- Do you consider Berkshire Hathaway a separate asset class? I consider Berkshire Hathaway a closed end fund. Yes, the P/E of BRK is 10, but if you ask private businesses around the country, they'll tell you that they'll have a hard time selling their business for 5 times book value, let alone the 10 that Berkeshire Hathaway is getting. This means that there's a premium for Warren Buffett to be running the fund, and I do not expect him to be running the fund 40 years from now. But if you were to put together a fund that invested in private companies that can't be bought on the market, I would consider it a separate asset class.
- Why do you suggest using fixed asset weightings for regions, but market cap weighting for stocks, sectors within a region/country? For countries, there have been countries where the market cap has gone to zero. For instance, the rate of return in Peru for the last century has been -99.5%. So for you to rebalance in those cases would be a bad idea. But within regions, the risk is low, and certain countries like the US, Japan, or Britain can be considered regions because their markets are so mature. We then debated between fundamental weights and market cap weights *with* value/small tilts. At the practical level, on the market cap side you have Vanguard, DFA. On the fundamental side you have folks like Rydex and PIMCO. If you were to ask me there's no contest. (Somewhere in there he also mentioned that he was willing to consider REITs and precious metal equity as separate asset classes you rebalanced against)
- Isn't re-balancing just market timing? There was a paper written quite a while back about this precise issue. The authors were very coy about it. They postulate a world in which nearly everyone was a convex investor (i.e., when something went up they bought more of it, and when something went down they sold it or bought less of it). In that world, you'd make more money if you were a concave investor (i.e., buy more when it's down and sell when it's up). It turns out the model works both ways --- if most of the world is concave, you'd actually make money by being a momentum investor. But of course, the majority of the world is made up of convex investors, which is why rebalancing works. In fact, if you were to buy more of stocks when dividend yields were high, and less of them when dividend yields were low, you'd do very well. Just because you believe in the efficient market does not absolve you of the responsibility to do the math and look at what makes sense.
- How do you get the data to do this computation? You can subscribe to Morningstar. Or use the Wall Street Journal. Or if you're a DFA advisor you get the data as part of the package.
- Interest rates dropped 50 basis points. How does that affect you? It shouldn't affect you at all. It's a no-op.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Conversation with William Bernstein
Thanks to Karl, a bunch of us got to meet William Bernstein today, and the conversation was far more interesting than I expected. Here's a quick summary:
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Review: Mint.com
I was one of Mint.com's private beta users, so I'll give it a quick review now that the press embargo is over.
The traditional approach to personal finance is epitomized by Quicken or Microsoft Money: basically, a double-entry book-keeping spreadsheet made to look like a checkbook register to help you reconcile, categorize, and balance your accounts.
The main reason why most people don't use financial software (despite all the bundling deals that Intuit and Microsoft do) is because it's difficult, tedious, and real work. If you enter the data manually, it takes a while, and if you don't enter it manually, it won't categorize your expenses properly, and you don't actually get accurate reporting. There are all these problems where buying and selling stock don't actually track properly, and the whole thing is a morass. I say this as a long time user of Quicken (I've been using Quicken for 15 years --- I bounced a check once and I never did so again because of Quicken).
Mint.com takes the fresh graduate's intuitive approach to money: I can't be bothered to track every cent --- as long as my bank account goes up, I'm doing something right, and if it can categorize 90% of my expenditures correctly, that's more than good enough.
The premise of the site is that you'll register for on-line access to all your credit cards and banks. You will then provide your user name and password to them. That should sound really dangerous to you, but Mint's security advisory is reassuring. They then get all your up to date statements and poll your financial institutions and download your transactions continuously. New transactions are categorized by an AI-like algorithm (which can be easily improved once they get enough widespread adoption that they can apply statistical analysis), and you set thresholds for alerts to be sent to you (for instance, e-mail can be sent if expenditure exceeds a certain amount, or if large transactions occur, etc).
There are a number of weaknesses. First, they don't do brokerages. So your transfers to your brokerage will show up as "Business Purchase." Oops. In my case that thoroughly skews my reports. Secondly, without double-entry book-keeping, you will not detect bank errors! There's no forced monthly reconciliation, and no way for you to notice, "Hey wait a minute, I didn't shop there", unless you scrutinize each item yourself. For me, this is why I use Quicken. I've caught bank errors, identity theft, bad merchants, and many other problems because the forced reconciliation feature forces me to really look at each statement. By relying on the "as long as my bank account goes up" method, you won't catch any of these.
There are a number of strengths I don't find in Quicken, though! First of all, your Mint.com account is always up to date, including your latest expenditure. Their approach to budgeting is awesome: they basically average your spending in all the categories, and alert you when your spending is out of whack. Very automated, very slick, and very intelligent. If only Quicken was this smart. Finally, when they see suboptimal use of financial institutions, they'll tell you what a better move is (say, by recommending a better credit card, or a bank that pays higher interest rates), and they will quantify how much money you'll expect to save or get by making the move. Are their recommendations good? Well, for credit cards, they recommended the same one that PFBlog recommends as the credit card of the year. He does these analysis a lot more than I do, and I trust his recommendations, and if Mint.com comes up with the same thing, that says a lot.
