Books

There are 51 posts filed in Books (this is page 3 of 6).

The Da Vinci Crud

You gotta love Anthony Lane. The man is a comic genius. Check out his review of the The Da Vinci Code — both the film and the book — a review so deliciously scathing that I had to read it twice. And laughed at the same jokes each time.

How timid — how undefended in their powers of reason — must people be in order to yield to such preening? Are they reading “The Da Vinci Code” because everybody on the subway is doing the same, and, if so, why, when they reach their stop, do they not realize their mistake and leave it on the seat, to be gathered up by the next sucker? Despite repeated attempts, I have never managed to crawl past page 100. As I sat down to watch “The Da Vinci Code,” therefore, I was in the lonely, if enviable, position of not actually knowing what happens.

Oh, goodness.

I’ve tried to start The Da Vinci Code, too, but can’t make it past the first couple pages. They’re awful. Kris read it and pronounced it rubbish. It’s a shame that poorly-written stuff like this makes a gajillion dollars while better-written stuff languishes unread.

Alas.

What else does Lane have to say? Well, let’s see:

Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, except at Columbia Pictures, where the power lunches won’t even be half-started. The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from this film. It is not just tripe. It is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith. Meanwhile, art historians can sleep easy once more, while fans of the book, which has finally been exposed for the pompous fraud that it is, will be shaken from their trance. In fact, the sole beneficiaries of the entire fiasco will be members of Opus Dei, some of whom practice mortification of the flesh. From now on, such penance will be simple—no lashings, no spiked cuff around the thigh. Just the price of a movie ticket, and two and a half hours of pain.

The Da Vinci Code: 23% at Rotten Tomatoes (11% from big-name critics) — that’s worse than RV or The Shaggy Dog.

Anyone surprised?

He Opened His Mouth and Breathed Out Spring

I am reading Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell for the third time in less than a year. If that is not a high recommendation, I don’t know what is.

I’ve mentioned before (as have several commenters) that there are some brilliant passages in this book. Though Clarke is unable to sustain this peak of quality throughout the entire volume, like an addict I keep going, craving the next hit.

Here is today’s hit:

Strange took the cup and drank the water down. The cup fell from his hand. Drawlight was aware — he did not know how exactly — that Strange was changed. Against the starry sky the black shape of his figure sagged and his head dropped. Drawlight wondered if he were drunk. But how could a few drops of any thing make a man drunk? Besides he did not smell of strong liquor; he smelt like a man who had not washed himself or his linen for some weeks; and there was another smell too — one that had not been there a minute ago — a smell like old age and half a hundred cats.

Drawlight had the strangest feeling. It was something he had felt before when magic was about to happen. Invisible doors seemed to be opening all around him; winds blew on him from far away, bringing scents of woods, moors, and bogs. Images flew unbidden into his mind. The houses around him were no longer empty. He could see inside them as if the walls had been removed. Each dark room contained — not a person exactly — a Being, an Ancient Spirit. One contained a Fire; another a Stone; yet another a Shower of Rain; yet another a Flock of Birds; yet another a Hillside; yet another a Small Creature with Dark and Fiery Thoughts; and on and on.

“What are they?” he whispered, in amazement. He realized that all the hairs on his head were standing on end as if he had been electrified. Then a new, different sensation took him: it was a sensation not unlike falling, and yet he remained standing. It was as if his mind had fallen down.

He thought he stood upon an English hillside. Rain was falling; it twisted in the air like grey ghosts. Rain fell upon him and he grew thin as rain. Rain washed away thought, washed away memory, all the good and the bad. He no longer knew his name. Everything was washed away like mud from a stone. Rain filled him up with thoughts and memories of his own. Silver lines of water covered the hillside, like intricate lace, like the veins of an arm. Forgetting that he was, or ever had been, a man, he became the lines of water. He fell into the earth with the rain.

He thought he lay beneath the earth, beneath England. Long ages passed; cold and rain seeped through him; stones shifted within him. In the Silence and the Dark he grew vast. He became the earth; he became England. A star looked down on him and spoke to him. A stone asked him a question and he answered it in its own language. A river curled at his side; hills budded beneath his fingers. He opened his mouth and breathed out spring…

He thought he was pressed into a thicket in a dark wood in winter. The trees went on for ever, dark pillars separated thin, white slices of winter light. He looked down. Young saplings pierced him through and through; they grew up through his body, through his feet and hands. His eye-lids would no longer close because twigs had grown up through them. Insects scuttled in and out of his ears; spiders built nests and webs in his mouth. He realized he had been entwined in the wood for years and years. He knew the wood and the wood knew him. There was no saying any longer what was wood and what was man.

All was silent. Snow fell. He screamed…

Blackness.

Like rising up from beneath dark waters, Drawlight came to himself. Who it was that released him — whether Strange, or the wood, or England itself — he did not know, but he felt its contempt as it cast him back into his own mind. The Ancient Spirits withdrew from him. His thoughts and sensations shrank back to those of a Man. He was dizzy and reeling from the memory of what he had endured. He examined his hands and rubbed the places on his body where the trees had pierced him. They seemed whole enough; oh, but they hurt! He whimpered and looked around for Strange.

The magician was a little way off, crouching by a wall, muttering magic to himself. He struck the wall once; the stones bulged, changed shape, became a raven; the raven opened its wings and, with a loud caw, flew up towards the night sky. He struck the wall again: another raven emerged from the wall and flew away. Then another and another, and on and on, thick and fast they came until all the stars above were blotted out by black wings.

Strange raised his hand to strike again…

“Lord Magician,” gasped Drawlight. “You have not told me what the third message is.”

Strange looked round. Without warning he seized Drawlight’s coat and pulled him close. Drawlight could feel Strange’s stinking breath on his face and for the first time he could see his face. Starlight shone on fierce, wild eyes, from which all humanity and reason had fled.

“Tell Norrell I am coming!” hissed Strange.

In the past few hours, I’ve listened to this passage three times. I’ve read it on paper three times. I’ve copied it from the book to the text editor. It retains its dark hold on me each time I read it, enchants me. I wish that I could write like this.

When I have finished with Jonathan Strange, I will move onto a book that Kris recently read and loved: The Time Traveler’s Wife. And then I will re-read another book that captivated me last spring: Cloud Atlas. This is a golden age of fantastic fiction. There’s some wonderful stuff being produced by strong writers, stuff that’s accessible even to those disinclined toward fantasy and science fiction, stuff that’s quality literature by any measure. For children, there are the Harry Potter books and Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. For adults, there are the three books I’ve cited and several others. It is a great time to be a fan of speculative fiction.

In Praise of Regional Writing

For book group this month, we’re reading Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.

To Kill a Mockingbird is one of those rare perfect books, yet I knew little of it until a decade ago. Sure, it was popular among the kids in my grade school and high school classes; I can remember all sorts of book reports on the novel, but I avoided reading the book, or watching the movie, until sometime in the mid-nineties. Now, the book and the film have become two of my favorites. Hell, the opening credits of the movie are often enough to make me misty. (The opening to the film adaptaion of The Joy Luck Club also has this power over me.)

I love To Kill a Mockingbird for many reasons: clarity of language, authorial tone, strength of characterization, etc. Most of all, I love how it captures the life of children in Depression-era Alabama. I relate strongly to Lee’s sense of nostalgia; I am reminded of similar experiences from my own childhood.

Maycomb was an old town, but it was a tired town when I first knew it. In rainy weather the streets turned to red slop; grass grew on the sidewalks, the courthouse sagged in the square. Some, it was hotter then: a black dog suffered on a summer’s day; bony mules hitched to Hoover carts flicked flies in the sweltering shade of the live oaks on the square. Men’s stiff collars wilted by nine in the morning. Ladies bathed before noon, after their three-o’clock naps, and by nightfall were like soft teacakes with frostings of sweat and sweet talcum.

People moved slowly then. They ambled across the square, shuffled in and out of the stores around it, took their time about everything. A day was twenty-four hours long but seemed longer. There was no hurry, for there was nowhere to go, nothing to buy and no money to buy it with, nothing to see outside the boundaries of Maycomb County. But it was a time of vague optimism for some of the people: Maycomb County had recently been told it had nothing to fear but fear itself.

…

When I was almost six and Jem was nearly ten, our summertime boundaries (within calling distance of Calpurnia) were Mrs. Henry Lafayette Dubose’s house two doors to the north of us, and the Radley Place three doors to the south. We were never tempted to break them. The Radley Place was inhabited by an unknown entity the mere description of whom was enough to make us behave for days on end; Mrs. Dubose was plain hell.

That was the summer Dill came to us.

Early one morning as were beginning our day’s play in the back yard, Jem and I heard something next door in Miss Rachel Haverford’s collard patch. We went to the wire fence to see if there was a puppy — Miss Rachel’s rat terrier was expecting — instead we found someone sitting looking at us. Sitting down, he wasn’t much higher than the collards. We stared at him until he spoke:

“Hey.”

Hey yourself,” said Jem pleasantly.

“I’m Charles Baker Harris,” he said. “I can read.”

“So what?” I said.

“I just though you’d like to know I can read. You got anything needs readin’ I can do it…”

“How old are you,” asked Jem, “four-and-a-half?”

“Goin’ on seven.”

“Shoot no wonder, then,” said Jem, jerking his thumb at me. “Scout yonder’s been readin’ ever since she was born, and she ain’t even started to school yet. You look right puny for goin’ on seven.”

“I’m little but I’m old,” he said.

The wonder of the film is how faithful it is to the book. Yes, it leaves out some subplots (such as Scout’s conflict with her teacher), and it softens the edges around the characters of Atticus and Jem, but on the whole it is a remarkable translation of the text. In some ways, it’s even better than the book. The film’s quality is derived largely from the convincing performances of the child actors. Child actors are notoriously poor, but these kids go about their business with conviction.

Twenty years before To Kill a Mockingbird saw print, Carson McCullers produced The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, a work of similar tone and color, set in a similar town at a similar time. There are people who dislike McCullers’ book, but I am not one of them. I love it. It captures a similar snapshot of the south as does To Kill a Mockingbird; it’s as if it might have been written about another town in Maycomb County.

In the following passage, Mick is precocious girl of about fourteen. Her brothers Ralph and Bubber are about two and six, respectively. They are poor kids in a poor town.

This summer was different from any other time Mick could remember. Nothing much happened that she could describe to herself in thoughts or words — but there was a feeling of change. All the time she was excited. In the morning she couldn’t wait to get out of bed and start going for the day. And at night she hated like hell to have to sleep again.

Right after breakfast she took the kids out, and except for meals they were gone most of the day. A good deal of the time they just roamed the streets — with her pulling Ralph’s wagon and Bubber following along behind. Always she was busy with thoughts and plans. Sometimes she would look up suddenly and they would be way off in some part of town she didn’t even recognize. And once or twice they ran into Bill on the streets and she was so busy thinking he had to grab her by the arm to make her see him.

Early in the mornings it was a little cool and their shadows stretched out tall on the sidewalks in front of them. But in the middle of the day the sky was always blazing hot. The glare was so bright it hurt to keep your eyes open. A lot of times the plans about the things that were going to happen to her were mixed up with ice and snow. Sometimes it was like she was out in Switzerland and all the mountains were covered with snow and she was skating on cold, greenish-colored ice. Mister Singer would be skating with her. And maybe Carole Lombard or Arturo Toscanini who played on the radio. They would be skating together and then Mister Singer would fall through the ice and she would dive in without regard for peril and swim under the ice to save his life. That was one of the plans always going on in her mind.

Usually after they had walked awhile she would park Bubber and Ralph in some shady place. Bubber was a swell kid and she trained him pretty good. If she told him not to go out of hollering distance from Ralph she wouldn’t ever find him shooting marbles with kids two or three blocks away. He played by himself near the wagon, and when she left them she didn’t have to worry much. She either went to the library and looked at the National Geographic or else just roamed around and though some more. If she had nay money she bought a dope or a Milky Way at Mister Brannon’s. He gave kids a reduction. He sold them nickel things for three cents.

But all the time — no matter what she was doing — there was music. Sometimes she hummed to herself as she walked, and other times she listened quietly to the songs inside her. There were all kinds of music in her thoughts. Some she heard over radios, and some was in her mind already without her ever having heard it anywhere.

An interesting — and vital — counterpoint to these two tales is Richard Wright’s Black Boy, his memoirs of growing up black in Mississippi. Although his book is set twenty years earlier than To Kill a Mockingbird and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, and although he’s exploring the world of the Negro, many elements remain the same. Wright captures the wonder and awe of childhood in the south, the hardship, the dreariness, the bewildering world of adults.

Granny’s home in Jackson was an enchanting place to explore. It was a two-story frame structure of seven rooms. My brother and I used to play hide and seek in the long, narrow hallways, and on and under the stairs. Granny’s son, Uncle Clark, had bought her this home, and its white plastered walls, its front and back porches, its round columns and banisters, made me feel that surely there was no finer house in all the round world.

There were wide green fields in which my brother and I roamed and played and shouted. And there were the timid children of the neighbors, boys and girls to whom my brother and I felt superior in worldly knowledge. We took pride in telling them what it was like to ride on a train, what the yellow, sleepy Mississippi River looked like, how it felt to sail on the Kate Adams, what Memphis looked like, and how I had run off from the orphan home. And we would hint that we were pausing but for a few days and then would be off to even more fabulous places and marvelous experiences.

To help support the household my grandmother boarded a colored schoolteacher, Ella, a young woman with so remote and dreamy and silent a manner that I was as much afraid of her as I was attached to her. I had long wanted to ask her to tell me about the books that she was always reading, but I could never quite summon enough courage to do so. One afternoon I found her sitting alone up on the front porch, reading

…

She whispered to me the story of Bluebeard and His Seven Wives and I ceased to see the porch, the sunshine, her face, everything. As her words fell upon my new ears, I endowed them with a reality that welled up from somewhere within me. She told how Bluebeard had duped and married his seven wives, how he had loved and slain them, how he had hanged them up by their hair in a dark closet. The tale made the world around me be, throb, live. As she spoke, reality changed, the look of things altered, and the world became peopled with magical presences. My sense of life deepened and the feel of things was different, somehow. Enchanted and enthralled, I stopped her constantly to ask for details. My imagination blazed. The sensations the story aroused in me were never to leave me. When she was about to finish, when my interest was keenest, when I was lost to the world around me, Granny stepped briskly onto the porch.

“You stop that, you evil gal!” she shouted. “I want none of that Devil stuff in my house!”

…

My grandmother was nearly white as a Negro can get without being white, which means that she was white. The sagging flesh of her face quivered; her eyes, large, dark, deep-set, wide apart, glared at me. Her lips narrowed to a line. Her high forehead wrinkled. When she was angry her eyelids drooped halfway down over her pupils, giving her a baleful aspect.

“But I liked the story,” I told her.

“You’re going to burn in hell,” she said with such furious conviction that for a moment I believed her.

Reading these works of regional color makes me burn with a desire to write similar stories about the Willamette Valley. I have characters and settings and plots in my mind, and I’ve even set some of them to paper. Yet often I wrestle with the question: what is it that sets this place apart? There are certain qualities that make this place unique, but I cannot define them.

Off the top of my head, some 0ther strong regional novels include: My Antonia by Willa Cather, Angle of Repose by Wallace Stegner, Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey, Country of the Pointed Firs by Sarah Orne Jewett, and the entire oeuvre of Garrison Keillor.

Book Group Reading List 2005

It’s that time of year again: time for an annual update on the Elm Street Book Group’s reading list. Those of you who aren’t interested in what we’ve read may still be entertained by the catalog of quotes at the end of this entry.

Over the past year, the group has welcomed Bernie and Kristi, Jason and Naomi, and Tiffany as new members. Rumor has it that Rhonda (and maybe Mike) will soon join us. This makes us the largest we’ve ever been, a far cry from our scary third year during which it often seemed the group might fold. (We often struggled to find five people to attend at that time.)

THE ELM STREET BOOK GROUP READING LIST
(The very best books — in terms of quality of text and discussion — are in bold; the worst are in italics. The person who chose the book is in parentheses.)

02 Nov 96: ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn (Paul D.) at Paul and Connie’s [adopted ISHMAEL as “ground” for entire book group]
07 Dec 96: THE DISPOSSESSED by Ursula LeGuin (J.D.) at Kris and J.D.’s
11 Jan 97: A THOUSAND ACRES by Jane Smiley (Connie) at Paul and Connie’s [J.D. states Ty is “pure and noble”]
08 Feb 97: THE RIVER WHY by David James Duncan (Eila) at Kris and J.D.’s
08 Mar 97: BELOVED by Toni Morrison (Joan) at John and Joan’s
12 Apr 97: THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE by John Irving (Kris) at Paul and Connie’s
10 May 97: A LESSON BEFORE DYING by Ernest J. Gaines (Coleen) at Eila’s
21 Jun 97: THE RAPTURE OF CANAAN by Sheri Reynolds (Jennifer) at Kris and J.D.’s
26 Jul 97: HOUSE MADE OF DAWN by N. Scott Momaday (John) at Jennifer’s
16 Aug 97: Media Month: THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE by Marshall McLuhan and FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF TELEVISION by Jerry Mander (group) at John and Joan’s
13 Sep 97: DAKOTA: A SPIRITUAL GEOGRAPHY by Kathleen Norris (Amy Jo)
11 Oct 97: LILA: AN INQUIRY INTO MORALS by Robert Pirsig (Connie) at Kris and J.D.’s

15 Nov 97: COLD MOUNTAIN by Charles Frazier (Paul D.) at Paul and Amy Jo’s
13 Dec 97: WALDEN by Henry David Thoreau (J.D.) at John and Joan’s
10 Jan 98: TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald (Joan) at Jennifer’s
02 Feb 98: THE SONGLINES by Bruce Chatwin (Paul J.) at Paul and Connie’s
07 Mar 98: A MIDWIFE’S TALE by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (Kris) at Kris and J.D.’s
04 Apr 98: SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS by David Guterson (Jennifer) at Kris and J.D.’s
09 May 98: ANGELA’S ASHES by Frank McCourt (John) at Paul and Amy Jo’s
27 Jun 98: SHE’S COME UNDONE by Wally Lamb (Clara) at Eila’s [Wally Lamb at Powell’s]
18 Jul 98: GEEK LOVE by Katherine Dunn (Eila) at Kris and J.D.’s
22 Aug 98: Ecoterrorism Month: ANTARCTICA by Kim Stanley Robinson and THE MONKEY-WRENCH GANG by Edward Abbey (group) at Cari’s
19 Sep 98: THE POWER OF ONE by Bryce Courtenay (Cari) at Clara’s
17 Oct 98: A NATURAL HISTORY OF THE SENSES by Diane Ackerman (Amy Jo) at Paul and Amy Jo’s [Paul D.’s sensory test]

14 Nov 98: HUNGER by Knut Hamsun (Paul D.) at Kris and J.D.’s [group enters a year-long nadir with only four or five people at each meeting]
12 Dec 98: ANNA KARENINA by Leo Tolstoy (Connie) at Paul and Connie’s
09 Jan 99: DUNE by Frank Herbert (J.D.) at Kris and J.D.’s
06 Feb 99: BRAIN SEX by David Jessell and Dr. Anne Moir (Kris) at Paul and Connie’s
14 Mar 99: UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN by Frances Mayes (Paul D.) at Tapeo in NW Portland [restaurant meeting]
10 Apr 99: MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA by Arthur Golden (Clara) at Clara’s
21 May 99: SILENCE by Shusaku Endo (Cari) at Cari’s
19 Jun 99: THE BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES OF 1998 (Connie) at Kris and J.D.’s
25 Jul 99: MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie (J.D.) at Paul and Connie’s
11 Aug 99: THE DEBT TO PLEASURE by John Lanchester (Kris) at Clara’s
18 Sep 99: THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE by Amit Goswami (Paul D.) at Kris and J.D.’s
16 Oct 99: THE DIAMOND AGE by Neal Stephenson (Clara) at Paul and Connie’s [with Andrew and Jenn’s arrival, group begins to recover]

