most naturally would have.

The it-was-phosphorous and you can tell because her breath during the seance was luminous I consider rather dodgy.

Nicely, Bella goes off to a hotel, reads HP's summary, and is found dead the next day. With - ta da - no suicide note, so how can it be suicide. This puzzled me, I take too much at face value, I was trying to work out who could have come for her: my working theory was that she must have contacted someone she trusted. I now realise that I should have read the book pushing "but there was no suicide note" at me as confirmation that it was suicide.

Newsletter 2024

Some people are kind enough to send us newsletters. This is a return. Mostly, it is pointers to my blog posts.

We start with Christmas 2023, at Mother's for the usual festive relaxation, and then Mfd+J for New Year.

Early in January I bought a drone and now have 293+ rowing videoes of which Mays may be the most interesting.

At the end of February the Event of the Year happened: Miriam retired. In celebration of that, and my 60th, Mfd+J gave us a weekend in London. She had been four days a week for a few years; now she is none; it seems to suit her well; she keeps busy with her Piano and her Buddha.

In March we went up to Stanage and Froggatt for some climbing. We should do more of this (actually we got up to Stanage and Birchens in April, too). Following Daniel, I've started bouldering a lot more, to the detriment of my running. We also visited Oxford to see E, aware that her time there was growing short.

Since I was 60, in May Mother was inevitably 90; we had a weekend away to celebrate.

I continued my rowing; we went down one in the Town Bumps but this was a success.

For our summer holidays we went to the Ecrins to walk, climb rocks and mountains, play cards and Go, eat and be together. The top pic of this post is from then, just in case you've forgotten what we look like. After that the others went home and I wandered around for a bit.

When we got home I wrote up our uninspiring election.

Chronologically before that, but I'll put it here as it makes a nice ending, was Miranda graduating from Magdalen in Maths+Stats, and <sniffs away a tear> departing for the frozen North - Edinburgh - to take up a job with Natwest as a Data Scientist, or something like that; she is most recently doing prompt engineering. Daniel remains in Cambridge working for Darktrace, newly acquired by an Evil American private equity megacorp. I remain at Roku writing C++ in aid of televisions.

Happy Christmas and Best Wishes for the New Year to All.

2014. 2013.

Book review: Quest for the Future

Part of the A. E. van Vogt cache in Oxfam from which I got Empire of the Atom was this, Quest for the Future.

This one is more blatantly a fix-up; but even beyond that, blatantly makes no sense at all. Even having finished it, I have no idea why Selanie and her father were selling gadgets from the future as trinkets on a train.

But even then the characters appear to have emotions and thoughts and are more human beings than, say, Greg Bear's people.

The "Far Centaurus" thread probably made sense on its own; but as a means of time-travelling to the future, going in a spaceship to get cold-sleep seems like waay overkill; and the way he just happens to fall into friendship with the richest man on the planet is weird.

I'm kinda split on whether VV's introduction of incomprehensible tech and events is good or bad. Sometimes, with other authors, this can work. I think in this case it doesn't; the entire thing is just so arbitrary and disconnected.

Book review: Empire of the Atom

As wiki puts it, Empire of the Atom is a science fiction novel by Canadian-American writer A. E. van Vogt. It was first published in 1957 by Shasta Publishers in an edition of 2,000 copies. The novel is a fix-up of the first five of van Vogt's Gods stories, which originally appeared in the magazine Astounding.

The fix-up nature isn't obvious; the various chapters fit together fairly well. What was obvious was that this was Romans-in-space, in that the people, whilst flying around in spaceships, (a) have no idea how they work; and (b) fight with Roman-level weapons; and (c) have a rather blatantly Roman-type civil structure. After a bit I realised that it was "worse" than that; that the Great Leader was really like... Augustus? (My Roman history is not good) and the evil empress is even called Livia. Then it turns out that it is pretty well ripped off from I, Claudius and everything falls into place; the Mutant is then Claudius.

Despite all that - and despite the cover, which isn't really what Our Hero looks like in the book - this is, as a Van Vogt, worth reading in a way that a Greg Bear isn't (I say this as having put down GB's Strength of Stones in favour of EotA). It's kinda interesting how VV's writing is just better.

Having said that, this is a mere potboiler, and I doubt I keep it.

VV's "concept" for their tech is Roman-level, but somehow with metallurgy capable of refining the "god metals" and using them to propel spaceships via some kind of explosive-reaction-in-chambers. This is all nonsense, and he sensibly declines to give any details. But the spaceships, whilst able to travel between planets (navigation is just waved away) are able to "float" in a wy totally incompatible with the rocket concept. Which is to say, he completely hasn't thought this out: his ship behave rather like the ones in the early Flash Gordon movies.