Am I likely to keep using Mint? Probably not. I definitely am addicted to the reconciliation feature --- the fresh grad. approach to personal finance isn't anything close to what I want. The reporting fails for me as well, since if most of my money goes into investing, giving me 70% expenditure on "Business Purchasing" is of no use. But the budgeting and alerts system and the recommendation system is so good that I fervently wish that Intuit will adopt this for Quicken (the auto-categorization is already there in the latest version of Quicken, though it doesn't save me as much time as I would expect).
All in all, if you're a fresh graduate or you are currently not using Quicken or Microsoft Money, Mint.com is way better than nothing. For tightwads like me or the financially sophisticated who have a lot of investments, I'm afraid that Mint.com will not save you too much work.
Recommended if you fall into one of the above-mentioned categories.
[Recently, mint.com introduced the new investment tracking feature. I've reviewed that feature here.
The traditional approach to personal finance is epitomized by Quicken or Microsoft Money: basically, a double-entry book-keeping spreadsheet made to look like a checkbook register to help you reconcile, categorize, and balance your accounts.
The main reason why most people don't use financial software (despite all the bundling deals that Intuit and Microsoft do) is because it's difficult, tedious, and real work. If you enter the data manually, it takes a while, and if you don't enter it manually, it won't categorize your expenses properly, and you don't actually get accurate reporting. There are all these problems where buying and selling stock don't actually track properly, and the whole thing is a morass. I say this as a long time user of Quicken (I've been using Quicken for 15 years --- I bounced a check once and I never did so again because of Quicken).
Mint.com takes the fresh graduate's intuitive approach to money: I can't be bothered to track every cent --- as long as my bank account goes up, I'm doing something right, and if it can categorize 90% of my expenditures correctly, that's more than good enough.
The premise of the site is that you'll register for on-line access to all your credit cards and banks. You will then provide your user name and password to them. That should sound really dangerous to you, but Mint's security advisory is reassuring. They then get all your up to date statements and poll your financial institutions and download your transactions continuously. New transactions are categorized by an AI-like algorithm (which can be easily improved once they get enough widespread adoption that they can apply statistical analysis), and you set thresholds for alerts to be sent to you (for instance, e-mail can be sent if expenditure exceeds a certain amount, or if large transactions occur, etc).
There are a number of weaknesses. First, they don't do brokerages. So your transfers to your brokerage will show up as "Business Purchase." Oops. In my case that thoroughly skews my reports. Secondly, without double-entry book-keeping, you will not detect bank errors! There's no forced monthly reconciliation, and no way for you to notice, "Hey wait a minute, I didn't shop there", unless you scrutinize each item yourself. For me, this is why I use Quicken. I've caught bank errors, identity theft, bad merchants, and many other problems because the forced reconciliation feature forces me to really look at each statement. By relying on the "as long as my bank account goes up" method, you won't catch any of these.
There are a number of strengths I don't find in Quicken, though! First of all, your Mint.com account is always up to date, including your latest expenditure. Their approach to budgeting is awesome: they basically average your spending in all the categories, and alert you when your spending is out of whack. Very automated, very slick, and very intelligent. If only Quicken was this smart. Finally, when they see suboptimal use of financial institutions, they'll tell you what a better move is (say, by recommending a better credit card, or a bank that pays higher interest rates), and they will quantify how much money you'll expect to save or get by making the move. Are their recommendations good? Well, for credit cards, they recommended the same one that PFBlog recommends as the credit card of the year. He does these analysis a lot more than I do, and I trust his recommendations, and if Mint.com comes up with the same thing, that says a lot.
Am I likely to keep using Mint? Probably not. I definitely am addicted to the reconciliation feature --- the fresh grad. approach to personal finance isn't anything close to what I want. The reporting fails for me as well, since if most of my money goes into investing, giving me 70% expenditure on "Business Purchasing" is of no use. But the budgeting and alerts system and the recommendation system is so good that I fervently wish that Intuit will adopt this for Quicken (the auto-categorization is already there in the latest version of Quicken, though it doesn't save me as much time as I would expect).
All in all, if you're a fresh graduate or you are currently not using Quicken or Microsoft Money, Mint.com is way better than nothing. For tightwads like me or the financially sophisticated who have a lot of investments, I'm afraid that Mint.com will not save you too much work.
Recommended if you fall into one of the above-mentioned categories.
[Recently, mint.com introduced the new investment tracking feature. I've reviewed that feature here.