13 Nov 99: STONES FROM THE RIVER by Ursula Hegi (Connie) at Kris and J.D.’s
18 Dec 99: STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein (Andrew) at Andrew and Clara’s
22 Jan 00: THE MILL ON THE FLOSS by George Eliot (J.D.) at Jeremy and Jenn’s
13 Feb 00: THE READER by Bernhard Schlink (Jenn) at Paul and Connie’s
26 Mar 00: REBECCA by Daphne DuMaurier (group) at Andrew and Clara’s [murder mystery costume party]
16 Apr 00: COMING OF AGE IN THE MILKY WAY by Timothy Ferris (Kris) at Kris and J.D.’s
13 May 00: THE CIDER HOUSE RULES by John Irving (Jeremy) at Jeremy and Jenn’s
11 Jun 00: THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS by Arundhati Roy (Lisa) at Lisa’s
16 Jul 00: ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn (repeat, group) at Mac and Pam’s [Andrew, indignant, proclaims “you don’t have to explain the math to me!”]
26 Aug 00: HARRY POTTER series by J.K. Rowling (Clara) at Kris and J.D.’s
24 Sep 00: MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY trilogy by Nordhoff and Hall (Mac) at Paul and Connie’s
22 Oct 00: THE POISONWOOD BIBLE by Barbara Kingsolver (Connie) at Andrew and Clara’s

18 Nov 00: AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner (Andrew) at Kris and J.D.’s [Thanksgiving dinner]
16 Dec 00: THE SUGAR ISLAND by Ivonne Lamazares (Paul D.) at Mac and Pam’s
20 Jan 01: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING by Milan Kundera (J.D.) at Jeremy and Jenn’s
17 Feb 01: HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG by Andre Dubus III (Jenn) and Paul and Connie’s
10 Mar 01: LOLITA by Vladmir Nabokov (Pam) and Kris and J.D.’s
08 Apr 01: THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS by Ursula LeGuin (Kris) at Mac and Pam’s
19 May 01: PRELUDE TO FOUNDATION by Isaac Asimov (Jeremy) at Jeremy and Jenn’s
09 Jun 01: INTO THIN AIR by Jon Krakauer (Pam) at Kris and J.D.’s
07 Jul 01: ANIL’S GHOST by Michael Ondaatje (Coleen) at Mac and Pam’s
25 Aug 01: LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI by Mark Twain (J.D.) at Joe and Carol’s
16 Sep 01: THE LAST REPORT ON THE MIRACLE AT LITTLE NO-HORSE by Louse Erdrich (Jenn) at Jeremy and Jenn’s [emotional discussion of 9/11]
27 Oct 01: THE SPIRIT CATCHES YOU AND YOU FALL DOWN by Anne Fadiman (Carol) at Mary’s

17 Nov 01: CONTACT by Carl Sagan (Mac) at Kris and J.D.’s
15 Dec 01: ALL THE PRETTY HORSES by Cormac McCarthy (Mary) at Mac and Pam’s [Jenn vs. J.D. re: John Grady]
12 Jan 02: SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey (Joe) at Joe and Carol’s
09 Feb 02: PERFUME by Patrick Suskind (Kris) at Kris and J.D.’s
23 Mar 02: TITUS GROAN by Mervyn Peake (Joel) at Joel and Aimee’s
12 Apr 02: 1984 by George Orwell (Pam) at Mary’s
17 May 02: NINE PARTS OF DESIRE by Geraldine Brooks (Aimee) at Kris and J.D.’s?
22 Jun 02: ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner (J.D.) at Jeremy and Jennifer’s
20 Jul 02: COLD MOUNTAIN by Charles Frazier (repeat, group) at Joe and Carol’s
18 Aug 02: THINGS FALL APART by Chinua Achebe (Coleen) at Mac and Pam’s
20 Sep 02: A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY by John Irving (Jenn) at Mary’s
19 Oct 02: GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING by Tracy Chevalier (Carol) Kris and J.D.’s

23 Nov 02: MOBY DICK by Herman Melville (Mac) at Erin’s
15 Dec 02: THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles (Mary) at Joel and Aimee’s
10 Jan 03: THE BUTCHER BOY by Patrick McCabe (Erin) at Kris and J.D.’s [Erin’s ticket]
08 Feb 03: LIVES OF THE MONSTER DOGS by Kirsten Bakis (Kris) at Craig and Lisa’s
08 Mar 03: POST CAPTAIN by Patrick O’Brian (Joel) at Jeremy and Jenn’s
12 Apr 03: SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury (Aimee) at Mac and Pam’s
10 May 03: PASSAGE TO JUNEAU by Jonathan Raban (Craig) at Kris and J.D.’s
01 Jun 03: FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS by H.G. Bissinger (Pam) at Mary’s
18 Jul 03: SWANN’S WAY by Marcel Proust (J.D.) at Joel and Aimee’s
18 Aug 03: HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy by Phillip Pullman (Lisa L-B) at Craig and Lisa’s
20 Sep 03: TENDER AT THE BONE by Ruth Reichl (Jenn) at Jenn’s
18 Oct 03: WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams (group) at Kris and J.D.’s

16 Nov 03: ROBINSON CRUSOE by Daniel Defoe (Mac) at Mac’s
13 Dec 03: ASK THE DUST by John Fante (Mary) at Mary’s
24 Jan 04: DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by Alexander de Tocqueville (Kris) at Craig and Lisa’s
22 Feb 04: MAUS and MAUS II by Art Spiegelman (Joel) at Joel and Aimee’s [very emotional meeting]
21 Mar 04: EXPLAINING HITLER by Ron Rosenbaum (Aimee) at Kris and J.D.’s
18 Apr 04: AT SWIM-TWO-BIRDS by Flann O’Brien (Craig) at Mac’s
15 May 04: READING LOLITA IN TEHRAN by Azar Nafisi (Don) at Jenn’s
13 Jun 04: RED MARS by Kim Stanely Robinson (J.D.) at Mary’s
10 Jul 04: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (Lisa L-B) at Lisa and Craig’s
07 Aug 04: PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Jane Austen (Jenn) at Denise’s
19 Sep 04: CROSSING TO SAFETY by Wallace Stegner (Mac) at Kris and J.D.’s
16 Oct 04: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess (Denise) at Kim’s

13 Nov 04: BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh (Mary) at Lynn’s
11 Dec 04: MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather (Kim) at Jenn’s
15 Jan 05: A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT by Sebastian Japrisot (Kris) at Mary’s [movie field trip]
12 Feb 05: A PLACE OF MY OWN by Michael Pollan (Craig) at Craig and Lisa’s [our 100th meeting]
12 Mar 05: THE FARMING OF BONES by Edwidge Danticat (Lynn) at Kris and J.D.’s
16 Apr 05: THE EDUCATION OF HENRY ADAMS by Henry Adams (J.D.) at Courtney’s
15 May 05: SHIP FEVER by Andrea Barrett (Lisa) at Bernie and Kristi’s
11 Jun 05: THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP (Jenn) at Kris and J.D.’s
17 Jul 05: BEHIND THE SCENES AT THE MUSEUM by Kate Atkinson (Courtney) at Kim’s
12 Aug 05: NATIVE SON by Richard Wright (Bernie) at Jenn’s
10 Sep 05: THE CHOSEN by Chaim Potok (Naomi) at Jason and Naomi’s
08 Oct 05: WISE BLOOD by Flannery O’Connor (Jason) at Bernie and Kristi’s

12 Nov 05: AN EQUAL MUSIC by Vikram Seth (Kristi) at Craig and Lisa’s [Bach’s “Art of the Fugue”]
10 Dec 05: TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee (Tiffany) at Kris and J.D.’s
07 Jan 06: THE AWAKENING by Kate Chopin (Lisa) at Courtney’s
Feb 2006: Craig’s selection
Mar 2006: Kris’s selection
Apr 2006: Mary’s selection
May 2006: J.D.’s selection
Jun 2006: Jenn’s selection

Throughout most of the group’s history, I’ve taken rough notes on the meetings. At one time I planned to erect an elaborate web site featuring information on the books we discusses. I recognize now how anti-J.D. such a scheme is; it’s just too much work. The notes survive, however, and with them some funny quotes.

I’ve sifted through to cull those quotes that stand the test of time, those that have become part of the group’s shared culture (‘pure and noble’, ‘you don’t have to explain the math to me’), those that still make me laugh, and those that seem somewhat insightful. I’ve not transcribed the quotes that are too contextual or that now seem just seem blah.

Note that some people may find certain quotes offensive.

“Ty is pure and noble.” – J.D., evaluating A THOUSAND ACRES

“You don’t know a man when you marry him.” – Coleen
“You never know a man.” – Connie

“I think when we look outside of ourselves for leadership, that’s when we get led astray.” – Paul D., explaining religion

“People should be more like cats.” – Paul D.
“It’s too bad most people are like dogs.” – Kris

“THE PIANO is not believable, it’s just not believable.” – J.D.
“Oh, like BLADE RUNNER is…” – Kris

“It’s paint. It’s not art.” – Kris, on modern art

“Once again, you’re all wrong.” – Paul D.

“It’s in the best interest of the people who control our culture for people to be stupid.” – J.D., explaining why there aren’t more kids with critical thinking skills

“What if all of us were like Paul? We’d be stabbing each other all the time!” – Connie
“Sometimes I have a problem living with myself.” – Paul D.

“Is that important in the grand scheme of the universe? Is Kris Gates’ self-esteem important?” – Paul D.

“Men can be wrong three, four, five times in the time it takes a woman to be wrong once.” – Paul D.

“She must have a dwarf brain, too.” – Kris, on STONES FROM THE RIVER (which the group hated)

“Boredom cannot exist in a world of pure goodness.” – Paul D.

“If Jeremy gets discoprorated, it affects me and my child. [To Jeremy:] I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about the house payment.” – Jenn

“You can’t decide for people what’s best for them and what’s going to make them happy.” – Jenn

“Not making a choice is still a choice.” – Kris

“Well, you don’t call me imbalanced.” – Jeremy
“Yes we do.” – everyone else

“I guess I’m kind of a mutant. I love looking at atoms.” – Kris

“You know, let’s wipe out religions…we’ll all be fornicating in the trees again.” – Jeremy

“You don’t have to explain the math to me!” – Andrew, offended at Kris for explaining exponential growth

“What would the world be without suffering?” – Jenn
“It would be a world of men.” – J.D.

“I can put myself in the dumbass’s situation and sit back and say, ‘Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.'” – J.D.

“Hermione needs to be an interracial child…” – Clara
“But her parents are dentists! They will not intermarry.” – Kris, with an inexplicable explanation as to why this cannot be

“She’s got god in her life right now because she doesn’t have a man.” – Tiffany

“A man doesn’t know how hard his bed is if he doesn’t know what his neighbor’s sleeping on.” – Andrew, about poverty

“If you just kill off everybody but just one man…” – Jenn
“…then you’d have Utopia!” – Kris

“You know what, Connie? You and I read different books.” – J.D, in the argument over THE POISONWOOD BIBLE (which Connie loved but most others hated)

“I think there is no justification for marriage…” – Jeremy

“If I were sober, I could find the part about the cows.” – J.D.

“He had to die. When two cultures clash, what happens? Somebody dies.” – Paul D., on HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG

“You know what Jeremy’s grandfather says? ‘Women are like peaches — if you handle them too much, they spoil.'” – Jenn
“I thought you were going to say, ‘Deep inside them is a pit.'” – Paul D.

“I can’t speak for every culture…” – Jeremy
“Good thing, too!” – Mac

“It’s pretty amazing what those guys do with bicycles.” – Mac, about the Extreme Games

“That’s even more ignorant than Jeremy!” – Jenn to Mac, after Mac dissed blind mountain climbers

“You’re not as bitter as Kris.” – J.D., to Mary

“You’ve got the hijackers that think they’re going to heaven, and you’ve got the innocent people that think they’re going to heaven. So who’s really going to heaven?” – Carol, on 9/11
“You’ve got to have a heaven with HIGH walls in between.” – Kris

“My heart is hardened toward Kris.” – Jeremy

“I’m palming as fast as I can!” – Andrew, using his PDA

“He’s not in love — he’s got a hard-on.” – Jenn, about John Grady
“What’s the difference?” – J.D. (this exchange took place during a heated debate over John Grady’s Christ-like nature)

“I can’t read at night. I just fall asleep.” – Joe
“That’s because you’re old.” – Mac

“It’s an existentialist kind of song.” – Aimee, about “Goodnight Irene”

“It wasn’t stream of consciousness; it was like whitecap rapids of consciousness.” – Joel, on the beginning of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION

“It’s not even a city!” – Mac, about Portland

“You can make more kids.” – Duane’s explanation as to why a person should not feel guilt over the loss of a child

“What this world really needs is more hobbits.” – Jenn

“A large part of accepting is ignoring.” – Joel

“This was written at a time when most children were dead.” – Joel, on MOBY DICK

“You’re way smarter than a dolphin.” – Joel, to Kris

“I would not give our animals the ability to speak because that would just complicate our relationship. I don’t want them to pass judgment on me.” – Kris

“Anyone who is a fan of foul language and nude hot-tubbing is a friend of mine.” – Craig, about Jeremy

“Just because you believe something is right doesn’t make it so.” – Jeremy

“We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a capitalist theocracy.” – Kris

“If you destroy evil, then what is good?” – Mary

“I will go head-to-head with that motherfucker in an IQ contest and blow his ass off.” – Jeremy, regarding our President

“I’m scared of salmon.” – Lisa

“When I was a young girl, I read too much Jane Austen too soon.” – Aimee

“I’m more of a glutton than a connoisseur.” – Joel

“I didn’t even know food could be like that.” – Jenn, about her first creme brulée

“Fuck!” – Jeremy’s enthusiastic review of a raspberry tart

“You’re no pacifist.” – Joel, to Kris
“No? What am I?” – Kris
“A fucking warmonger.” – Joel

“I prefer the word ‘believes’ to the terms ‘buys into’.” – Jenn, to J.D. during a discussion about religion

“Even in our society, we judge people on what they wear.” – Aimee
“I think women have no idea how little men pay attention to what people wear.” – Joel, to murmurings of agreement from the other men
“Do you mean you wouldn’t notice if somebody here was wearing a bikini?” – Jenn
“I’d notice flesh.” – Joel, to murmurings of agreement from the other men

“The real value of literature is for people to discover themselves.” – Don

“When I think of married couples I know well, none of them have ever grown up to be happy.” – Don

“Isn’t any action a selfish action?” – Mary
“Aha! Mary here is being Joel.” – Kris

“Some people are very complicated to be friends with. I don’t want to work that hard at my friendships.” – Clara, about people who have rigid expectations

“One of the reviewers said it’s hard to believe this is a first novel. I don’t know. I found it very easy to believe.” – an unidentified member (possibly J.D. or Lisa), on BEHIND THE SCENES AT THE MUSEUM

“Is Jeremy angry a lot?” – Tiffany

“So it’s supposed to be a comic novel?” – Tiffany, on WISE BLOOD
“Yes.” – Craig
“I missed the funny part.” – Tiffany

The character of this group has changed several times over the past decade. After the recent additions, we’re still searching for an identity. Regardless, our meetings remain the highlight of my month. Book group is my church. I have never missed a meeting, and I hope I never will.

The Dewey Dumbcimal System

Have you ever wondered why it’s so difficult to find a book at the public library? Why you must use the card catalog or ask a librarian for assistance? I’ll tell you why: the frickin’ Dewey Decimal System.

I just spent four hours sorting a large portion of my non-fiction library in Dewey Decimal order, lightly printing the call number for every book on its back flyleaf. When a book’s title page did not list the call number, I looked it up in the local library system. I did this for about two hundred books. (I set aside another two hundred as not yet worth the effort, and didn’t even touch another four hundred volumes.)

This took time.

Lots of it.

I had supposed that ultimately all this work would be worthwhile because it would yield better organized books. I was wrong. Tomorrow after work I’m going to go home and undo the entire system and reshelve according to Roth Non-Decimal System.

Here are some examples of the craziness in Dewey:

  • For many books, there is no one set classification. For example, The Gutenberg Elegies may be classified under 028.9 (reading) or under 302.232 (social interaction). I admit that this makes sense in some cases, but under Dewey, the delineations are often bizarre.
  • Barack Obama’s memoir is filed under 973.4 (general history of North America – United States). It’s an autobiography; shouldn’t it be under 921? Elspeth’s Huxley’s semi-fictional account of growing up in Kenya is classed in 921, as one might expect, but Alexandra Fuller’s recent book about growing up in southern Africa is shelved at 968.91 (general history of Africa – southern Africa). These books are nearly identical except for the time periods in which they occur. They’re both autobiographies. Why aren’t all three of these books in 921?
  • Hiking Oregon is 796.51, which makes sense; 796 is “athletic & outdoor sports & games”. However, Into Thin Air is 796.52, which does not make sense. (Into Thin Air is about disaster while climbing Everest.) Oregon’s Best Wildflower Hikes is 582.13 for spermatophyta (seed-bearing plants), which makes a tiny bit of sense (but only a tiny bit). The book is about hiking, not about wildflowers. It ought to be shelved next to Hiking Oregon, and Into Thin Air ought to be shelved someplace near The Worst Journey in the World, another book about a disastrous expedition.
  • John Muir’s Travels in Alaska is filed under 979.8 (general history of North America – Great Basin & Pacific Slope), but Into the Wild and One Man’s Wilderness are filed under 917.48 (North America).
  • The Lifetime Reading Plan, a reading guide to the literary canon, is shelved at 011.7 (bibliographies), but An Invitation to the Classics, a Christian reading guide to the literary canon, is shelved at 809 (literary history and criticism). Other reading guides to the literary canon are shelved elsewhere.
  • Gardening books are strewn about through all sorts of classifications so that I cannot even begin to decipher a rhyme or reason. Some are in applied science, some are in natural science, and some are in social science. Some are in art! If I were organizing them, they’d all be together under — and this might be a shocker — gardening.

Admittedly, what makes sense for a home library might not make for a large institutional library. Still, I get the distinct impression that the Dewey Decimal system has long outlived its usefulness and ought to be quietly put down. (I had four years of exposure to the Library of Congress system during college, but don’t know it well enough to be able to state whether it would be any better than Dewey for my purposes.)

It’s a sad state of affairs when I can walk into Borders and find the book I want — without assistance — in less than a minute, yet if I were to try the same thing at my small local public library, I’d have to walk up and down every aisle and I still might miss my subject. Even at Powell’s, the “city of books”, where there are gigantic rooms filled with thousands of volumes, I can generally find what I want quickly.

This seems like a good place to voice another library complaint. Over the past year, as I’ve begun to use the library more, I’ve noticed that each branch in the Clackamas County Library system has its own method of organizing non-book media. This makes it frustrating to locate things.

For example, several of the libraries stock graphic novels (glorified comic books). At most branches, graphic novels are organized by title, so that all Superman graphic novels are together under S, for example. In Milwaukie, however, they sort the graphic novels by author. This is insanely stupid. It is rare that a comic book carries a single author for more than a couple of years. If I want to borrow a bunch of X-Men comics from Milwaukie, I have to look under each individual writer’s name, if I can even remember them. Note that none of these are filed under X, where one might reasonably expect to find X-Men.

Most libraries display their compact discs end-on, so that it is easy to view a large number of them quickly during a search. Not the Oak Grove branch. The Oak Grove branch forces you to flip through drawers full of CDs. Worse, instead of filing them alphabetically by artist name in broad genre classifications, they sort the CDs by Dewey Decimal order! Does a Maria Callas opera compilation come before or after Beethoven’s complete symphonies? And why is Dawn Upshaw’s “Because I Wish It So” collection of popular songs filed nearby? Who knows? You have to flip through a drawer full of CDs (or maybe two drawers full) in order to find out. It’s maddening.

Autumn Weekend

We’ve had odd weather around Portland this year, so it’s something of a relief to be experiencing a typical autumn. In the spring, we had a bizarre warm spell from February 15th to March 15th, followed by miserable damp weather for months. Our summer was unusually placid and a little cool. (Did we have a single 100-degree day?) Our autumn has been typical, though, with an plenty of light rain.

Kris and I are pleased to be on a piece of property with an abundance of trees. It’s a pleasure to watch the leaves change color day-by-day. Every morning, Kris looks out the window at the top of the stairs, reveling in the bright orange and red of the maples. She also likes our oak. She called me at work yesterday to tell me how beautiful it was, framed against the blue sky.

We spent all of Friday afternoon outside, working in the yard. With a lawn this large, it is of utmost importance that I snag any available mowing days in the fall. At the Canby house, I could do a rush job on moderately wet grass. That’s not an option here.

As we worked, we chatted with the neighbors. Curt and I held a conference over the fence, discussing yard work, remodeling, and dogs. While I was cleaning out my car, Tom wandered over from next door to talk about grapes, rototillers, and old photography magazines. (Tom has some 1940s photography magazines that he’s going to give me. Also, we recently purchased Mike and Rhonda’s 8-hp rototiller; I can’t wait to put its counterrotating tines to work!)

I spent this morning and afternoon with my friend Mitch, and his children, Brandon and Zoe (aged 13 and 10, respectively). It was interesting to see a pair of kids who are about five years older than any of the children with whom I have regular contact. “When do kids get self-sufficient?” I often ask my friends. “When do they demand less of your time, become able to do things on their own without your constant attention?” The answer seems to be: someplace between ten and thirteen (though I’m sure it depends on the kid).

In the morning, I took Mitch and his kids to the annual Multnomah County Library book sale. They seemed genuinely shocked at the sheer number of books. I’ve had three years to grow accustomed to the shock, and, in fact, have developed something of a routine.

I rifled through the “pamphlets” first (only twenty-five cents each!). There were some real gems to be had here:

  • Amish Portrait and Pictorial Oaxaca, both of which are photo-essays on their topics
  • Strawberries: King of the Fruits, a detailed guide to raising strawberries (best advice: to control weeds, keep a flock of geese)
  • The Cub Scout Songbook
  • Tales of French Love and Passion
  • The Step-By-Step Guide Book to Home Wiring, which may be out of date but how can you refuse at twenty-five cents?
  • The Lesbian Relationship Handbook
  • Livin’ in Doom Town: A History of Albina Gentrification, a bitter polemic regarding recent Portland history
  • The Copyright Primer for Librarians and Educators
  • Cliff’s Notes for Paradise Lost, Beowulf, and The Odyssey, all of which are works that could use a little explanation…
  • The real find were a collection of a couple dozen opera-related items, most of which were the large booklets from old vinyl record sets.

The pamphlet section is always crowded, and people jostle for position without regard to traditional etiquette. Last year and this, I’ve had the misfortune to stand next to pungent men while sorting through the pamphlets. I probably missed some good ones in my hurry to get to fresh air.

This year, I didn’t buy as many books as in the past. I’m trying to exercise fiscal responsibility. I did come home with four lovely large hard-bound volumes on various topics: Stephen Foster (who wrote “O Susanna!” and “Camptown Races”, among other songs), the American Revolution, and the great operas.

After the book sale, we returned to Mitch’s apartment, where I played Magic: The Gathering with Brandon. All four of us then played The Game of Life, which Zoe gleefully won by a large margin.

In the evening, we drove to McMinnville for a nice dinner with the Hamptons and the Bacon-Flicks. We get together with these old college friends about twice a year now. (At one time, Chris and Cari were our best couple friend: we did a lot with them in the years after we graduated from Willamette.) Michael and Laura live in a beautiful old house. They talked about how much they love McMinnville, how much it feels like prototypical small-town America. Cari and Chris talked about how much they love their jobs. Again, it was fun to see children beyond those we normally encounter. Kaden and Ethan are polite, intelligent little boys. Their earnest natures amused me.

Tomorrow we’ll drive down to see Jeremy and Jennifer. Rumor has it we’re heading to a pumpkin patch. I’ll be sure to take my camera.

The Problem With Science Fiction

Over at AskMetafilter, TiredStarling says:

SciFiLit: I don’t get it. Help me. I read Stranger in a Strange Land about 30 years ago and was almost enjoying it until the second half came along with — it seemed to this callow youth — a heavy-handed Saviour/Redeemer allegory. Stanislav Lem’s Return from the Stars was kinda fun in small doses. Brave New World and 1984 were good but obviously of their time. Vonnegut had his moments. The Stainless Steel Rat was just plain nuts. A few months back I tried once again to get into the genre with Red Mars. I struggled through 100 pages, but while it was interesting in a “gee whizz – a synthetic bubble to keep the atmosphere in!” kind of way, I found I just did not care about the people. The characterizations were ludicrously one-dimensional; I’ll take Fleming’s James Bond any day if I want one-dimensional characters. What SciFi books have the all-important trinity of rollicking story, fascinating technical detail, and characters I want to cry over?

In twenty-four hours, this question received seventy responses, but none that really answered the question. Why not?

Maybe there aren’t any science fiction books that meet TiredStarling’s requirements. There are science fiction books with great stories; there are science fiction books filled with fascinating details; there are science fiction books featuring great characters (generally “social scifi”); there are even many books that combine two of the three elements; but all three at once? A holy grail, indeed.

Grumblebee observed:

If you aren’t a SF fan, but love good literature in general, you generally won’t get very far asking the average SF fan to recommend books for you.

SF fans have different criteria for what makes a good book than general readers. As they should. They are SF fans. So their starting point is that the book must be SF. They love SF so much that, though many of them don’t like bad writing, they will forgive bad writing if they have to — if bad writing is the only sort of SF writing they can find. The bottom line is, good or bad, they want to read SF.

And many SF fans pretty much only read SF, so they can’t really compare it to anything else. They can only tell you what’s good from within that world.

I’ve had similar problems when asking people to recommend graphic novels. When I say that I want to read a good graphic novel, I mean good when compared to a story by John Cheever or a movie by Martin Scorsese. I don’t mean good as compared to Spiderman. I don’t mean that I expect a comic book to be like a movie or a novel. I mean that regardless of the genre, I expect the same level of workmanship and quality. And I’m continually disappointed.

I can’t seem to find the Jane Austen of SF. When I ask SF fans to recommend good novels, they generally take “good” to mean better than the crap with the bug-eyed monsters and the ray guns. But that’s not good enough. Where is the SF equivalent to Shakespeare?

I have a need for SF, because I like other worlds, but I need it to be GREAT. I need really really good writing (style), I need expert plots, I need realistic dialogue, I need characters that I fall in love with. There are exceptions, of course, but most of the people who are best at this sort of writing aren’t writing SF.

I, too, have friends who love science fiction and fantasy to such an extent that they rarely read anything else. I know this shouldn’t bother me, but it does. Having tasted of the Tree of Knowledge, I can see their nakedness, and I am ashamed. Still, it does no good to proselytize; that only turns them from the Truth.

Where are the literate science fiction authors? Where are the great works? To compare Isaac Asimov with Charles Dickens is laughable. Can anyone measure up? I think there are a few science fiction and fantasy authors (and novels) that will stand the test of time, including:

  • Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings — the most literate work of the fantastic I know, and a classic in any genre.
  • The major works of Ursula LeGuin: The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed.
  • Frank Herbert’s Dune.
  • The original novel Planet of the Apes, an underrated work.
  • Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, a fantastic work of magical realism. Most people would consider it straight literature rather than fantasy, though.
  • Believe it or not, Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, published last year, may stand the test of time. It’s not without flaws, but it’s certainly literate.

Parts of Dan Simmons’ Hyperion and David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas are great — both books comprise shorter stories bound by a narrative whole. Some of these individual stories meet my requirements for good literature.

Whereas I find even the best science fiction novels struggle to hold its own with mainstream literature, short science fiction can be extremely powerful. Something about the short story form forces scifi authors to stay on task, forgo the extraneous stuff, build tight character-driven stories. (Obviously this isn’t always the case, but it’s easier to find great scifi short stories than great scifi novels.)

Anthologies of Nebula- and Hugo-award winning stories offer an excellent introduction to the genre, as do anthologies from well-respected editors. For some reason, I’m drawn to a series put out by Daw Books in the seventies called The 197_ Annual World’s Best SF. My favorite volume (1979) has stories like “Come to the Party” by Frank Herbert and F.M. Busby, “Creator” by David Lake, the marvelous “The Persistence of Vision” by John Varley, and the even-more-marvelous “We Who Stole the Dream” by James Tiptree, Jr. The latter is beautiful, one of the best scifi stories I’ve ever read.

It is my opinion that the best authors in any genre are those who have read widely themselves and who have a thorough education. These people produce the most engaging, most deeply resonant fiction. They’re able to incorporate their knowledge and experience into what they write, both directly (via allusions large and small, for example) and indirectly (via mimicked writing styles, for example). There just don’t seem to be many science fiction authors who are well-read.

Perhaps I’m wrong. I don’t know. I only wish there were more literate science fiction for me to enjoy.

Comments

On 11 July 2005 (09:16 AM),
Dave said:

The original post that you cite laments the writers opinion that very few SF books have characters in them to which the writer can connect. That’s a personal taste thing and if he doesn’t connect with those books, then he’s not going to connect with them. Read something else. On the other hand, he’s covered a fairly wide set of styles (from Harry Harrison, who I consider to be very easy and light stylistically, to Lem, which is very different). It’s possible that SF just isn’t the genre for him; that the situations are just so improbable that he can’t suspend his disbelief and connect to the book.

You take that a different direction and ask about why SF doesn’t seem to be literature, or why it doesn’t seem more “literary”.

First, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges in the Asimov to Dickens comparison. Can you compare the Illiad to Iron Maiden’s version of “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner”? Of course you can. Can you do it favorably? Not to Iron Maiden’s version. The two things, while both are written, both are in verse, and both are (eventually translated into) English, they’re as dissimilar as two dissimilar things in a pod. Style-wise they’re different, and most importantly, audience-wise they’re different. They’re written for different audiences at completely different times with different concerns and different standards.

Second, I disagree that Dickens, while definitely considered “literature”, is terribly engaging for the majority of the population (dumb Americans, English, Canadians, Brazilians or whatever). Like Proust. Sure, it’s “literature”, but have as many people read Jean Santeuil as have read “I, Robot”?

Which leads me to my third point. Our definition of what consitutes “literature” seems to be antithetical to what we would consider to be entertaining. Most people who write SF probably do so to sell books and make money. Did Dickens write for filthy lucre, or did he write to make a point about the living conditions of the poor? I know which one my English teacher told me about. How about Asimov? Did he write to illustrate the plight of the poverty stricken robot? No, and although he may have been trying to make a point along the way, my best guess is that he wanted to make some bucks.

But lets take another example, Edgar Allen Poe. Poe wrote for money. Poe is considered by some to be at the beginning of the modern age of speculative fiction. His works are considered classics. Do I “connect” with the main character of “The Fall of the House of Usher” or believe that he’s anything more than one-dimensional? Of course not. But it’s considered “literature”.

How about something like the original Sherlock Holmes books? Classics? Probably. Literature? Maybe, maybe not. They’re common. Written for the comman man (and woman). They’re meant to be popular and meant to be sold. Do I connect with the characters? Sometimes, although at this point with the mythology that’s grown up around the Holmes stories it’s sometimes hard to tell. Are there SF books that are written at least as well? Absolutely. I’d say that Harry Harrison and Roger Zelazny’s books are both very similar to Doyle’s books in that they’re both written for a common audience and meant to be popular. Are Harrison and Zelazny’s books considered literature? Not right now, but maybe in 50 years they might be.

As for me, do I pretend that SF is incredibly deep? Hardly. For me, a SF book is no different than any other popularly published work of fiction except that it’s got a speculative/science wanna-be setting. Do I read things other than SF/Fantasy? Of course, but not as often and then it’s mostly non-fiction of some type. It’s like watching lawyer shows on TV. I don’t do it. I get enough of lawyers at work, so I can skip the Grisham novels. I get enough of nutty people at work, so I can skip most of the books on the “Oprah list”. I get enough poverty at work. So I can skip Dickens.

I get enough of real life during my real life. I don’t need to read about it, too.


On 11 July 2005 (01:41 PM),
J.D. said:

Grumblebee has expanded his thoughts into a weblog entry, too. I’ll post a proper response to Dave later today.



On 11 July 2005 (02:10 PM),
grumblebee said:

Thanks for linking to me J.D.

I wanted to respond to Dave. Truthfully, these discussions are so subjective, it’s hard to say too much and be taken seriously. I can say novel X is bad; you can say it’s good. Where do we go from there? Nowhere. We can trot our our reasons, but untimately, by my reconning, a novel is good if you enjoy it. Since we all enjoy different novels, “good” is a relative/fuzzy word.

Having said that, I think SF is a somewhat special case. There are other genre novels — non SF novels — that don’t have the same problems. For instance, historical novels and mysteries. Of course there are plenty of bad ones, but the really good mystery writers are as-good-as the really good “literary” writers.

John Updike and P.D. James can rest much more easily on the same shelf than can John Updike and Robert Heinline. MANY people consider Patrick O’Brian, who writes sea adventures, to be both a great genre writer and just a plain old great writer.

I think if a genre writer is really great, he becomes beloved by both the genre fans and the general readers. This may be the best acid test we have. For instance, my wife doesn’t like fantasy, but she enjoyed reading “Lord of the Rings.” This says something about Tolkien. (I don’t think Tolkien is a genius, but I think his writing is better than the norm.)

So there are many mysteries that I know I could share with non-mystery fans. And I know these non-mystery fans would enjoy them. They are good books first and good mysteries second. But I know of very few SF or fantasy novels like this.

Why? Well, most of the SF writers simply aren’t good prose stylists. This must be because the publishers realize that SF fans, in general, don’t care about style. So they don’t look for authors who really know how to use language in an evocative way. Same goes for characterization.

This is sad, because a good writer COULD write an SF story that would satisfy both the SF fans and the general reader. I’m sure the SF fans wouldn’t be turned OFF by good writing. They are just willing to tolerate bad writing in order to get their robot fix.

And with some notable exceptions, the really fine stylists — and the really crackerjack observers of the human comedy — are not interested in writing SF (though many do try their hands at mystery and history). They probably shy away from SF because THEY have read some and disliked it. They just assume SF is bad.

I’ve heard so many people say that they HATE Science Fiction. But when you ask them why, they can’t really articualte their reasons. At best, they say that they’re interested in people, not space ships and robots. But SF is full of people. And the robots are generally people-like. So that can’t be the reason. And it’s not because SF is about alien worlds. These same SF-haters love reading novels set in 18th-Century Venice, which is just as alien as anything in Tolkien.

They must hate SF because they’ve never read well-written SF. They assume the problem is with the genre. It isn’t. The problem is with the writers/publishers.



On 11 July 2005 (06:06 PM),
Dave said:

Well, crappy writing is just crappy writing. You can’t get around that no matter what genre you’re reading. The difference, however, is that with historical fiction, mystery fiction or modern fiction a context already exists for what the author is creating. That pre-existing set of assumptions and descriptions that we already carry around because of our every day experiences let many authors (including the good ones) off the hook on some things. For example, we all know what a car is, or a horse drawn carriage. If I’m writing a story and I say the main character drove a 1978 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, many in the audience don’t need that described to them, they already know what it looks like. On the other hand, saying that it was a 2065 Nipponwerks hover bike, what the hell does that look like?

The point is that trying to describe something totally foreign will be much harder than something we’re already familiar with. As a result, the completely foreign description is going point out weaknesses in the author’s style. It’s just a harder job to do. Add into that mix that SF writers are sometimes dealing with new concepts as well and the job gets that much harder.

That said, I’m not arguing that most of the SF that’s produced nowadays isn’t produced by hacks. from a formula. It probably is. And good writers are good writers, period. If you’re not a good writer, having a formula isn’t going to help you much.

If your question is truly “Where is the Jane Austin or Shakespeare of SF?”, then I’d suggest Heinlein, Clark, or Asimov. Perhaps that’s not your cup of tea, but if you asked most people to read Shakespeare without telling them what it was and then asked whether it was “good writing”, they’d probably say “no”, but for the fact that we’ve been taught and told that Shakespeare is good writing. Do most people “connect” with Shakespeare? No- he’s hard to read, obtuse, and filled with references that most people don’t (and won’t) get.

If you’re looking for something more modern, I’d try David Weber’s books. They’re generally decently written with plenty of depth, good character development and they’re examples of good stories that happen to be set in “science fiction” settings. I’m not saying that he’s the best around, but just that they’re enjoyable to read and if you want to look for a deeper meaning, there’s enough of that to keep you busy as well.



On 12 July 2005 (10:37 AM),
J.D. said:

This started as a direct point-by-point response to Dave’s comments, but eventually morphed into something more freeform.

****************************************

“And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?” — Plato

Dave, have you ever read Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? (The link leads to a free on-line text of the “novel”.) It’s a prolonged philosophical discussion of the metaphysics of Quality.

Quality — you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better than others — but what’s the “betterness”? — So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?

A lot of science fiction exists in an insular world, with no contact with reality. You say you don’t want any more real life because you deal with real life all the time. I put it to you that books (and other forms of art) have the ability, through their Quality, to transform the way you interact with the real world, change your point of view, enrich your experience. If a book isn’t doing that, it’s wasting your time. (Sometimes it’s okay to waste your time. Entertainment is fine if you truly just want to take a break, but entertainment is nothing more than treading water in life. Entertainment does not help you grow.)

Dave, you admit that “crappy writing is crappy writing” no matter the genre. This is true. However, you seem willing to grant a pass to science fiction authors because they have to create the fabric of their own worlds while writers in other genres, according to you, are able to construct their fiction around an existing framework. I think this argument lacks merit.

All writers must construct the framework for their fictional universe from whole cloth. It is true that writers are able to borrow elements from reality to serve as props, but even science fiction writers do that. And the source of this framework, and its believability, has little to do with the Quality of the writing. Ursula LeGuin writes beautiful prose, prose that would be considered wonderful no matter in which genre it appeared. LeGuin happens to write science fiction, and I would argue she’s one of the few in the genre who have ever produced work of literary merit. (And when I say “literary merit”, I mean Quality.)

You suggest that Heinlein, Clarke, or Asimov might be considered the Shakespeare of science fiction. I disagree. Asimov and Heinlein wrote prolificly but poorly. (I haven’t read enough Clarke to pass judgment.) Sure, these authors have produced some fine stories, but good writing is more than just an engaging story. Good writing requires believable characters with which the reader can identify. (And contrary to your contention, this is not entirely subjective.) Good writing requires technical proficiency. Good writing requires the ability to draw meaning from complex threads of plot. Asimov certainly doesn’t possess these attributes. Nor does Heinlein. It’s my contention that few authors of fantasy and science fiction have demonstrated these abilities, probably fewer authors than in most other genres. (Again I’ll note that, for whatever reason, nautical fiction is an example of the opposite: these authors seem almost universally to be able to produce Quality writing.)

You’re right that evaluating art involves a substantial subjective element. If that’s all that evaluating art entailed, there would be no canon of literature. There would be no Great Masters of art. There would be no highly revered composers of classical music. How could there be? If evaluating the fruits of the creative process are purely a subjective matter, then any attempt to ascribe merit to one piece and not another is merely arbitrary. Do you think that the literary canon was constructed arbitrarily?

The truth is, there are objective measures to art, too. There are defined and accepted methods used to construct a piece. (The standard introduction, rising action, climax, denouement, resolution structure of most literature, for example.) There are recognized elements of beauty. (The golden ratio is used in the visual arts, for example.) Certain sculptors display a deft touch, producing masterpieces that take ones breath away. Yet, if art is only subjective, the work of these masters cannot be said to be any better than the feeble stuff I could produce.

What sets the work of great artists apart is Quality.

You also argue that literature is not entertaining, that Shakespeare and Dickens are vestiges of the past. Here is where I most strongly disagree with you. You said:

Most people who write SF probably do so to sell books and make money. Did Dickens write for filthy lucre, or did he write to make a point about the living conditions of the poor?

Dickens wrote for money, and he was damned successful at it. Dickens was immensely popular (from the Wikipedia: “The popularity of his novels and short stories during his lifetime and to the present is demonstrated by the fact that none of his novels has ever gone out of print.”), the David Sedaris of his day. Just as Conan Doyle, just as Michael Crichton, Charles Dickens wrote for the common man. People loved his work, and many still do.

In fact, the literature that survives was largely (though not always) written for mass consumption. Even the literature that does well today is written for mass consumption. (The literature that is not written for mass consumption, generally written by English professors and serious writers, mostly does poorly, and will be even more forgotten than Asimov and Heinlein in a hundred years. It may be well-written, but it’s dense and inaccessible.)

In our discussion of War of the Worlds, you said:

You don’t find the “stereotypical prosaic Victorian language” in Dickens and Thackery because you’ve been inculcated into the Victorian book lovers cult. Dickens and Thackery are loaded with stereotypical prosaic Victorian language and unreservedly dedicated to putting the reader into a mildly catatonic state in which you are lulled into thinking that there must be some merit to the writing because no one wants to admit that they haven’t ever made it all the way through the books without falling asleep. After all, they’re “the classics”; everyone says so. Ergo, they must be good.

I don’t know to what degree you’re being facetious in that statement, which I’ve heard you make many times over the past year. When you argue this, and proceed with your mocking of Vanity Fair (for example), I just clam up because there’s no point in arguing. (Leaving aside the fact that I lack your confidence and skill at debate!) Your parody of Thackeray’s style misses the mark (though perhaps you just mean it as a general parody of Victorian prose).

I don’t know when you last read Dickens. Or Thackeray. Or Austen. Trust me: those of us who love this writing have not been inculcated, we are not catatonic, we have not been lulled into anything. We do not believe these books are great simply because we think they should be. These books are great. They’re Quality. Vanity Fair for example, possesses one of the best narrative voices I’ve ever encountered, witty and urbane, self-deprecating and insightful. The book is hilarious. Other people must love it, too; it’s been made into nine films during the past century, including last year’s unsuccessful version. (Why was it unsuccessful? It lacked the Quality of the original.)

These works of classic fiction are entertaining, engaging, and enlightening in a way that science fiction is not. What I’m asking for is science fiction that matches the quality of the classics. It is possible; Tolkien achieved it, LeGuin comes close, and many of the various scifi short stories are equal to their literary counterparts.

Maybe a better way for us to approach the subject is to ask, “Why isn’t other speculative fiction as good as Tolkien?” or “Why aren’t science fiction novels of the same Quality as science fiction short stories?”

For me, a SF book is no different than any other popularly published work of fiction except that it’s got a speculative/science wanna-be setting.

I agree with this in principle, but my argument is that the Quality of science fiction tends to below that of other genres, and especially below that of literary fiction. I approach each new scifi book with the same expectations as I approach any other book. The difference is, science fiction is more likely to disappoint me with lame sentences like: “There were a few other persons taking advantage of the park all wearing light hats, some quite small.”

When I read science fiction, I want to experience the same sense of awe and wonder that I experience when reading Willa Cather or Wallace Stegner or Jane Austen, and especially Marcel Proust. (I use Proust as a sort of running joke in this weblog, but really: I love his work. He may be my favorite author. His prose is dense, but it’s rich and rewarding, filled with lovely turns of phrase and keen insight into the human condition. Unlike, say, Stranger in a Strange Land.)

I want science fiction of Quality.

(I should note that I’m pleased that two of my favorite books from the past year are works of speculative fiction: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and Cloud Atlas are both works of Quality, and at least the former will likely be read even a century from now. The latter may be, as well.)

****************************************

I’m sort of burned out on this by now, but I’ll make some quick notes regarding grumblebee’s comments:

I think if a genre writer is really great, he becomes beloved by both the genre fans and the general readers. This may be the best acid test we have.

I think this is absolutely correct. Again, I’ll use Ursula LeGuin as an example. Her The Dispossessed and Left Hand of Darkness both won the two major science fiction writing awards, both are well-loved by science fiction fans, and both are met with enthusiasm by regular folks who read them. They’re well-written novels dense with ideas, populated by characters the reader can care about. (I think of Shevek often. The relationship between Genly Ai and Estraven is poignant.)

Grumblebee also writes:

Most of the SF writers simply aren’t good prose stylists. This must be because the publishers realize that SF fans, in general, don’t care about style. So they don’t look for authors who really know how to use language in an evocative way. Same goes for characterization.

Again, I agree with this. I recently had a conversation with a fellow I consider to be a typical science fiction fan: geeky, moderately intelligent, slavishly devoted to the genre. We were discussing various movies and books. Time and again, he raved about how “cool” something looked or how “awesome” a particular villain was. He never once commented about the Quality of writing (or filmmaking), or about the themes and ideas expressed in the various works in question. What was important to him was how neat the gadgets were, the atmosphere the story created, how powerful the heroes and villains were. Because he doesn’t care about Quality science fiction, he doesn’t get Quality science fiction. And neither do I.

****************************************

I’m not sure why I haven’t remembered it until now, but the course materials for the study of science fiction is an excellent starting point in the quest for Quality science fiction.


On 12 July 2005 (12:58 PM),
Joel said:

I’d add Margaret Atwood to the list of Quality- scifi-genre-cross-over artists. She doesn’t write exclusively scifi, but I think her scifi work (The Handmaid’s Tale, Oryx and Crake) is her most successful work.

I would submit that the big problem with scifi is the subordination of good storytelling to good ideas. The best part of so many scifi novels, especially the old masters like Asimov and Clarke is the central idea that they discover and explore. Their characters, their prose, and their plots serve merely to keep the exploration humping along. If you like the idea enough, you don’t care if the writing is execrable.

Then again, a lot (but not all) of good literature is thesis-driven. Which is to say that the characters, prose, and plots serve mainly to explore some Theme. How is this different than scifi’s slavishness to the Gee-Whiz Idea? I’m not sure, maybe they’re the same and I’m playing a semantic game, but to me they do seem different.



On 12 July 2005 (01:38 PM),
Dave said:

Let’s deal with the Victorians first. I do think that there’s a cult-like following for many of the Victorian authors. In our past conversations you’ve given the example of those who eat sushi and those who do not. Those who do are constantly trying to convince those who do not that eating sushi is a great thing. “Everyone should try eating sushi, you don’t know what you’re missing.” is the common refrain. There’s also a slightly effete snobbery that goes with eating sushi. You’re either in the group or your not. It’s trendy to eat sushi, so many people do regardless of whether they want to or not. Those of us who love sushi have not been inculcated, however, we are not catatonic, we have not been lulled into anything. We do not believe these little bits of fish and rice are great simply because we think they should be. It’s great food because it’s great food.

Many folks, however, won’t eat sushi. Maybe its a texture thing. Maybe its the thought of eating something that’s raw. But the cult of the sushi lovers won’t give up on you, they’ll keep trying. The same thing is true of the Victorian lovers. We’ve been told for years that Victorian writing is good writing. Some people no doubt truly love the stuff. Not me. If nothing else the sheer volume of redundant and pointless prose is needlessly tiring.

About six months ago I started reading Vanity Fair. Yes, it has it’s witty bits, yes that Becky is a fiendishly clever witch and after the first chapter or two I wondered why we hadn’t made it out of the damn school. Yes, yes, we’ve established that Becky is self serving, jealous, blah, blah, blah. I really don’t need to be told that 27 different ways. Move it along, sister!

Maybe it’s a texture thing for me. Maybe I don’t like the fact that the sheer volume of the prose gets in the way of the point of the prose. I might be able to connect with the material, but why bother? Answer: Everone says that it’s so good, you don’t know what you’re missing. My point, however, is that, much like the sushi cult, the Victorian cult continues to press and press and press. But is it good?

That depends on what you mean by “good”. For most people, garlic is good. For me, it’s toxic. For most people, green beans are good. For JD, they’re an abomination. To me sushi is good. To JD, it’s gross. Point being what is “good” depends on your point of view. There’s also a standard within each genre, however. Take wine, for example. I’ve had $250 bottle of wine that were really good. Was it better than a $25 bottle? By some standards, perhaps. Which would I rather drink consistently? Sometimes its the $250 bottle, other times it’s the $25 bottle. But the fact that one costs $250 says that it’s a better bottle of wine than the $25 bottle. There’s some standard out there by which it’s judged. The real question that we’re talking about, however, is whether the $250 bottle of wine is better than an $80 bottle of scotch. The answer to that depends on whether you prefer wine or scotch.

JD, you say

I put it to you that books (and other forms of art) have the ability, through their Quality, to transform the way you interact with the real world, change your point of view, enrich your experience. If a book isn’t doing that, it’s wasting your time.

Although I don’t disagree that books can have the ability to transform your real world interactions, etc., I do disagree that if if you’re not doing that you’re wasting your time. This is somewhat akin to arguing that the purpose of sex is to procreate and if you’re having sex for another reason you’re wasting your time. But it also ignores an important point. If the medium interferes with the message, then the message is worthless. If Thackery had a point to get to later in Vanity Fair, then he killed any chance of my getting to it. Not because I couldn’t get to it, but because I didn’t care enough to bother getting to it because the sheer drudgery of the task put me off. If I wanted turgid and slow but earth shaking in it’s possibilities, I’d read Newton’s Principia.

Nor am I giving SF writers a pass regarding the creating a world v. getting one pre-made. My point is that because there are fewer “givens” (in some instances they’re simply making up entirely new laws of physics, for example) in many SF books, the flaws in that author’s writing and style are going to be more apparent. If they’re poor writers then SF has the propensity to accentuate that.

As you point out, there is subjectivity to the measurement of “greatness”, whether it’s in art, literature, music, etc. I disagree with your assertion, however, that there is an objectivity to it. Simply because a majority of people agree that something is “good” and have set that thing as the standard doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s an objectivity to it, it simply means that a normative value, relative to other things, has been labelled. It’s like the $250 bottle of wine. It may well be vinegar in the bottle, but because it’s $250, then it must be better. Everything else bends around that. Please note that this means that George Bush would be considered “great” because a majority of people voted for him.

If there is an objective standard to a great piece of literature, then what is it? How can I know when I sit down to write something, whether it will be judged as a great piece of literature or a hack piece suitable for publication nowhere? Hmmm. Complete sentences? Probably. Oh, wait, then there’s James Joyce. So maybe not complete sentences. How about spelling? Oh, wait, Shakespeare spelled things differently than we do. So maybe not proper spelling. What about the length of the piece? Does it have to be a certain length to be “great”? Maximum length? Whether it “stands the test of time”? How long would that be? 50 years, 100 years, 250 years or more? Well, if that’s the case then maybe Vanity Fair isn’t good literature. Or maybe we haven’t had enough time to adequately judge Heinlein or Asimov. What does it mean to “stand” the test of time? What is the test of time?

And yes, I think the literary canon was constructed arbitrarily. Can you point to a single objective criterion that was used to construct the canon? Those things are in the canon because enough people with the right connections/accredations/shouting power said they should be there. Most of these folks were probably academics (not that there’s anything wrong with that) whose livelihood depends on having a canon to teach. But admitting that there’s no objective criteria would be like admitting that the emperor has no clothes. They system depends on the assertion and assumption that there are objective criteria.

These works of classic fiction are entertaining, engaging, and enlightening in a way that science fiction is not. What I’m asking for is science fiction that matches the quality of the classics. It is possible; Tolkien achieved it, LeGuin comes close, and many of the various scifi short stories are equal to their literary counterparts.

I find Thackery to be boring, drudgery, and unenlightening. I find Michel Foucault to be engaging and enlightening, sometimes entertaining. Ditto Derrida. I find Patricia Cornwell to be entertaining and engaging, but not enlightening. I find A. E. van Vogt’s The Weapon Shops of Isher and The World of Null-A to be entertaining, engaging and enlightening. You may well disagree with all of those. I would suggest that what you are enamoured with is actually a style of writing, not the substance of the writing. What you consider “good”, what the majority may consider “good” and what I may consider “good” are potentially very different things. What you consider entertaining will differ from my opinion. What you consider engaging and enlightening will certainly vary from my opinion. That’s just it- it’s opinion. As a result, if that’s your criteria you simply cannot assert that an objective standard exists.



On 12 July 2005 (10:39 PM),
J.D. said:

Dave, I wrote a rather long reply, but I’ve discarded it, primarily because I cannot hope to out-argue you; I simply haven’t the skill. You make some good points (I like your wine/scotch example), though I think that you: confuse Preference with Quality, make some odd arguments (“…because there are fewer ‘givens’ in many SF books, the flaws in that author’s writing and style are going to be more apparent…” seems like a strange non-sequitur to me), make the mistake of “flattening” all of literature (expecting all literature to have the same spelling, storytelling, and grammar conventions as that of today), and, most of all, come dangerously close to arguing for Absolute Relativism. (Like that? I just invented it. I think I’m clever.)

This last point perplexes me most. I do think there are objective measures to Quality. What’s more, I believe that you think there are objective measures to Quality. I conceded that nearly all of Preference is based on relative tastes, but I maintain that Quality can be determined objectively. You yourself stated that “crap writing is crap writing” no matter what the genre. This implies that you believe the inverse, that Quality writing is Quality writing no matter what the genre. If you can measure crap, you can measure Quality.

I admit to once again being guilty of my standard hyperbolic statements when I argue about literatures only being of merit if it entertains, educates, and enlightens, but I stand by the core idea.

As for the Canon: it’s true that there is some measure of subjectivity (and politics) involved in its ever-fluid nature. Authors are advocated, and others fall out of favor. As an example, Jane Austen, who has always been present in the Canon, has seen her prominence among her peers rise during the past ten years for a number of reasons. In a generation, her star will fade and somebody else will rise to take her place. I think it was Clifton Fadiman, though, who likened the Canon to a “Great Conversation”, which was a wonderfully apt description. Works generally do not enter the Canon arbitrarily, but because of their Quality, Quality as measured by how much they affect the “Great Conversation”. Vanity Fair, for example, is a book that has been referred to by other authors for over a century. Other authors draw from and respond to it. A better example, of course, would be Shakespeare, he who is the core of the canon. Shakespeare will never leave the Canon; he is its foundation. Why? Because of the sheer number of neologisms present in his work (think how much our modern language owes to him), because of his influence on theater, and, most of all, because of what he contributed to storytelling. The plots he used (and the characters) may not have been original to him, but it is to him we attribute most of them, and they continue to influence modern storytelling in all its forms even today.



On 13 July 2005 (07:54 AM),
Dave said:

Of course I’m arguing something close to absolute relativism. Primarily because I have yet to see any “objectivism.” Again I say: If there are objective standards, show me the standard. What is it? How do I know whether a work meets the standard or not? What criterion should I use to measure the work? “I know it when I see it” doesn’t work, because I may well see it differently than you do. In fact, that statement is a tip of the hat to relativism all by it’s lonesome.

My point about the “givens” in non-SF fiction is that there are fewer crutches in SF writing because everything must be constructed and you can’t make assumptions about your fictional environment. Setting a scene in New York City already comes with it’s own imagery. Setting it in New London on Antares V has no pre-programmed imagery. I think that it takes more skill to adequately describe New London to a reader than to describe New York City because you can’t rely upon the reader’s preconceptions of New London because they can’t have any. As a result if a person didn’t have that skill, writing about New York City may help cover that lack. Writing about New London simply illustrates the author’s shortcomings.



On 13 July 2005 (11:22 AM),
Joel said:

I think Dave is right, in the sense that this Quality factor you speak of JD, real though it may be, will never be entirely satisfactory because of its elusiveness. You can’t measure it, nor can you get everyone to agree absolutely on it, and our standards change with time.

The canon is a fine example of this. Using the conversation metaphor, 70-100 years ago Anthony Trollope’s novels were mentioned just as often in the conversation as Dickens. These days very few people talk about Trollope. I read and enjoyed some of them, but I have to agree that they’re not world-beaters. Why? Because our understanding of Quality changed. Another example (one I’ve used in JD’s presence in the past) is Animal Farm. I predict that eventually Animal Farm will fall away due to its high degree of historical specificity. Enough people will not know or care

who Trotsky was to not care about that book.

Which isn’t to say that Quality is entirely subjective, because, by and large, there is a negative test. I’ll bet you a zillion dollars that the works of Franklin Dixon, R.L. Stine, and the various writers of Harlequin Romance will never bubble up into the ranks of the canon. We may study them, because Pomo has made everything of interest, but I don’t think I’m merely being a fashionable elitist when I say that these books are of low Quality.



On 13 July 2005 (11:37 AM),
J.D. said:

I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the implications of the argument you two seem to be making, which is, ultimately, “There is no such thing as Quality.” Or, stated another way, “Everything is relative.”

I’m all for relativism. I’ve been a long-time advocate for perceiving “shades of grey” in relationships and intentions and behaviors and events. But it seems to me that if one argues that there are no objective measures for Quality in art (which is akin to arguing that there is no such thing as Beauty), then it’s only a small step to argue that there are no objective measures in Science, say, or in Law. Do you really believe that objective measures of anything are impossible?

This has gone from being a discussion about the relative merits of literature to something more deeply philosophical. (This may be due to the fact that I’m reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again, a book that always puts me in a contemplative state of mind.)

(And, Dave, I think that you’re contention that it’s more difficult to write good science fiction, or that bad writing in science fiction is more obvious, simply because it doesn’t have an existing framework to draw upon, is an argument does not bear scrutiny. It’s interesting, but ultimately incorrect.)



On 13 July 2005 (12:16 PM),
Donald McLean said:

There’s a very real issue underlying this whole discussion: bias.

As we grow and experience life, we become biased for or against various things and the sum of all of these biases shapes our opinions of every work of art that we experience.

Some are subtle, like hair color. Many men have a general preference for either blondes, brunettes or red-heads. The same actress, appearing in different movies with different hair coloring will affect how a biased man reacts to the movie. There is no objective standard here.

Some of this bias will be cultural. If many people in your society drink beer (such as Germany) then you will be more likely to enjoy beer. I’m not from Germany, though I did live there for two years, and I can’t stand beer. Can I tell the difference between good beer and bad beer? No, they all taste awful to me.

A given person may or may not understand the nature or source of one of their biases. I am totally against the use of any kind of fruit in the preparation of any kind of meat (pineapple on ham for example). To me, this practice is an abomination and, if I ever become a supreme deity, my worshipers will be required to stone anyone who engages in this practice.

I not only am aware of the nature and severity of this bias of mine, I know its source. I became violently ill as a child from eating some sweet and sour chinese food.

How can an objective standard be created with all of these pesky biases running around rearing their ugly heads? Only with extreme difficulty.

J.D. is clearly biased in favor of a certain styles of writing that Dave is equally clearly biased against. It may not be possible for these two to EVER agree on an SF book that they both like – their biases appear to be a disjoint set.

I must confess that I read almost nothing except science fiction and fantasy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t see J.D.’s point that there is a considerable amount of dreck – even among stuff that is nominated for or wins the major awards. I belong to an SF book discussion group and I’ve read quite a few well-thought-of books that just didn’t do anything for me.

One example, our book for last month was by Connie Willis and titled “To Say Nothing of the Dog”. This book was, to a large extent, set in Victorian England and, I am guessing, even written in a Victorian-esque style. I found it to be very tough slogging. I don’t know whether it was good Victorian-esque writing or bad but I would be inclined to suspect that I am now biased against that style of writing.

A classic work is one that connects with a large number of readers year after year. Younger generations of readers find value in it, revalidating it’s standing. That doesn’t mean that everyone will like a particular story. I love Shakespear but I almost universally despise Hemmingway. Does that make me an infidel, a peasant or a half-wit? No, I’m just a guy who doesn’t like what he wrote.

So how do biases apply to science fiction?

I think, to a large extent, that the whole issue is cultural. Science fiction authors write science fiction the way that they do because that’s what science fiction readers read. J.D. didn’t grow up drinking science fiction, so he just doesn’t like the taste that much. It doesn’t make him a bad person, it just makes him unable to appreciate the things that science fiction drinkers like about science fiction and that allow us to differentiate between what we think is good science fiction and what we think is bad science fiction.



On 13 July 2005 (02:06 PM),
Joel said:

JD,
Dave may be saying it (I don’t think he is), but I am not saying that Quality is an illusion, just that it’s not measurable. There are lots of things that are not objectively measurable that most people agree exist: happiness, the absolute position of an electron, the amount of wood a woodchuck can chuck…. One I run into at work all the time is pain. Lots of health providers ask their patients to rate their level of pain on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most pain you’ve ever felt. It’s a baffling and meaningless exercise that, as far as I can tell, was invented to make patients feel like we’re paying attention to the issue of pain. Pain absolutely exists, but there is currently no objective way to measure it. Just like two people reading the same book, two people with exactly the same injury will not necessarily agree as to their level of pain.

I have to ask, JD, why it’s so important to be able to measure artistic Quality? If we had some reliable means of doing so, what would we do with liberal arts majors? They can’t all go to medical and law school.



On 13 July 2005 (02:11 PM),
Joel said:

Also, Donald, I agree with you that Willis’ “To Say Nothing of the Dog” was of low Quality. So there you go, we have a consensus, let us spread the word and convert all heathens!



On 13 July 2005 (02:22 PM),
J.D. said:

I thought it would be fun to take this question back to AskMetafilter, where it began. So I did.

Joel: I have to ask, JD, why it’s so important to be able to measure artistic Quality?

I’m not certain that it’s important for anything outside this discussion. Dave seems to be saying that there is no such thing as Quality, or that Quality is purely subjective (which, to me, amounts to the same thing). If Quality were quantifiable, it would be easier to do things like compare Proust to Asimov. Personally, I believe the two can still be compared, qualitatively, even without a set of discrete measures.

I’m tapped out on the discussion for today. I’m going to read more Pirsig and see if he sparks further flights of fancy. (Because, ultimately, that is what this is.)



On 13 July 2005 (05:13 PM),
Dave said:

Curiously enough, JD and I probably would be mostly in agreement as to what good SF looks like, at least in many cases. On the other hand, we do vehemently disagree as to Victorian literature. And, as noted, I suspect we will forever be separated on that issue.

My alleged point as to “SF being harder to write”, is, I think, mischaracterized by you, JD. I’m not saying that at all. I’m simply saying that it’s more likely to separate the men from the boys, so to speak. As I said before, I believe that the burden of creating an entirely new reality, complete with foreign concepts, physics, iconography, and charcteristics, will accentuate the flaws in the author’s style. That’s one reason why I believe Tolkien works so wonderfully. He developed an entire universe, understood that universe, developed it’s mythology, THEN wrote a series of wonderful stories with appealing prose. That’s also a lot of really hard work and it took him decades to do it.

As for relativism, I think it’s a huge leap to say that EVERYTHING, including science, lacks measurable standards. On the other hand, part of science is immutably arbitrary. Yes, you can measure length, width, depth, and time. But the units of measure are arbitrary. An inch is one inch because we’ve officially defined that as the standard. But I can clearly see that one inch has a set and specific length. Every time. It’s either an inch, or it isn’t. In that sense it’s very digital. Evaluating the “greatness” of a book isn’t the same thing. It’s inherently analog and analog from the point of view of the reader. You can’t quite measure it. You could say that “greatness” is 5″ inches, but that would be a typically male response, wouldn’t it?

Consider music for a moment. Take the greatest piece ever written by Mozart. Compare it to the greatest piece ever written by a Zimbabwean for the mbira. Which one do you like more? Are you likely to say that the mbira piece is as great as Mozart? Probably not. On the other hand, someone raised in a culture in which the mbira is a beautiful sound may well have the opposite opinion. That’s relative.



On 13 July 2005 (05:18 PM),
Dave said:

Whoops, I didn’t finish my point about Tolkien.

His hard work paid off. His attention to detail paid off. As a result, I think that most people would conceed that Tolkien’s works are amoung the the “great works” of speculative fiction. But the framework that he was working within demanded that he put that that level of detail and attention into his work. Had he tried to rely upon other people’s conception of fairies or dwarves, the work would’ve fallen flat. Instead, it feels fully fleshed out and alive when you read it.



On 14 July 2005 (06:49 AM),
Joel said:

Dave said: “You could say that “greatness” is 5″ inches, but that would be a typically male response, wouldn’t it?”
snort



On 14 July 2005 (09:34 AM),
Mooncrest the Mad said:

> Where are the literate science fiction authors?
> Where are the great works? To compare Isaac Asimov > with Charles Dickens is laughable.

I wholeheartedly agree Asimov is so much more readable that Dickens.

Dickens is okay in small amounts. But after three pages of description of an endtable, I give up.



On 14 July 2005 (09:44 AM),
Mooncrest the Mad said:

I agree with a lot of what Dave said (On 11 July 2005 (09:16 AM), Dave said:). Most of what has passed onto us as litereature was originally written for the “common” man. The reason it is popular today is because so many people liked it that there was enough of this to survive. does that mean that it is all good? Not nessecarily.

To add to the examples that Dave listed (Dickens, Poe and Doyle), there’s Shakespear. He wrote for the common man (and I’m tell this to a lot of people) if you sit and watch a good (K Brannaugh) performance you soon forget the outmoded english and get caught up in the story. These are not meant to be high art or very deep stories. They are the soap operas of the day. Granted they are the BEST of the day and are extremely well written and still as entertaining today as 500 years ago.



On 15 July 2005 (06:17 AM),
chris hall said:

Gene Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun.

I have thought for years that Wolfe might become the first SF author to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. I wonder if folks would then someday view his work as straight literature.

Movies Better Than the Books That Inspired Them

The book is always better than the movie. Except when it isn’t.

In general, books are better than the films they inspire; however, some movies transcend their source material. For example:

These are the examples that occur to me immediately; I’m sure there are many others.

There’s also a significant body of excellent films made from excellent books. (These often become personal favorites of mine.)

I know that many people actually prefer the Lord of the Rings films to the books. While this boggles my mind, I accept that such a large body of opinion cannot be discounted.

I’ve intentionally not listed cases in which I consider both the film and the movie bad (e.g. Girl With a Pearl Earring; Chocolat; many MIchael Crichton stories, such as Congo; many Stephen King stories, such as Pet Sematary).

I’ve also not listed instances in which I suspect the film is better than the book, but haven’t been exposed to one of them (e.g. Sideways, The Silence of the Lambs).

The next time somebody complains that the book is always better than the movie, remind them that it’s not always the case.

Comments


On 14 June 2005 (10:05 AM),
Andy Baio said:

You think the Running Man movie is better than the book? Yikes.



On 14 June 2005 (10:14 AM),
J.D. said:

HA! :)

Have you read the book (well, story really)? It’s awful. (I’m not claiming the film is good, by the way, just that it’s better than the book.)



On 14 June 2005 (11:05 AM),
Rich R said:

I would disagree with you on LA Confidential (Of course, right?)

I think the movie holds its own. I am quite fond of the way it was approached and the acting was tops. With that said, I still think the book was better, simply for the greater expanse of the story and characters in the book.

I really loved Cider House Rules as a film, but I think the book is better for the same reason I mentioned above. You can’t put the character study that is the book into a 2.5 hour movie…



On 14 June 2005 (11:14 AM),
Joel said:

Hmm… I actually quite like The Princess Bride novel, but do I like it more than the movie? I… think so. So! I very mildly disagree with you! Which makes this a controversial post, my friend, brace yourself for a torrent of commentary.



On 14 June 2005 (11:16 AM),
J.D. said:

re: Cider House Rules

In my personal quest to quell my verbose ways, I forgot to mention why this subject even entered my mind.

The book group discussed John Irving’s The World According to Garp last weekend (he also wrote Cider House Rules). I thought the book was fantastic. It’s my favorite of the five Irving books I’ve read (yes, better than Owen Meany, all you Irving fans).

Bernie and Kristi loaned us the movie, which we watched last night. The movie wasn’t bad, but it sure wasn’t good, either. It was mainly just a mess. It made me wonder how a film could capture all that Garp contains. It can’t.

(I’m reading another book now — Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell — that seems unfilmable.)

During our book group discussion, Kristi mentioned that movies are never as good as the books, but I disagreed, though the only example I could think of at the time was The Princess Bride.



On 14 June 2005 (11:25 AM),
Cepo said:

there’s NO WAY total recall is better than the book. :) i wouldn’t know because i haven’t read it but i like philip k. dick and TOTAL RECALL WAS A HORRIBLE MOVIE. i hope the book wasn’t that bad.



On 14 June 2005 (01:58 PM),
Aimee said:

Great thoughts, Jackal.

I feel as though I can be fan of both a film and a book, if I judge them as two separate entities. I find I almost always leave the theatre disappointed when I expect a film to be a “true” to the book that it’s based upon. Sometimes I think that it’s folly to even compare a book to a movie of the same plotline, title, characters, etc. To elaborate using your example Gone with the Wind: While the book offers a detailed, eloquent, story-specific [Scarlett’s] Civil War, the film bequeathed a technicolor, epic legacy to American cinematic history. To me, the two mediums are distinctly separated by their essence: books encourage use of the reader’s imagination; film dazzles us with special effects, innovative cinematography, and star power.



On 14 June 2005 (02:52 PM),
Denise said:

I am surprised to see A Clockwork Orange on your list. I personally think the film is much worse than the book. I think the film revolves are sex, which the book does not.

But then I am not a huge fan of Kubrick to begin with.



On 14 June 2005 (05:24 PM),
dowingba said:

I absolutely agree on Forrest Gump. Man was that book horrendous. Perhaps the worst book I’ve ever read. And I’ve read Star Wars fan fiction, for crying out loud.



On 14 June 2005 (10:56 PM),
Ron said:

I see you have mentioned my favorite movie – The Shawshank Redemption. Most people have never heard of it. I can watch it over and over and see something new each time.



On 15 June 2005 (06:50 AM),
Tammy said:

Ron thats soooo like my husband. He watches it every time it comes on TV. One day he made me sit down and watch it with him. I ended up liking it but, but I couldn’t watch it a dozen times over like he does!



On 15 June 2005 (07:36 AM),
Amanda said:

Ron, I’m with you. What a beautiful, touching movie. The acting, directing, soundtrack… everything about it is superb and inspiring. Truly a classic.



On 21 July 2005 (06:07 PM),
Martin said:

I agree on Total Recall, but probably not on Blade Runner (I saw it after reading the book and my immediate reaction was that the movie was laughably bad. I’ve since started to appreciate the cinematography and the music), and definitely not on the Minority Report movie, which only added huge plot holes, improbable action sequences and silly bits where Tom Cruise chases his eyes or listens to crazy doctors singing Swedish children’s songs.

Getting Things Done

Note: foldedspace.org died recently, and is gradually being reconstructed. This entry has moved. Its new URL is http://www.foldedspace.org/weblog/2005/05/getting_things_done.html. The 10 comments from before the move can be found here.

“So, basically, it’s just a bunch of lists?” — Jenn

I spent the weekend implementing the system found in David Allen’s Getting Things Done. Rather than explain the system, I want to tell you how I implemented it. However, since I didn’t follow things to the letter, and since most of you are probably unfamiliar with this, a brief summary is probably in order. The following has been significantly simplified.

THE ART OF STRESS-FREE PRODUCTIVITY
Our lives, says Allen, are filled with Stuff. Too much Stuff. We think about this Stuff, we worry about this Stuff, we never get all the Stuff done that we need to do.

His solution is simple: collect all the Stuff in a Collection Bucket. When all the Stuff is in one place, process the top item in the Bucket. When the first item has been processed, move on to the second. Process everything in order until there’s nothing left in the Collection Bucket.

How are items processed? Whenever one takes an item from the Collection Bucket, one asks: “Is this actionable?” In other words, “Is this something that I need to take care of?”

If the item is not actionable, one should (depending on its nature):

  • toss the item in the trash,
  • file the item for future reference, or
  • place the item in a regularly-reviewed tickler file for possible future action.

If the item is actionable, one should (depending on its nature):

  • do it, if it’s only going to take a few minutes,
  • delegate it, if it’s somebody else’s responsibility, or
  • defer it.

Using this system, many items are done immediately, while many other items are deferred. Deferred items may be:

  • placed on a calendar if they must be done at a specific date and/or time, or
  • put on list of Next Actions if they’re things that need to be done ASAP

There’s a special subset of actionable items called Projects. These are multi-step events. Each Project gets its own file, and the Next Action for each Project is placed in the Collection Bucket.

After the system is erected, one should empty the Collection Bucket(s) once a week (or as often as necessary). That’s it. That’s the system.

Here’s a graphical representation:

[flowchart demonstrating Getting Things Done steps]

An alternate graphical representation:

[flowchart demonstrating Getting Things Done steps]

There are other nice Getting Things Done flowcharts out there. I’ve got a pretty one hanging above my desk now.

APPLYING THE SYSTEM FOR PERSONAL USE
This ideas in this book are designed for business use, but they’re easily applied to one’s personal life. That’s just what I did last weekend.

Here’s how I got things done:

Preparation
I made a trip to an office supply store to pick up: file folders, an automatic labeler, four 12×12 tiles of cork, a nice wooden inbox, thumbtacks, scotch tape, and a few other items.

Collecting Stuff
I gathered together all of my Stuff, both physical and mental, and piled it on the kitchen table.

To gather the physical Stuff, I walked from room-to-room with a box, into which I shoveled all the Stuff I could find (e.g. magazines, photographs, junk mail, to-do lists, letters, etc.).

To gather the mental Stuff, I walked from room-to-room with a stack of index cards, onto which I wrote all the Stuff that occurred to me (e.g. put away clothes, clean cat food area, hang painting on guest room wall, organize DVDs, prune laurel from back porch, etc.).

Sorting Stuff
When all this Stuff had been collected in one spot (which took several hours), I began to process it.

Mostly the Stuff was easy to process. I just started with what was in front of me, picked it up, and asked myself what the item was and what needed to be done with it.

If it was something I could deal with in just a few minutes, I dealt with it. (For example: books that needed to be shelved.)

If it was something that needed to be dealt with soon, but that would take longer than just a few minutes, I set aside in a Next Actions pile. (For example: cancel cell phone.)

If I no longer needed the item, I threw it out. (For example: house flyers from last spring.)

If it was something that I wanted to keep for Reference, I made a new file folder (labeling it with my handy automatic labeler). (For example: all of the various songlists I jot down for future CD mixes.)

If it was something for somebody else, I put it in a Delegated pile. (For example: anything related to the bathroom remodel, which Kris is basically in charge of.)

If it was a part of a larger Project, I stuck it in a folder marked Projects. (I didn’t finish organizing my Projects this weekend. They can wait. For now there’s a file-folder filled with them.) (For example: organizing all of my writing, from high school til today.)

If it was something that needed done on a specific date, I entered it into iCal. (For example: my upcoming dentist appointment.)

If it was something that didn’t need done right away, I stuck it in a Tickler file to process later. (For example: schedule a poetry night.)

If it was something that was just an idea, something that I might want to do someday, but it won’t kill me if I don’t, then I put it in a file marked “someday/maybe”. (For example: buy a nice leather easy chair like the one Paul J. has.)

This sorting process took an entire day. When the kitchen table was clean once again, I had several file folders filled with to-do lists. I also had a stack of Next Actions.

Organizing Stuff
All of my reference file folders (and there were several dozen of them) were tucked in a desk drawer. I put the Projects file into my inbox (because I need to break it down later, creating individual files for each project). Most of my organization, though, involved the stack of action items.

I hung the cork tiles in the nook, behind my desk. I labeled the top one “Next Actions”. Then, for each action item, I created an index card. (Actually, I ended up using my old Computer Resources business cards. They’re the perfect size.) I tacked the index cards to the cork in no particular order.

After two-and-a-half days, I was finished. My version of the Getting Things Done system was set up and ready to use.

Getting Things Done
When using the system, you’re supposed to take the next action item, no matter what it is, and just do it. You’re not supposed to sort through them. For this one time, for setting up the system, I made an exception. I cherry-picked. I selected a few cards at a time, and then I did whatever they said: clean car, buy mini-to-mini cable, check hoses on washing machine. If the action was something that I know comes up repeatedly (clean car, for example), then I tucked it in a drawer for later use.

After my initial Brain Dump, I had 53 next actions. I did eleven of them yesterday. I brought six more with me to work today (get watch batteries, let State Farm know we replaced furnace, read credit union policies, stop by Les Schwab to check on tire).

A LOAD OFF MY MIND
I took yesterday afternoon off to relax. I didn’t do any chores. I didn’t feel like I needed to: everything that needs done is sitting there, tacked to my corkboard. I don’t need to worry about it anymore

To some of you, this all probably seems silly. It may seem like a lot of effort to take care of something that you can do in your head. The point, though, is that this gets everything out of your head.

When you’re trying to juggle 53 next actions in your head (along with a dozen projects, a dozen someday/maybe wishes, a score of calendar items, and a bunch of other ideas), it can be overwhelming. It’s easy to feel stressed, or bewildered, or desperate. With the Getting Things Done system, everything is out of your head and on paper. You don’t have to think about things anymore. You just do them.

Any time a new idea occurs to you, you jot it down and put it in your inbox. (For example: a few moments ago I jotted “incorporate all calendars into iCal” on an index card. It’ll go in my inbox when I get home, to be processed later.) When magazines come in the mail and you haven’t time to read them, you put them in your inbox. When a friend gives you a flyer about an upcoming concert series, you put it in your inbox. Once a week (or more often, if you like), you sit down and process your inbox, creating next actions, filing things for reference, and otherwise deciding where each item belongs.

Toward a Pastoral Lifestyle
You know that freedom you feel when on vacation? That wonderful sense that there’s nothing to worry about? That’s what this system attempts to give you. For me, it’s yet another step toward the ever-elusive pastoral lifestyle for which I continue to strive.

Pre-Crash Comments

On 23 May 2005 (09:30 AM),
Lisa said:

When I was working in Seattle, my company paid 1/2 for everyone’s PDAs (mostly Palm Pilots at the time) and then had David Allen come and do a presentation (at least I’m pretty sure it was him). Taking all the thing out of your mind and storing them elsewhere certainly is an incredible relief. It worked really well but my system fell apart after I stopped working full time. Perhaps it’s time to bring it back into my personal life…

On 23 May 2005 (09:37 AM),
Courtney said:

Sounds like a great plan to me! I can’t stand getting bogged down with all the to-do lists in my head. So, I started out with an in-box too, several months ago. The problem is, my in-box has spread to an entire room, which is supposed to be my den/knitting room. Instead, it is piled with stuff to take to Goodwill, photos to be sorted and put into albums, magazines to read, linens to iron, items to file, Henry’s bathtub, etc. Sigh! Just opening the door to that room stresses me out. Someday soon I’ll sort through it all and get it down to a managable size which can be contained in my in-box.

On 23 May 2005 (09:50 AM),
Tiffany said:

I get told that I am organized all the time. But I do not consider it a talent because I think that, for me at least, it is genetics. Both parents are big into ‘To Do’ List and I started those early in life too.
In college I found “Calendar Creator” which looks a lot it ICal. Then back in the late 1990s I got my first Palm Pilot. I became addicted to it, in a good way. You are right about having the items out of your head leads to less stress. I have a thought (I need to call about the ordered furniture, but it is Sunday and they are closed) it goes on the To Do List for Monday. I can set up To Do list my die date so that I know to complete the task in order of needing them done.
The calendar works great for setting up repeat items (like changing my contacts every three weeks and changing the house air filter every three months); in addition to keeping dentist appointments, and flight/hotel times.

I always find it interesting to see how other people organize because there is always room for improvement. Good Luck.

On 23 May 2005 (09:51 AM),
Tiffany said:

Oh, yeah, the biggest benefit to the Palm Pilot, no wasted paper.

On 23 May 2005 (10:13 AM),
Jeff said:

My favorite way to make a list… Microsoft Excel.

I generally work better with lists, but I need to leave them in prominant locations (like the kitchen counter) or I forget about them. Steph sees them as clutter, so she throws them into her piles (her organizational method). My lists get lost in her piles and nothing gets done.

So, I started making electronic lists and leaving them on the electonic desktop… seems to be a good compromise, and I can always print them out if I need to.

On 23 May 2005 (10:40 AM),
Amy Jo said:

I often wonder if I became an editor because of my inclination to order things, to have an ongoing task list, to put everything in its place, or if my non-work life became this way because I am an editor . . .

On 24 May 2005 (11:08 AM),
JC said:

Good post. In a very non-GTD move, I printed it out and took it home to read.

I’ve been on the fence about buying the book for some time now. There are a couple of blogs I’ve been reading that promote the GTD movement [one had an in-depth project management Excel spreadsheet that I’ve been playing with].

My problem/concern? I can’t seem to throw anything away!

Either way, I need some sort of system. JC

On 05 September 2005 (03:18 PM),
Jon M. said:

I’ve been working at implementing GTD, and my efforts seem to keep sputtering like a bad car engine. But after reading your presentation, it’s a lot clearer to me now…my hat’s off to you!

On 02 October 2005 (04:46 AM),
Matthew Cornell said:

Thank you for the post, J.D. I esp. liked your collection idea of using index cards during a house walk-through, and the implications of GTD for a “pastoral lifestyle.” I have one concern, having to do with this point: “When using the system, you’re supposed to take the next action item, no matter what it is, and just do it.” If you are referring to the next action in a list of actions for a project, i.e., that you should pick the next one to put on your next action lists, then I understand and agree. However, if you’re instead talking about how to *choose* actions from your lists, then I believe Allen would say use one of his models for deciding what to do, esp. the “four-criteria” model: 1. Context, 2. Time, 3. Energy, 4. Priority. Of course, I’m new at this and might be completely off my rocker! Thanks again for the post.

matt

On 08 October 2005 (09:07 AM),
JC said:

That is my understanding too Matt. I think the idea to process things one by one without preference applies to the inbox only and not to next actions. For those who are interested, this is discussed near the beginning of chapter 6 which starts on page 119.

JC (Yes, another one.)

Get Rich Slowly!

Note: foldedspace.org died recently, and is gradually being reconstructed. This entry has moved. Its new URL is http://www.foldedspace.org/weblog/2005/04/get_rich_slowly.html. The 86 comments from before the move can be found here.

Today’s entry is long and boring. It’s all about the keys to wealth, prosperity, and happiness. Over the past few months, I’ve read over a dozen books on personal finance. Recurring themes have become evident.

These books have embarrassingly bad titles, seemingly designed to appeal to the get-rich-quick crowd: The Richest Man in Babylon, Your Money or Your Life, Rich Dad Poor Dad, Think and Grow Rich, Wealth Without Risk, Creating Wealth, etc.

Some of the books out there — most of them? — really are as bad as their titles. Others, however, offer outstanding, practical advice. The best books seem to have the same goal in mind: not wealth, not riches, but financial independence. According to Your Money or Your Life, which I consider the very best of the financial books I’ve read, “financial independence is the experience of having enough — and then some”. More practically, financial independence occurs when your investment income meets or exceeds your monthly expenses. Financial independence is linked to psychological freedom.

How is financial independence achieved? Again, the best books all basically agree. (To some of you, this will be common sense, stuff you’ve known all your life. To others, like me, this kind of thinking is a sort of revelation.)

Here, then, is my personal summary of the collected wisdom found in these books.

Step One: Prepare the Foundation
The first step is to lay a foundation upon which the secure home of financial independence can be built. To prepare to build wealth, one must first eliminate debt, reduce spending, and increase earnings.

There are many ways to approach debt elimination; the key is to use the one that actually works for you. All the books agree on this: cut up your credit cards. Get rid of them. There is no compelling reason to keep them. Next, pay off your debts. All of them. For years, I tried the oft-touted method whereby you first pay off your highest-interest debt. This never worked for me, because my highest interest debt was also my largest debt, and psychologically I just never seemed to make any progress. What worked for me was the “debt snowball”, as defined in Total Money Makeover. I eliminated my debt by paying off the obligation with the smallest balance first. Then I took the amount that would have been applied to that debt each month and used it to pay off the second-smallest balance. When that was finished, I went to the next, etc. It only took me four months to pay off my debts this way. I was dumbfounded. I’d struggled with this for a decade, and I solved the problem in four months? Good grief.

The next step in preparing the foundation is to reduce spending. First, track your expenditures for a month. Or two. Or three. (Many people — including myself — use Quicken; it’s quick and easy.) After you’ve accumulated enough data, analyze your spending patterns. Are you spending a lot on shoes? Books? Alcohol? Dining out? Try to find expenses you can eliminate or reduce. I cut my comic book spending by a huge amount. Many of the personal finance books encourage you to reduce your auto and homeowner insurance coverage to save money. This is also the point at which some books encourage you to adopt a budget. (I tend to think a budget is unnecessary if you remain aware of your current financial situation.) (Note: it’s in this step that I should note that all of the books I’ve read advise against purchasing a new car; all encourage you to purchase late-model used cars.)

The final phase in laying the foundation is to increase your income. Not all of the books mention this, and I happen to think it’s optional. However, there are a couple of authors who are quite vocal that this is an important step on the road to financial independence. How do you increase your income? Become better educated so that your job skills are more marketable. Work harder, and smarter, at your current job so that you qualify for raises and promotions. Change careers. Find a way to make a hobby profitable. Or, as more than one book suggests, work two jobs.

I can testify first-hand that by following these three steps, you can lay a solid foundation for future financial independence. I’ve only recently finished my foundation, and am amazed at the amount of money I’m suddenly able to save each month. Amazed. And that means I’m now ready for…

Step Two: Build the Framework
The second step toward financial independence is to construct the framework upon which future wealth can be built: establish an emergency fund, maximize your retirement investments, and begin acquiring income-producing assets. This is what I’m preparing to do. (I’ve already done one part, but only by happy coincidence.)

Every book I’ve read stresses that the most important part of the framework, the first part that must be completed, is the establishment of an emergency fund. This emergency fund ought to contain enough money to support you for three to six months in case you find yourself without an income. I have a very hard time grasping this concept, admitting its usefulness. All of the books stress it. Kris, who is always right, insists that it is important. Yet I want to skip this and go to other, more exciting steps. However, having seen the results after “laying my foundation”, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief and just do it. I’ll build the emergency fund.

Next, the books encourage you to maximize your retirement accounts. If you have a retirement account through work, contribute as much as you possibly can, as soon as you can. Establish a personal IRA outside of work, and every year contribute the maximum amount. I already do this, at least in part. Custom Box has a retirement plan, but not one to which the employees can contribute. The company itself contributes approximately ten percent of each employees’ annual salary to a stock plan. One of my goals for when the bathroom is finished is to get a Roth IRA set up.

The final step in building a framework for financial independence is to invest in income-producing assets. For some reason, I’d totally missed this recurring theme until this weekend; on Paul C.’s recommendation, I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad, a book that’s almost solely about this particular portion of the framework. Beyond your retirement investments, the collected financial wisdom is that you ought to participate in further investments, specifically in income-producing assets. For different people, this means different things. Maybe it means bonds, maybe it means stocks, maybe it means investment properties. It does not mean things like cars, or collectibles (coins, comic books, baseball cards), or expensive furniture. These things may be assets of a sort, but they are not income-producing assets.

Step Three: Finish Construction
After you’ve laid the foundation to financial independence, and after you’ve built the framework, you must then spend years (decades!) finishing construction. All that’s required during this time is patience and discipline. Resist temptation. Do not accrue debt. Acquire income-producing assets; avoid non-income producing assets. Faithfully contribute to your retirement plans and your IRAs. Wait.

Step Four: Move Into the House
Some years later, you will wake to find that your financial house is in order. It’s finished. It’s ready for you to move in. How do you know when this is the case? Financial independence is achieved when your investment income equals or exceeds your monthly needs. If the total of your house payment and living expenses is $1000 per month, then you are financially independent when your investment income reaches $1000 per month. Achieving this takes time. It’s a slow, gradual process, but every book emphasizes that it’s not only possible, it’s inevitable if these steps are followed.

That’s it. That’s the combined wisdom of more than a dozen financial self-help books. I haven’t fleshed out the final two steps as much as the first two simply because I haven’t reached those steps yet. There are scores of books on how to best approach each step (even each substep!). I’m sure to obsess over each one in turn.

There seems to be only one major point on which these books disagree. Some argue that your home should be considered your most important investment, that you should carry a thirty-year mortgage and not attempt to accelerate payments. Others declare that a home should be considered a liability, the same as a car or a credit card. (The latter admit that a home will appreciate in value, but they note — rightly so — that a home is a cash drain, not a source of income.) All of the books, with one exception, encourage readers to only purchase modest homes; they smash the commonly held belief that you ought to “buy as much house as you can afford”. Instead, these books say you should only buy as much house as you actually need.

A lot of these books are easy to summarize. Their content lends itself to bullet points. For example:

The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey. This book was the first I read. I want to re-read it. It features lots of practical advice, including the concept of the “debt snowball” I mentioned earlier. Here are Ramsey’s steps to a “total money makeover”:
Step #1: Save $1000 as an emergency fund.
Step #2: Pay off debts, starting with the smallest first (ignore interest rates).
Step #3: Increase the emergency fund so that it will cover three to six months of expenses.
Step #4: Invest 15% of income in growth-stock mutual funds.
Step #5: Pay off the mortgage.
Step #6: Build wealth.
(I’ve left out a “Save money for college” step because it doesn’t apply to me.)

Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin is, as I mentioned, the cream of the crop of these financial books. It’s advice is sound. This is an especially great book for those seeking simplicity. It lends itself less to bullet points than some of the others, but I’ve made an attempt to enumerate the steps it advocates for financial independence:
Step #1: Determine how much money you’ve earned in your life. Next, determine your net worth. Compare and contrast the two.
Step #2: Establish the actual cost — in time and money — required to maintain your job. From this derive your actual hourly wage.
Step #3: Keep track of every cent that enters or leaves your possession.
Step #4: Determine which items are actually worth the money you spend on them.
Step #5: Graph your total monthly income and your total monthly expenses.
Step #6: Minimize spending through conscious decisions.
Step #7: Maximize income by doing something you love.
Step #8: Accumulate capital. Track its growth.
Step #9: Invest this capital so that it provides long-term income.

The Richest Man in Babylon by George S. Clason is an aging chestnut. It’s a classic in the field. Many later financial books are based on Clason’s advice, which is framed in King James-style English rules:
Rule #1: Start Thy Purse Fattening — save 10% of everything you earn
Rule #2: Control Thy Expenditures — create a budget to live within your means
Rule #3: Make Thy Gold Multiply — invest the savings from rule one
Rule #4: Guard Thy Treasures From Loss — invest only where the principal is safe
Rule #5: Make of Thy Dwelling a Profitable Investment — own your home
Rule #6: Insure a Future Income — plan for retirement
Rule #7: Increase Thy Ability to Earn — become better educated, more skilled; respect yourself

7 Money Mantras for a Richer Life by Michelle Singletary is a recent all-purpose financial book. I was ready to dismiss it for the absolute stupidity of mantra number one (stupidity in its phrasing, not in its advice), but after reading the book, I have to admit its advice is solid. It features:
Mantra #1: “If it’s on your ass, it’s not an asset.” If you can wear it, it’s not an investment. Also, something is riding your ass (such as a high house payment), it’s not an asset.
Mantra #2: “Is this a need or a want?” This is a question Kris has been trying to get me to ask myself for years.
Mantra #3: “Sweat the small stuff.” Do worry about the small expenses; they add up.
Mantra #4: “Cash is better than credit.” There is almost no reason to carry a credit card.
Mantra #5: “Keep it simple.” With money, avoid anything that seems complicated. If you don’t understand it, avoid it. You’ll probably lose money.
Mantra #6: “Priorities lead to prosperity.” Determine what’s important to you, and pursue that with your time and money.
Mantra #7: “Enough is enough.” Don’t overconsume. Recognize when you have fulfilled your needs and your wants.

Ordinary People, Extraordinary Wealth by Ric Edelman is rather a unique book. It features advice distilled from surveying 5000 people of moderate wealth. Each chapter relates a secret for obtaining financial security. At the end of the each chapter, there are excerpts from the surveys featuring anecdotes and advice from the respondents.
Secret #1: Carry a mortgage even if you can afford to pay it off. — This flies in the face of every other financial book I’ve read, and I do not subscribe to the idea. I’m willing to be that the people surveyed carry a mortgage out of habit, not because they think it’s smart.
Secret #2: Don’t diversify the money you put into your employer retirement plan; instead, put all your contributions into stock mutual funds — I’m okay with this. It may not be appropriate for someone close to retirement, but for younger people, this seems like sound advice.
Secret #3: Make many small investments rather than a few large investments. — The key is to make investing a habit, and to invest the money when you have it.
Secret #4: Rarely move from one investment to another. — Market timing is not something to be treated lightly; it’s not easy for a casual investor. Buy and hold.
Secret #5: Don’t measure success against the Dow or the S&P 500. — Understand what you own and why you own it; don’t compare it to market indicators.
Secret #6: Don’t spend a lot of time paying bills and fretting about personal finances. Don’t bother budgeting. — Many books encourage a budget, though I’ve not adopted one. And my success these past few months has come precisely because I have fretted about my personal finances. Maybe this advice is true for the long run, but I’m not sure it’s applicable to somebody just starting to lay the foundation of financial independence.
Secret #7: Involve your children in family finances. — This is another piece of advice that all of the books offer. I haven’t mentioned it because it’s not appropriate to me, and doesn’t actually fit my metaphor.
Secret #8: Pay attention to the media, particularly financial news. — This seems to go against secret #6, but whatever. I’m not willing to devote a lot of time to reading financial news, but it can be fun from time-to-time.
The rest of this book contains three wonderful chapters entitled: “The Biggest Mistake I Ever Made”, “The Smartest Thing I Ever Did”, and “My Advice to You”. The common threads? Far and away, the number one thing these people recommend is to start investing as soon as possible. As much as possible. (They also recommend getting a financial adviser, something I’ve avoided until now.)

I was going to include a point-by-point summary of Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert T. Kiyosaki, but when I went to write it up, I couldn’t put Kiyosaki’s advice into words. I re-read a chapter. Everything seemed generalized. I did a google search, and found that not everyone agrees with the author. I, too, found the book amorphous and vague, full of outlandish claims. I thought it contained some kernels of wisdom, though, and so I’ve taken some of its advice, albeit with a grain of salt. I’ve incorporated advice from Rich Dad, Poor Dad in my general summary at the beginning of this entry, but I cannot recommend the book.

Other books that I plan to read soon include: The Millionaire Next Door by Stanley and Danko, Wealth Without Risk by Charles Givens, and Creating Wealth by Robert Allen.

On the drive to work today, I was remembering another time I was deeply interested in personal finance. When I got out of college, I went to work for Combined Insurance. (I still promise to tell that full story some day.) During training, we were asked to make a poster illustrating our life goals. I cut out a picture of a log cabin in a lush, green woods. My goal was to retire to a peaceful lifestyle within ten years. Ha! Now, fifteen years later, I have the exact same goal. Only this time, there’s a chance that I just might achieve it.

Pre-Crash Comments

On 26 April 2005 (11:40 AM),
paul said:

All these financial planning books seem to forget to tell you one thing. Write a book about financial planning and make a lot of money! Regardless of whether or not they follow their own rules, principles or plans, they are making money off selling their book. The all state that you should make money off of an asset that you don’t sit on. So, JD, get off your ass and write a financial planning book. It appears there is money to be made.

On 26 April 2005 (11:44 AM),
J.D. said:

I should note, because it’s appropriate, that I am proud to have purchased only one of these books. The rest I’ve borrowed from the library.

The one book I’ve purchased was Your Money or Your Life. Michael gave me my first copy. Yesterday, on the trip back from Bend, I found a used copy for $6.95, so I bought it. It’s now available to loan to anyone who might find it useful.

I recommend it highly!

On 26 April 2005 (11:56 AM),
Denise said:

I think this is a great entry. I have always struggled with my personal finance and just recently have gotten it under control.

I have to budget and I have to consciously track what I spend or I will over spend. I have gotten better at this, but it is still a constant battle for me. I think as I start to see the returns from not over-spending it will get easier as it has for you.

I think the getting your children involved in the family finances is very important (if you have children, that is). I wish my parents had done that with me. I had no understanding of financial responsibility and what damage credit cards can do. That was a long, hard lesson I had to learn on my own.

Great post – thanks, J.D.!

On 26 April 2005 (11:58 AM),
Denise said:

Hey – I wouldn’t mind borrowing that book if you don’t have any other requests yet!

On 26 April 2005 (01:00 PM),
tammy said:

My husband and I have no debt! Everything is paid in full including the house. For what it’s worth, here is man who bought his first home spanking new at 22 yers old. He bought his first brand new car at age 40. It was a Ford Expedition. We paid cash for it. Before that he drove only used cars.

His Dad died when he was 13 years old. At 15 he began working at a gas station. By 18 he was living on his own. Nobody helped him or gave him even one penny. He never went to college. He chose the trades instead. He is a steam fitter.

He never uses an ATM card. He doesn’t even own a debit card. He uses a credit card only for things like ordering over the internet or going on vacation. He gets the room and rental car with it. But on a daily basis his slogan is to take only the cash in his pocket to the store. He says people get in trouble when they take checkbooks or debit cards or anything that gives them full access to their bank accounts.

Today he is 47 years old and owes no man anything. We live in house that would sell in todays market for $400,000.00

And this is what this man says about budgets. I quote; “Budgets are for people who dont know how to budget.”

We have been together 19 years and have never lived on a budget.

On 26 April 2005 (03:31 PM),
Denise said:

Tammy, you say that you don’t live on a budget – but doesn’t your husband give you a certain amount of spending money every month? Is that not a budget?

On 26 April 2005 (04:30 PM),
tammy said:

Yes, he gives me 80 bucks a week. To him that’s an expenditure just like paying the electricity or paying the baby sitter or paying the gas bill. That really isnt budgeting. It’s paying a bill.

Budgeting is an itemized account of expected income in any given period. Then one forms a plan of operation from that itemized account. It’s intent is to make sure the money is there for the needed items and at the needed time.

No, when my husband gives me 80 dollars a week that does not mean he’s budgeted that money to go to me. Nor does it mean I’m living on a budget. I carry my credit card all the time. I have access to all of our accounts. I choose not to make use of that access. That’s why we now live debt free.

Neither of us live on a budget. But because we hold ourselves in check financially we have no need for a budget. The money is always there to pay the bills and to put into savings.

On 26 April 2005 (05:16 PM),
Johnny said:

For those of you who are wondering, that’s called a control issue. The only difference between “an itemized account of expected income in any given period…[combined with] a plan of operation from that itemized account” and doling out the cash like that is that the budget has never been committed to paper. My dictionary also includes “the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose”. $80 per month seems like a budget to me.

On the other hand, kudos to prospering within your means. Most folks can’t do it, which is why we’ve such a high bankruptcy rate in this country (that and a lack of truly market driven credit practices that encourage poor credit and lending decisions).

On 26 April 2005 (05:29 PM),
J.D. said:

Though Johnny Doe — how I miss his weblog! — has a point, I agree with Tammy. To me, a budget specifically must be written down somewhere. Maybe that’s just me.

I’m developing certain limits in my head. I don’t want to spend more than $100 on books/comics combined. I’ve bend spending $120/month on restaurants; I want to reduced that to $80, or maybe even less. But I don’t consider this budgeting.

Of course, it’s quite possible we’re all just playing semantic games.

Johnny Doe’s right, though: the key is to live within your means. And, if possible, to live well within your means.

Our culture has been constructed so that it push push pushes us to spend spend spend on anything we want. Remember that I used to say that I lived paycheck-to-paycheck. I always had enough to pay my bills, but I always spent any surplus. I lived within my means, but only barely. I lived at the edge of my means. Why?

I have self-discipline issues, no doubt, but I’m also a willing participant in our society, a knowing victim of the advertising and marketing machines that surround us. The more we expose ourselves to mass media, the more we allow the media to influence our thoughts. We may think this isn’t happening, but it is. It absolutely is. The best-kept secret of advertising is that it works, and so our society descends into debt.

If I could evangelize the first step in achieving financial independence to all my friends, I would. Wait. Maybe I can. That’s what this weblog is for!

You heard it from me, friends! Even if you do nothing else toward financial independence, you can enjoy a happier, wealthier life if you simply eliminate debt, reduce spending, and increase earning potential. (In fact, those first two alone will do a damn good job of setting you right.)

Go read Your Money or Your Life. Read it and think on it.

On 26 April 2005 (05:49 PM),
tammy said:

This thing of semantics is exactly why my hsuband says that budgeting is for those who can’t budget. In esssence he is saying he lives on a budget but nothing is truly budgeted on paper. Whew sorta complicated but I still maintain there’s difference. :)

On 27 April 2005 (09:11 AM),
Denise said:

Hmm…I don’t fall in the camp of ‘must be written down to be a budget’. If you are mentally saying we can spend $100 on fill in the blank a month then I consider that budgeting. Even though you have access to credit cards or bank accounts, if you make the conscious decision NOT to spend the money on say, a new pair of jeans or a new fishing pole (or whatever), you are budgeting yourself.

I think people (like me) who like to have it written down are just more anal than those that don’t write it down. Plus, since I know I am really bad at finances, if I have it written down I have a way to track my success.

J.D. – you say that you budget things in your head, but at the same time you track EVERY cent you spend in Quicken. Is this not in some form budgeting? You look and see that you spent $150 on comics and say to yourself, I want to spend less on comics. This in itself is budgeting, it is merely after the fact budgeting.

[Please note I am devil’s advocating here.]

On 27 April 2005 (10:04 AM),
J.D. said:

To me, a budget is a written document, a sort of contract with yourself (and/or with your partner). A monthly budget for my discretionary spending might look like this:

Books $100
Comic Books $100
Dining Out $125
Computer Stuff $50
Cable $50
Cell Phone $40
Groceries $200

These aren’t actual numbers, though they might be based on them. These are targets. Firm targets. In my mind, a person tries not to spend more than the budgeted amount. If I budget $100 for books, and I’ve spent $95, I forgo the new Stephen King novel until next month.

My parents worked with a budget for a while when I was a kid, and I know some couples who do so now. I’m not imposing these sorts of written limitations on myself. Yet.

Instead, I’m trying to change my actual behavior. (Budgets don’t change behavior; they simply provide external stops.) I’m trying to change the way I think about money. I’m trying to change my relationship with it.

On 27 April 2005 (10:22 AM),
Denise said:

Yes, but you are almost arguing my point. A budget is setting limits – whether it is written down or in your head.

Behavioral change is a good goal, but wouldn’t you say that your changing your behavior from ignoring your budget (or not having one) to remembering your limits? For example – when I didn’t budget, I would pay all my bills and then just spend whatever cash I had left over. In addition, if I ran out of cash and wanted something I would just use my plastic.

Yes, I know – that is very stupid and believe me, I paid dearly.

I guess I just look at budgeting as imposing limits to personal spending (not bills such as electricity) and sticking by it. It is interesting to me that you make the link of it having to be written down. I mean – Nick and I have a budget that we created in Excel – $90 for this, $250 for that, blah, blah, blah. That doesn’t mean that sometimes the $90 isn’t $100 or even $75 – it is just what we shoot for so we know how much to save, how much spending money is reasonable per week, whatever. To me, even though we write it down we are doing exactly what you are doing.

Do you not think you are budgeting because you feel there is a stigma to budgeting?

I find it interesting how peoples minds work so differently when dealing with personal finance.

On 27 April 2005 (11:11 AM),
Courtney said:

Uh, J.D., I still have your “Your Money or Your Life.” Sorry. I’ll return it next time I see you.

We are definitely on a budget (in writing). We have been for over a year now. The first year was training for this year, now that we have a baby and only one income. It helps us live within our means, which is mandatory at this stage in our lives.

Great post! Thanks for summing it all up!

On 02 May 2005 (06:57 AM),
Darcy said:

After reading dozens of “wealth creation” books I’m amazed that none of the authors has strongly suggested that luck has anything to do with the creation of wealth. It clearly does.
Person “A” buys a “fixer-upper” investment property, pours hours of work and a small bundle of cash into the property and after 5 years it’s worth no more extra than the investment of time, effort and cash.

Person “B” on the other hand buys an almost identical investment property, spends the same effort and cash and is rewarded with a windfall courtesy of real estate market madness ie the timing was perfect.

The trick, as a great competitor knows, is to minimize the bad luck.

Luck is a very real commodity that enhances any wealth
system

On 02 May 2005 (07:32 AM),
J.D. said:

Though the above comment borders on spam (Darcy apparently runs the web site for Kiyosaki (of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”) and his organization), I’m going to leave it. It’s informative enough, and there’s a good chance that people who find this page will want her information.

However, I must take issue with the “I’m amazed that none of the authors has strongly suggested that luck has anything to do with the creation of wealth” bit.

Yes, luck is a large factor in determining whether or not one can create wealth in the short term. It’s nearly impossible to get rich quick without luck; there’s no question of that. But getting rich quick is a sucker’s bet. There’s only slim chance that you’ll have the sort of luck that’s required. You might as well play the lottery.

It is possible to get rich slowly, however, with no risk, and with no luck. All that’s required is patience and discipline. To argue that some sort of luck factor is involved is specious.

(One of the books I recommend — 7 Money Mantras For a Richer Life — even describes how a poor black woman raising several grandchildren on her own was able to build wealth slowly by using common sense techniques, the techniques that the sensible books each emphasize, the techniques I’ve enumerated above.)

Patience and discipline are the sure keys to wealth.

On 13 May 2005 (01:47 AM),
mefite said:

Hi there, I followed this link from metafilter. This is really interesting advice – thanks for posting it!
I’m currently on Step 3, trying to build some income-producing assets. But this is something that always has me wondering: how does one account for inflation/cost of living increases when it comes to income production? It seems to me that the assets’ income never grows fast enough to keep up with what your spending will be, say in 10-20 years. Admittedly, I’m only investing in stocks/mutual funds (with dividends as the “income”) right now, and should probably look at other kinds of investments (if you have any suggestions, I’d like to hear them!) Thanks again, JD.

On 13 May 2005 (06:01 PM),
schmod said:

Although it’s not exactly related to the subject of personal finance, I would HIGHLY reccommend the book “Naked Economics” by Charles Wheelan. It really puts a different (more logical) perspective on money and the economy for most people.

Despite the fact that I typically find econ quite boring, the book’s a really fascinating (and easy) read.

ISBN: 0393049825

On 14 May 2005 (03:47 AM),
Debt said:

Kudos for writing the blog article, also kudos to all the comments. Personal finance, especially debt is such a huge problem. I myself have just recently gotten debt free. It inspired me to pick up a domain and start creating a site to help people get out of debt.

Budgeting is the cornerstone for getting out of debt. The main reason is that it requires discipline. The discipline then helps build your confidence in other parts of personal finance such as saving and paying down prior debts.

Great article.

On 14 May 2005 (03:14 PM),
Leon said:

Great article! I have link this article on this blog.

On 16 May 2005 (07:39 AM),
gregor said:

Here is a great site that has a lot of understandable essays in its Financial Sense University listings.

http://financialsense.com/

Buying mutual funds may not be such a great idea in all cases.

On 18 May 2005 (09:28 AM),
Juliana Atkinson said:

This is an awesome list. I read 7 Mantras–there is no way I could live as frugal as her. I think the best one I’ve read is Millionaire Next Door.

On 18 May 2005 (01:27 PM),
Nivi said:

A Random Walk Down Wall Street is the classic money management book for individuals. Read my article on it

http://www.nivi.com/blog/article/a-random-walk-down-wall-street/

On 25 May 2005 (09:30 AM),
brett said:

You can skip the Millionaire Next Door.. I just read it, and it can be summed up in one sentence: Spend less, save more. That’s it. The basic point of the book is that millionaires don’t look like they’re rich — they don’t spend a lot, and they save their money. Those who look rich, drive flashy cars, etc, are probably up to their ass in debt.

On 25 May 2005 (10:17 AM),
kuz said:

Re: Budgeting

A budget has helped us substantially. Here’s what we do:
1) At the beginning of the year, or when we change jobs or pick up new freelancing gigs, I project our monthly take-home pay and subtract out our agreed upon savings and involuntary expenses (loans, car, utilities, subscriptions, etc.)

Whatever is left is voluntary spending money we can buy anything with: groceries, shoes, beer, whatever.

For example, if:
-take home (after taxes) pay is $2500/month
-savings goal is $250/month
-car payment and insurance, utilities, Netflix, student loans = $750/month

That leaves $1500/month = $350/week to pull out of the ATM or spend with the debit card. Use a markerboard and update the total all week (We use Monday morning-Sunday night), and you’ll be surprised how it will help you make smarter decisions. When you have only $25 left to spend on Sunday, you’ll think twice before blowing $40 on chicken and beerrr.

One more thing. Transfer that savings to a savings account at the same time you pay your rent or mortgage. When you have to pay the man, you might as well pay yourself at the same time. If your cash flow is too low to take it out at that time, then reduce your savings goal to the amount you can actually swing without worrying about it.

On 25 May 2005 (10:32 AM),
Jamie said:

Great article. Thanks!

One point on which I will controversially disagree: Credit cards.

I use a dividend paying credit card for everything. Why? I get at least 1% back and because I use Quicken to track everything, I ensure that I never carry a balance. The result: In the last two years, I’ve earned about $750 extra dollars and have not paid the credit card companies a cent. Plus, I get the benefit of an extra month of cash flow sitting in an interest-bearing savings account (ING direct in my case).

I agree that credit cards can be used foolishly, but they can be used well too.

On 25 May 2005 (10:48 AM),
Dave said:

Nice summary. I have been following these general tips for 15 years. It came about because I was nearly bankrupt. I had debt, little savings, lost my job, and divorsed. Now, I have a 7 figure net worth.

I would say the best tips beginning with the first step are:

1. Save a minimum of 10% pretax earnings every month as soon as you begin earning income. I save 30% pretax every month. I don’t care what you have to give up to save 10%. Sell your car, find a cheap apt, etc… Don’t believe that you need to keep up with your friends and neighbors. Housing and auto costs are the top 2 discressionary expenses for most people. Spend what YOU can afford.

2. Save for emergencies. Put 2 mos in savings regardless of your current debt.

3. Pay off credit card debt. At 18-25% interest, this will kill you long term. Be very cautious if considering rolling over your credit cards for lower rates. There are almost always catches. Once your credit card debt is paid off, use your cards but, pay them off EVERY month. No excuses. Your credit card company will hate you but, you will become slowly rich. 2 credit cards are necessacary for car rental, short term emergencies, consumer protection and a good FICA credit score (this can save you 10’s of thousands long term in morgage interest).

4. Save for retirement. You will eventually want to stop working. You will become mentally or physically unable to work at some point. Trust me, you do not want to become a charity case. If your employer offers a 401K, max it out. This is pretax money. It is tax defered and often companies add matching funds. This is worth 100’s of thousands of dollars long term. If you do not have a 401K, get a SEP IRA, Roth IRA, or other IRAs. Contribute every month. Do not touch this money until retirement.

5. Invest. Buy highly diversified, low cost mutual funds. Buy world wide mutual funds. Don’t bother with individual stocks. Don’t bother trying to time the market by buying and selling short term. There are genius’s out there who do this full time and don’t succeed. Ther is no formula. If it was that easy, everyone would know the secret. Invest every month. Dollar cost averaging forces you to buy more shares when the price is low and fewer when the price is high. Re-invest the dividends. When you get to this point, seek the help of a fee only financial planner If a financial planner tells you to buy life insurance as an investment, run away.

On 25 May 2005 (10:58 AM),
Dave said:

6. Insurance. Choose the least amount of insurance with the highest deductables you can afford in the event of an accident or loss. You likely will also want a umbrella liability policy. You do not want to loose your nest egg because someone trips in your home and becomes permanently disabled.

7. Home morgage. If you are in a low tax bracket, less than 20%, pay off your home morgage early with additional contributions. But, do not become cash poor and home equity rich. It can be expensive to tap that wealth if you need it. If you are in a high tax bracket, do not pay off your home morgage early. Morgage interest is tax deductable and rates are low. In this case, increase your investing. If you think the market is overpriced, OK, pay more on your morgage. Generally, do NOT choose an ARM morgage. Interest rates can increase rapidly. You can always refinance when rates drop. Worst case, you may have to sell your house if rates rise because you can’t make the payment. At that point your house value may drop because the interest rates have risen, Yikes. If you are looking into an ARM, determine what the maximum payment will be if interest rates rise 10 points. If you can afford THAT payment, OK.

On 25 May 2005 (11:00 AM),
tiffany said:

I read “The Millionaire Next Door” and I can sum it up thusly:

“Live not just within your means, but below your means. Clip coupons. Buy a used car. Live in a smaller, less expensive house. Save and invest the rest wisely. No one gets rich by giving to charity. Manage your assets.”

On 25 May 2005 (11:01 AM),
tiffany said:

Oh.. I forgot one point: “Own your own business.” The book noted that entrepreneurs earn more and are worth more than employees.

On 25 May 2005 (11:53 AM),
Duane said:

There are just some absolutes that these books tout that I never was sure how to take. For instance, I have one credit card that I pay off every month. I just use it as a convenience, and the loyalty points don’t hurt. Should I tear that one up? Why?

Or how about my wife’s car? I’ve got a 4 year loan on that (late model used, thank you very much). I’m not sure that I could easily pay that off in 4 months just by adding some more to the principal. After that, my only debt is the mortgage. But lawdy what a mortgage it is.

I have a savings fund. Several, actually, in the form of cash on hand, index funds, and stock. Should I dip into those to pay off the car now?

On 25 May 2005 (12:38 PM),
Dean said:

One other thing is to make your saving automatic. Have 10% of your pay come right off your cheque and go right into an investment account automatically, without you ever having to remember to do it.

You will ajdust to living on what’s left over and you won’t even notice it.

See “The Automatic Millionaire”.

On 25 May 2005 (02:04 PM),
HF said:

One additional book I *highly* recommend (I’ve been working on this issue, too), is “How to Get Out of Debt, Stay Out of Debt, and Live Prosperously.” (Jerrold Mundis)

Based on the practices of Debtors Anonymous, but presented as a memoir/how-to, this book gets into *how* to convert tracking your expenses into a spending plan. He talks about budgets versus spending plans (a nuance of deprivation versus one of choice), and shows how to free up money for larger goals by “tweaking” spending categories.

One of my favorite things about this book is its advice that, no matter how broke or in debt, you *never* deprive yourself of any needs or at least a few wants. Severe deprivation can lead to resentment binging, joyless hoarding, etc. You pay current expenses, yourself, and old debt, in that order, and you don’t incur any new debt, ever, at all.

He gets into creating space for the new by paring down unwanted possessions and habits, and there’s also a nice touch of magic or kismet. Often, unexpected financial grace moments come when you take good care of yourself and focus on your true path.

This, by far, is my favorite financial health book, because it shows that it’s possible to go from *hopeless* debt to solvency, and even gravy. No pie-in-the-sky windfalls, but some heart-wrenching examples of people who were so deep in debt they were considering drastic, self-destructive actions, and how, step by step, they came out of crisis.

Also highly recommended, Sanaya Roman’s “Creating Money.” This allegedly “channeled” book may be too new-agey for some, but the tone and writing are spot-on. This is about seeing what you have already, cultivating an openness to all sources of wealth, practicing gratitude and generosity, and honoring your real talents. One of my favorite reminders from this book is that there are multiple ways to satisfy a particular desire, and focusing on just one form of satisfaction can make one blind to alternatives. So you look for the core desire; what does that “cabin in the woods” mean to you? Are there other sources available to you for creating such peace, privacy, coziness, time among nature, etc.

Along this same line, the one book I look forward to reading (and I’ve read dozens), that comes recommended by someone I trust a great deal, is “Spiritual Economics” by Eric Butterworth.

I do own Suze Orman’s 9 Steps to Financial Freedom. It’s a geat resource for information when making very specific investment, home-buying, retirement, will, etc choices.

However, for getting motivated & looking at the big picture, you can’t go wrong with Your Money or Your Life, Get Out of Debt.., and Creating Money.

For women, a SUPER resource is The Money Club, a peer-to-peer netowrk of local groups in which women help one another reach financial goals. (Not an investment club)

They have a website with good resources, but it’s the meetings, which include a combination of a financial topic and personal sharing, that ae the core of this program.

http://www.moneyclubs.com/index.html

Another great online resource for women are the printable essays and missions at Flylady.net

Flylady is a seriously generous web-based community of (mainly) women who are working on moving from chaos (whether financial, social, in the home..) to clarity. Once a year, they have a pay-down-your-debt month, and members pay off astonishing hundreds of millions in debt.

Here are the archived essays and missions:

http://flylady.net/pages/FLYsense2.asp
http://flylady.net/pages/FLYsense3.asp

Flylady even offers a downloadable .pdf “Financial Control Journal,” with advice, worksheets, and money-saving tips.

http://flylady.net/images/FACE2004.pdf

On 25 May 2005 (02:15 PM),
Eliot said:

Great summary, J.D! I’ve been reading a lot of these books lately, too, and want to get a good footing before I find a wife and settle into normal adulthood. So far I’ve read “The Richest Man in Babylon”, “The Automatic Millionare”, “The Millionare Next Door”, and “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”.

After reading a couple of books by Kiyosaki, I decided he was trying to pull a scam with the books. He has a few good points, but most of it could be summed up in a paragraph or so. He always refers to his other books and makes you think that you’ll find the real answers if you just read enough of his material (or play his ridiculously expensive “game”).

The best advice was from “The Automatic Millionare” and “The Richest Man in Babylon” (both say about the same thing): pay yourself first (save), make your savings work for you, and reduce your lifestyle.

Anyway, I guess I don’t really have anything intelligent to add. It is amazing that there are so many money books and they all basically say the same thing but yet Americans are still in severe debt. I hope I actually turn some of this advice into practice. I think a big key is to keep marinating my brain with this type of material and be around other people who are trying to get out of debt and save properly.

On 25 May 2005 (02:21 PM),
HF said:

Forgot one great resource.

I went to a women’s financial workshop with several speakers from different perspectives, and one was M.P. Dunleavey, a columnist with the Microsoft network Money channel.

I looked her articles up online, and found a real cache of excellent advice & practices.

For those daunted by budgeting, this one article gives a totally do-able system (in a nutshell, allocate 60% of income for fixed expenses, and 10 each for short-term & long-term savings, investments, and discretionary spending):
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Learntobudget/P36153.asp

Here’s a convenient article index with topic and author:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/Editorial/index/Homedate.asp?c=6&a=6

On 26 May 2005 (06:37 AM),
MrE said:

Nice article.

I think that Personal Finance should be required course in High School and college! Two of my favorite books were Andrew Tobias’ “The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need” and Peter Lynch’s “One up on Wall Street” I also used to subscribe to Money and Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazines (am a I dating myself?) back when they offered advice for the average person.

Anyways, the “snowball” method for reducing credit card debt works great. There’s an excellent free program (“Credit Card Math”) offered by Zilchworks.com that explains why credit card debt is so hard to pay off and demonstrates how using “snowball” greatly reduces payoff time.

http://www.zilchworks.com/CreditCardMath.html

The program does promote their other Debt Reduction Software, but the advice is sound. I actually purchased their software back when it was being distributed on floppy disk – you can use it do diff payoff scenarios. I’m sure the popular finance software available nowadays can do similar, but I haven’t used programs like Quicken and Money in years.

On 26 May 2005 (02:20 PM),
Mike Duffy said:

Since no one has mentioned it, I would add The Wealthy Barber, which tackles personal financial planning in the style of The One Minute Manager, i.e. a story. It’s definitely a “get rich slowly” approach, but the story makes it easy to get through.

On 26 May 2005 (05:55 PM),
Christine said:

My folks have been talking to me about money since I was a wee one. That means explaining to me and my sister that we could either go to the movies every week or go on a family vacation (we chose vacation and I still rarely go to the movies). They also talked a lot about mutual funds, savings, doubling rules, universal life insurance etc etc. When I was 18, they opened an IRA for me. Not exciting, but now I’m looking at buying a first home, I have good savings and no debt, and at least three credit cards that I have never carried a balance on.

So there’s the argument for sharing with your kids.

As for not paying off your morgtage… if you’re paying 4% interest (it’s a great market!) and that’s tax-deductible anyway and you can make a conervative 6% on your investments, you’re making that 2% for yourself, courtesy of a loan from the bank. I don’t think it’s a trick at all. On the other hand, it’s also not guaranteed.

Nice conversation here… thanks!

On 26 May 2005 (07:37 PM),
Karen said:

If you are a woman, I would suggest David Bach’s ‘Smart Women Finish Rich’ or any of his other Finish Rich books. I received my last raise by reading this book. It gives you the courage to speak up for yourself and not be scared to ask for what you deserve. Many studies have shown that a woman makes less than a man performing the same job, plus women live longer than men. We need to earn more money and know how to manage our money. Someone has mentioned ‘The Wealthy Barber’, that’s a good resource, too. I really liked ‘One Minute Millionaire’ and like some others I wasn’t that impressed with ‘Rich Dad, Poor Dad’.

Good post, J.D.

On 27 May 2005 (07:09 AM),
Xavier said:

“Involve your kids in the family finance”

This is important. I speak as a child of a family who is now bearing the fruits of they type of wealth accumulation advocated in these books. I can’t thank them enough.

“The Barefoot Investor” is a great read for students or those just starting out. It offers good advice for those who aren’t currently entrenched in a career or nursing morgages.

On 27 May 2005 (07:23 AM),
Keith said:

Thanks for taking the time to consolidate all of this great info and post it for us!

On 27 May 2005 (07:28 AM),
Avi Solomon said:

Thanks for the great summary. FYI ‘Your Money or your Life’ has a great grassroot community here:
http://www.simpleliving.net/forums/simpleliving/

On 27 May 2005 (11:42 AM),
Chrees said:

JD, thanks for summarizing so I don’t have to read those books!

This may be mentioned or just implied in the books, but making sure you and your spouse are on the same page when it comes to money is very important. As is making damn sure when you get married it is for good (not trying to get into the morality or necessity of divorce, just the economic impact)–divorce can be economically devestating to both parties. I was fortunate in my divorce that both my ex and me had an easy division and were on equal footing at the time of the divorce, but in some aspects it was like starting over on some of the mentioned steps.

Regarding the Edelman book and the seeming contradiction between #8 and #6–I agree with him. Keeping up with financial news is important for your investments–if you left your money in stocks during 2000 and 2001, you would probably have considerably less worth now than if you temporarily cashed out (even after paying the taxes). While the saying “Invest in what you know” is true, I think it’s equally important to understand the market forces going on around you.

Again, a great discussion. Thanks to all.

On 27 May 2005 (02:39 PM),
Darren said:

I’ve seen a few people here talk about buying a car for cash as though this is a good thing or good accomplishment.

In most cases, this is one of the worst things you can do from a financial standpoint, especially if the dealership is willing to finance the purchase at 0%-3.9% like many do. Cars are a depreciating asset. By purchasing a car with cash, you are locking your money up in something that is *guaranteed* to decrease in value.

Most cars are $20,000+. That’s a sizeable chunk of cash that could easily be invested at 6% or more. If the dealership will finance your purchase at a reduced rate, you are much better off taking the financing and investing your money elsewhere.

Sure, you’d pay more for the car over the term of the loan because of the interest, but your invested cash will completely negate that difference plus generate a profit for you.

On 28 May 2005 (03:41 AM),
Alazka said:

A friend recently pointed out to me that, thanks to insanely spiralling property values around DC, I could theoretically sell the house I only signed a mortgage on six months ago and live on the interest alone back in Lesotho (a nation I’m quite fond of), effectively retiring at 38. One factor to bear in mind in seeking that financial independence is: there are many delightful places in the world where one can live quite comfortably on less than a thousand a month, so anyone who actually owns a significant piece of a house on either coast of the USA is probably already set for life if s/he’s willing to travel.

On 28 May 2005 (01:19 PM),
Scott said:

Re: Darren’s comment about zero or low-rate financing.

The cost of borrowing the money is actually substantially higher – the incremental financing costs are just buried in the acquisition cost of the car. If you can get 6% investing elsewhere, so can the financing company giving you the loan. So why would anyone loan money at zero percent? They don’t.

If you’re paying cash you should demand a sizeable discount over the price you pay if you’re financing.

On 28 May 2005 (08:27 PM),
Jim said:

Re: Budgeting

Here’s what we’ve been doing for two years now, and it’s worked very well:

1. Have your bank open a new checking account, and get a debit card attached to it.

2. Have your employer (if you have direct deposit) split some portion of your pay into the new checking account. You’ll have to figure out what’s appropriate for you though.

3. Use the new checking account for all the junk expenses — movies, dinner out, a new CD, etc. Essentially you budget a single lineitem for “miscellaneous expenses.”

I track every penny in and out of our primary checking account (to which all bills are paid from), but I completely ignore — except for the balance — the money in the junk account.

On 29 May 2005 (03:14 PM),
Betsys said:

My advice is very simple: save at least 10% of your income, ALL the time.

If you have direct deposit, arrange for your bank to take 10% off the top before you ever see your money. Do your budget as if the remaining income was all you had. If you don’t have a regular paycheck you have to discipline yourself. You can either accumulate the money in savings and move it to investments in chunks, or if you can, arrange for automatic mutual fund purchases.

I know this sounds inane: many people will say that they don’t make enough to save. My answer: if you were laid off, or if your paycheck was cut 10%, you would figure out a way to survive. So, just pretend. You can do it.

On 31 May 2005 (11:55 PM),
Ian Gilman said:

Also worth reading: ‘The Soul of Money‘, by Lynne Twist.

It’s not about financial independence, but about understanding and directing your relationship with money. A good complement to the other books.

Here’s what Vicki Robin (co-author of ‘Your Money or Your Life’) has to say about it:

“Lynne Twist, with great grace, beauty and conviction, is about to take away from you some precious and utterly failed illusions so you can claim, now and forever, truths that will set you free. She has earned these truths through years of meeting – soul to soul – some of the most and the least advantaged peoples of this earth. Let her speak to your heart and then test her suggestions… and see.”

And yes, I got my copy from the library.

On 02 June 2005 (08:34 AM),
Dimitri said:

Thanks for a great article. This is something I’ve been meaning to do myself as I have also read a handful of similar books.

I just wanted to mention one thing which seems to be missing: Tithe.

In the majority of books I read (including some of the abovementioned titles) there is a common thread of investing ~10% of your income and giving another 10% away to the needy (charities, communities, schools, etc.)

There seems to be consensus that although it doesn’t make financial sense, giving away a tenth actually brings in more wealth in the long run. This may have to do with karma – if you believe in that sort of thing – or maybe it’s just a psychological phenomenon … where, by willingly and happily giving money away, you lessen the chance of getting too uptight about the whole thing.

Some believe that money is a force that needs to flow (similar to water, air, chi…) when you hold on to all of it, it goes stale and is not productive. Give it away and it will come back to you hundredfold.

and that was my 2 cents (a very appropriate phrase, I think ;-)

On 02 June 2005 (11:21 PM),
Emmanuel kinobe Mugerwa said:

i really appreciate yo work.

i really appreciate your work.

On 02 June 2005 (11:22 PM),
Emmanuel kinobe Mugerwa said:

i really appreciate yo work.

i really appreciate your work.

On 05 June 2005 (06:00 AM),
Lance said:

One small item that seems mostly overlooked…

Getting rich slowly doesn’t mean giving up every comfort or luxury. Reducing your expenditures doesn’t mean you can’t spend $100 on a concert ticket or $2000 on a beach trip. When you can afford it.

Yes, during the get-out-of-debt phase it makes a lot of sense to trim all your expenses and get the interest monkey off your back. Once you’ve got a plan established, make a little room for some unnecessary necessities so you don’t go insane. It’s just as neurotic to reject buying anything as it is to be an obsessive consumer. Whether that is $150 a month or $5 will depend on your own situation.

If you can’t enjoy your life while you’re saving, you’ll have forgotten how by the time you’re “rich”.

On 07 June 2005 (08:38 PM),
The WOWmenu.com team said:

You know, wow! Thanks for taking the time to share this information.

This is truly a wealth of knowledge you’ve put together here. Everyone could benefit from investing some attention in building their financial literacy.

I think they now have a catalyst available to them for beginning that process.

Say, any other interest you’d be willing to share?

On 09 June 2005 (06:11 AM),
Stefan said:

Nice article. I wanted to point out, why the an emergency fund is of such importance, and also, why I think that $1000 may not be enough:

Imagine you put your money into some long-term contract. Now imagine, your car breaks down (lose you job, whatever) and you need a new one. And you need it today. What will happen, if you don’t have an emergency fund? You will have to dissolve the long-term contract to get enough money to buy a new (our used :-) car, because you can’t wait to save enough to buy one.

Why is this bad? Because you will have to pay some kind “fine” for getting out of the contract early. Often you will also loose all the interest that you have been building up over the years. So basically you will start from zero (or less, because you will also buy that car). Without an emergency fund you would jeopardize your whole financial foundation that you are trying to build.

Instead, if you had an emergency fund things would have worked out differently. You would take the money for your new car out of that fund. That’s it. You don’t lose any insterest and don’t have to pay any fines.

Just remember to fill up that fund again after you bought your car!

So why is $1000 not enough for this? It depends. If you can live of off $1000 for half a year (not three month, that won’t do in my opinion — better save than sorry) then $1000 is fine. But just remeber: “Living of off” here means food, rent, gas, whatever PLUS any monthly payments for retirement accounts or basically anything that you cannot afford to NOT pay for (because that would cost you extra money).

On 09 June 2005 (03:43 PM),
Paul said:

With all these wonderfull words of wisdom, I don’t really know what to say. However I will give it a shot. I just began “Step 1”. I am now down to $1555 from $6000 in revolving debt. It took me 2 months starting with getting back almost $3,200 from the IRS, from 2004 and 2003 (I never filed the prior year…oops). With that kind of money, I decided to start paying my debt off and start saving again. At about the same time I landed a $20.00 per hour part time job and started becoming obsessed with my whole finacial situation. At this point, I am almost debt free and I started a savings acount with Capitalone at 3.15% APR…even better than ing.com. Stage one is actually fun =)

On 13 June 2005 (07:20 AM),
serenity said:

J.D Thank you so much for breaking it down for me. It is so happen today I return home with a book “finance for dummies”. It’s a bit dissapointing because many of those doesn’t apply here since it is meant for someone living in the state (I live in Indonesia), but your points are so simple to follow.
Thank you so much. I just spent my first point last month, but it’s ok, now that I got the picture I can build my frame.

When we’re both rich, you’ll hear from me.

Good luck with the bathroom, and you know what they say, borrowing comic books meant more friends as long as you returned them (and it is quite tempting I may say :D )

Again thank you.. mmuuach

On 23 June 2005 (08:16 PM),
barkah said:

On the credit cards, i happen not to agree with the statement that they’re bad. They’re sometimes usefull if you are wise in using it. I collected the tips based on my experience here: http://bw.or.id/blog/2005/06/119/

too long if i put it right here.

The main point is: credit card is not extra money.

On 26 June 2005 (08:46 PM),
Don said:

Great article. Thanks. I have The Millionaire Next Door and find it bland. However, Reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad helped me see the importance of everything you shared in your piece. I would highly recommend it to anyone who normally finds personal finance boring or difficult to grasp. It changed my whole attitude about my needs and possibilities. Keep up the good work.
Don

On 21 July 2005 (09:16 PM),
jbelkin said:

Not disagreeing with you on the overall but you do need at least 1 if not 2 credit cards. If you travel or plan to travel, you are labeled as undesirable without a card. You cannot rent a car without one (a debit card generally has a limit of $1,000 a day and rental card companies put a hold on your overall rental + up to 100%). If you buy a ticket with cash, you are labeled a security risk and you will get the full wanding and pat down.

There are lots of cards with no fees and rebates so the they key is not to have no credit cards but to PAY THEM OFF at the next month. There are also lots of deals now where you can transfer your card to a new one with no interest for up to a year … and ironically, the more cards you have and DO NOT use or have a low % balance versus your limit, they will offer you more cards.

On 22 July 2005 (07:48 AM),
Allan Kochis said:

Check out
“Common Sense Economics” by
James Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup and Dwight R. Lee
In the section on personal finance they summarize their point for you!

PS. in my opinion a book worth owning.

On 22 July 2005 (07:52 AM),
Robert said:

linked from boingboing…

anyway, I am getting into the financial thing myself, going into my sophomore year of college one of my “adult friends” is trying to pass on the wisdom…so far I’ve read “The Richest Man in Babylon” and “The Millionaire Next Door” — I personally appreciated how while their styles were completely different (babylon == king james, TMND = info about today’s people) and yet their advice seemed to be the same (within reason, the babylonians didn’t seem to have problems with economic outpatient care nor saving for college)

But anyway, I dig this post, and you’re totally right, their wisdom is sufficiently boiled down to a number of points — but I do appreciate reading their books, the examples are great :) Oh, and they don’t profit off of me — I buy my books at half-priced books :)

On 22 July 2005 (08:44 AM),
Ché said:

An excellent post. I won’t go into my personal background, but I feel very strongly these types of books need to be read in every household.

A quick comment on one of your points:

“Secret #1: Carry a mortgage even if you can afford to pay it off. — This flies in the face of every other financial book I’ve read, and I do not subscribe to the idea. I’m willing to be that the people surveyed carry a mortgage out of habit, not because they think it’s smart.”

You spend your money on investments, not liabilities. Paying, say, $150,000 dollars to eliminate a $1400 dollar a month debt is a bad investment. Let’s say your house is 150k, and you owe all of it. The national average for appreciation is somewhere around 10%. That means your house is appreciating $15,000 a year, and costing you $16,800. Take into account equity buy-down of roughly $150 a month on your $1400 payment, and you have $16,800 worth of equity gain a year. Basically a wash, and that’s FINE. If you pay off your house, you now spent $150k to eliminate a $16,800 a year cost. You now have $150k in a bank account you can’t touch (equity in your house).

Take that 150k and put it into something that gives you a 20% ROI (not unreasonable), and you end up with a 30k a year cash flow, which pays off your mortgage AND gives you $13,200 to invest. So now your total ROI is better than 20%, because you still benefit from the equity buy down that is occuring as a result of your home loan ($1,680/yr).

Mortgages are -goooooood-. Collect as many as you can!

On 22 July 2005 (08:46 AM),
John S. said:

Nice post. I came over here from BoingBoing. I have one comment on a previous comment: although I haven’t read all of it by any means, I think you should be very cautious about the financialsense.com site. Just reading a few articles at random it became apparent that it is “tinfoil hat” territory. I would take what they say with a huge grain of salt.

On 22 July 2005 (08:59 AM),
Ché said:

Morning typos. That last number should have read $1800 a year

On 22 July 2005 (08:59 AM),
Kenneth Greenlee said:

Dear FoldedSpace,

First of all, great post. I don’t think we can ever talk about financial planning too much. Why? Because it must be realized by everyone that financial planning is not just for rich people! Becoming rich (aside from the trillion to lottery chance) requires financial planning.

Some points. FoldedSpace says he is not sure about housing: buy all you can afford? or only what you need? Is it a liability or an asset. The one thing that all the planners agree on (I believe) is that you should own rather than rent. I have read most of the books above and I happen to disagree mostly with Kiyosaki regarding a house as a liability. The reason is that no matter what we have to house ourselves and that costs money. My view of housing is that if an acceptable (but not lavish) apartment would cost me $700, then my task is to find housing that costs me $700 a month to own. Anything above that is a true liability. I found and purchased a 4 unit building (in which I live in one of the units) in New Orleans which costs me around $2000 a month and which brings in around $2000 a month in income. I don’t regard this as a breakeven situation. I regard it as being $700 a month ahead, as I would have to bear the housing costs anyway.

Final point. Paul said in the very first comment:

“All these financial planning books seem to forget to tell you one thing. Write a book about financial planning and make a lot of money! Regardless of whether or not they follow their own rules, principles or plans, they are making money off selling their book. The all state that you should make money off of an asset that you don’t sit on. So, JD, get off your ass and write a financial planning book. It appears there is money to be made.”

Actually there is a book out there which says just that! It is called “Multiple Streams of Income” by Robert Allen, author of the famous “Nothing Down” book on real estate. in it he says (from memory): “everyone has a book in them. I (Robert Allen) calculate that I have made around $20 per word per year from the book that I have published.” Not a bad return.

“Multiple Streams of Income” is very good. One of its strengths is that it gives very concrete recommendations. Of course there is a lot of handwaving, but it not a book of only handwaving.

That’s it!

On 22 July 2005 (09:02 AM),
Jeremy said:

Two Additional Notes:

1. As several people have already pointed out, use direct deposit to make your savings automatic. I have a hunk of every paycheck redirected to a savings account at a different bank. I can’t stress enough how much of an impact this will have on your savings. The best piece of mail I get each month is the statement for the savings account. I do nothing and the number just keeps getting bigger!

2. Eliminate as many of your monthly recurring fees as possible. Cable? Gym membership? Storage space rental? Netflix? Trash or minimize as many as possible, then add up how much you will save per year.

On 22 July 2005 (09:21 AM),
Mark K. said:

For anyone looking for an easy way of keeping track of expenses, I’ve been using the Dome Simplified Home Budget Book. It’s just a book of simple, blank Excel-like charts in which you write the money you spend in a certain category per day. (In case you have more than one expense in a category, you can keep a small calculator handy). Then when you do your monthly totals you compare them with your budget in the last column.

IMHO, this doesn’t have the flair of Quicken, but it CAN be taken with you out and about–which is where I do most of my purchasing. I also have a small accordion file for receipts (so now I know exactly where they go when people give them to me). Anyway, I’ve found it very useful.

The total cost of the book, a small calculator, and the accordion file is probably less than $15.

On 22 July 2005 (10:48 AM),
Mike said:

I am a bachelor and I save 75% of my net income. I really don’t understand why so many people accumulate so much debt. How do they sleep at night? I am 35 and plan to be partially retired (only doing part time fun jobs) in my early 40s. You credit card debt guys should try it. It’s fun to be responsible.

On 22 July 2005 (11:06 AM),
chele said:

Just wanted to repeat; great thread! Thanks for taking the time to write it out. I have read some of the books and noticed the similarities and wondered if they all sounded so much the same. Now I know they do indeed!
Thanks again…

On 22 July 2005 (12:40 PM),
Jeffrey Allen said:

Why is it easier to find investors/lender then it is to find eligible companies wanting capital?
investorrelations@financier.com
Las Vegas

On 22 July 2005 (01:42 PM),
Steve said:

Tammy,

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! That is exactly it! We do it too, similar ages to you. The best thing you can do for yourself is get rid of your debit card, they are for idiots. If you aren’t scared that your life can be completely compiled nicely for an irs goon, then you are just to stupid to really understand how this works and why. Good luck!

On 22 July 2005 (03:42 PM),
Sue said:

Great article

On 22 July 2005 (04:29 PM),
shwonline said:

Great thread!

We carry only one major credit card, which is tied to a specific major airline’s frequent flyer program. $1 spent = 1 mile. We use it a lot, but only to buy what we would have bought anyway. If I have a choice of cash, check or credit card, I use the card. We pay it off in full every month.

I also use this same airline whenever I have a choice in my business travel, as does my wife for her business travel.

We use the accumulated miles to buy airfare and other incidentals during family vacations. We have been able to afford vacations to Hawaii and London this way. It costs us no more, and saves us thousands.

The only other time we ever acquire credit cards is during shopping for back-to-school clothes. If we are buying hundreds of dollars worth of clothes, and the store will give us an extra 15% off for signing up for a card that day, we’ll do it. As soon as the bill arrives, we pay it, and cancel the account. This takes caution and discipline, and I would not recommend it as a regular strategy for most people. However, it has saved us a bundle on occasions.

One other seemingly small thing we do is to order only water at restaurants, including for the kids. We’ve done this all their lives, so they don’t know the difference, and they recognize that it’s a special treat to get something more. For a family of four, this adds up to hundreds of dollars a year.

On 22 July 2005 (06:02 PM),
greg said:

Interesting sight France, thanks for turning me on to it, Greg

On 24 July 2005 (12:12 PM),
Sebrina said:

It was not until I was separated/divorced from my financially-illiterate husband that I really was able to start building my personal finances in a positive way. NO NO NO…I am not advocating divorce, but I am saying to you single folks BE CAREFUL who you marry if one day you want to become financially independent. Both need to be of the same mind to make it work.

One more comment…i agree about the credit cards. Get rid of them. if you are like me and find it mentally excruciating to commit to paying off the balance each month or to stay away from the limit, credit cards are not for you. I keep one just for car rentals and stuff, but it would be better if I had none.

On 24 July 2005 (12:49 PM),
sennoma said:

Nice one, JD. Picked up by Rebecca Blood now. I second Paul’s advice: write a book. There’s enough material in this post alone. Ethical reason: it’s good to have the same ideas presented in a lot of different ways, because different presentations “click” for different people, and because comparison among different presentations yields bedrock principles. Slightly less ethical reason: I bet you’d make a ton of money.

On 24 July 2005 (09:37 PM),
Marina said:

I have read many of the books mentioned and agree with most of them. I would suggest two others that I liked: “Live Rich” and “Die Broke” by Stephen M. Pollan. Good luck!

On 25 July 2005 (02:58 AM),
Fazzy said:

Thank you.

On 27 July 2005 (08:15 AM),
Ganesh said:

Nice discussions!

I dont think credit cards are that bad if you use it wisely. I have a major credit card which gives me upto 5% cashback. So for all my necessities I am using my credit card and each cycle I am paying it off fully. As a result at the end of the year I am getting whopping 2 to 3% adjusted interest on my expenditure approx as a free money.I take it as my gift for being self disciplined.

What do you have to say about it?

Cheers,
Ganesh

On 03 August 2005 (01:19 AM),
Gerard said:

Dear JD,

Thank you for this post.
I was not sure which books to purchase, but now know that the one I purchased was enough. And you summary of all the books will help me greatly.
Keep up the good work.

With regards,

Gerard

On 16 August 2005 (02:06 PM),
Michael said:

Thanks for a GREAT summary of financial books. I have been looking through some of the books, hesitating pulling the trigger on any of them.

My wife and I only have two “big” debts…my student loan from college, and our new mortgage from building a house….no credit cards and no car pymts. I have been looking at way to move retirement money into some better money making investments.

Thanks for a great post, I will stick it in del.icio.ous and refer to it often.

On 19 August 2005 (05:31 PM),
Holly said:

Of course, someone writes a fantastic article and along comes the spammers. :-p

On 27 August 2005 (10:58 AM),
Andrius said:

Great article! Worth tens of books about personal finance, but totally free. Thanks!

On 16 September 2005 (05:17 AM),
Glyn Simpson said:

Good read. Although not explicity named, ‘pay yourself first’ from The Richest Man in Babylon is a philosophy I believe in, and have successfully used.

On 08 October 2005 (12:07 PM),
emma said:

greetings,

this is my first post. i can’t say that i agree with all that you have stated but do with most of it.

first, i have read some of the books that you mentioned, all of which i own. the main reason i purchased the books was to develop a library of financial wisdom for myself and my children.

second, i agree with much of what you said about kiyosaki and his book rich dad poor dad. to me it seems more of a compilation of ideas influenced from think and grow rich, the richest man in babylon and who knows what else. like you, i was unable to narrow down his keypoints and therefore lacks clear and practical application. i am a believer in reading, so this book is recommended. i don’t find it crucial for wealth building however.

i am a huge fan of dave ramsey and own 2 of his books, total money makeover and financial peace university revisited. he is one of the few financial experts that offer practical application of financial ideas and goals. i highly recommend both of his books.

i absolutely enjoyed richest man in babylon. the manner at which clason presented practical ideas was done so creatively and memorably. i personally recommend this book and am happy to have it in my library.

think and grow rich is a much more difficult reading book but has great insight into harnessing the power of the mind to generate wealth.

thanks for your input.