Review: The Blind Side
I will confess to not being a big fan of American Football; I am fond of quoting George Will: Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. I am, however, a fan of Michael Lewis. His first book, Liar's Poker was funny, well-written, and had great insight to the Wall Street scene. His next book, Moneyball, made baseball, a game I often compare with watching paint dry, actually made the statistics interesting, and gave me an understanding of why my friends who were baseball geeks were obsessed with the game, even though I still found myself unable to watch it. His more book, The New New Thing, I didn't find nearly as interesting, mostly because I work in technology, and his worship of Jim Clark seemed premature. (I did manage to sneak onto Jim Clark's sailboat, The Hyperion when I was in New Zealand in 2000. That's a story for another time)
The Blind Side is two stories at once. First, there's the hero's journey, complete with danger, wise mentors, a rescue, and obstacles to overcome. The hero's journey is about Michael Oher, an inner-city kid who somehow makes it into Briarcrest High School, a religious private school and there he flounders, being viewed by all his teachers as a hopeless cause, until a white family literally finds him on the street, adopts him, and pushes the school to recognize his talent as a left tackle in football, a sport he is born to play.
The other story is the story about football strategy. Everybody knows who the quarterback is on the team, but the other players were not highly paid until relatively recently, where a shift in football rules and strategy encouraged a playing style that reduced the time a quarterback had to think, and made the position defending his blind side a highly lucrative one. The statistics and data Lewis marshals to defend this point of view is highly convincing, and one believes him when he says that the lack of a Sabermetrics equivalent in Football really made it evolve a lot more slowly than it would otherwise have.
The book reads fast and easily, and the story is fascinating. I do question the premise (held by many, it seems), that the way out of the ghetto for black people is sports and for their talent to be recognized. In the book, for instance, Michael Oher's GPA was the gating factor for his financial future --- the NFL is barred for players who do not attend college. If the premise of this book is to be believed, the best thing one could do for inner-city kids is to remove this impediment and allow anyone to play. Michael Oher's adopted father, Sean, spent quite a bit of time manipulating the system to get Michael's GPA acceptable in school --- he gets Michael declared to have a learning disability, and then uses BYU's distance learning program to toss out a bunch of Fs in Michael's report card.
The truth is, however, that even were all the barriers to inner-city talent in sports removed, the number of folks the market can handle with such high salaries is limited --- there are only so many sports stars that can be created. The true path out of the ghetto is more education, where economic productivity can be increased indefinitely, but I guess that is beyond the scope of this book.
Even though I still have no idea what the line up of an American Football team looks like after reading this book, I found it incredibly fascinating and could not help but keep turning page after page. Highly recommended. Michael Lewis is back on form.
[Addendum: Michael Lewis gave a talk at Google about this book. You can now view it on Youtube: Michael Lewis at Google]
The Blind Side is two stories at once. First, there's the hero's journey, complete with danger, wise mentors, a rescue, and obstacles to overcome. The hero's journey is about Michael Oher, an inner-city kid who somehow makes it into Briarcrest High School, a religious private school and there he flounders, being viewed by all his teachers as a hopeless cause, until a white family literally finds him on the street, adopts him, and pushes the school to recognize his talent as a left tackle in football, a sport he is born to play.
The other story is the story about football strategy. Everybody knows who the quarterback is on the team, but the other players were not highly paid until relatively recently, where a shift in football rules and strategy encouraged a playing style that reduced the time a quarterback had to think, and made the position defending his blind side a highly lucrative one. The statistics and data Lewis marshals to defend this point of view is highly convincing, and one believes him when he says that the lack of a Sabermetrics equivalent in Football really made it evolve a lot more slowly than it would otherwise have.
The book reads fast and easily, and the story is fascinating. I do question the premise (held by many, it seems), that the way out of the ghetto for black people is sports and for their talent to be recognized. In the book, for instance, Michael Oher's GPA was the gating factor for his financial future --- the NFL is barred for players who do not attend college. If the premise of this book is to be believed, the best thing one could do for inner-city kids is to remove this impediment and allow anyone to play. Michael Oher's adopted father, Sean, spent quite a bit of time manipulating the system to get Michael's GPA acceptable in school --- he gets Michael declared to have a learning disability, and then uses BYU's distance learning program to toss out a bunch of Fs in Michael's report card.
The truth is, however, that even were all the barriers to inner-city talent in sports removed, the number of folks the market can handle with such high salaries is limited --- there are only so many sports stars that can be created. The true path out of the ghetto is more education, where economic productivity can be increased indefinitely, but I guess that is beyond the scope of this book.
Even though I still have no idea what the line up of an American Football team looks like after reading this book, I found it incredibly fascinating and could not help but keep turning page after page. Highly recommended. Michael Lewis is back on form.
[Addendum: Michael Lewis gave a talk at Google about this book. You can now view it on Youtube: Michael Lewis at Google]
Joel figures out how to beat Google
I try not to comment much about technology trends, especially since I am so often wrong. But when I read Joel's article, I couldn't help thinking to myself, "Did he not know about Google Web Toolkit?"
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Review: The Dynamic Path
Disclosure: The copy of The Dynamic Path I read was a review copy provided by the author's publicist.
The Dynamic Path is properly categorized as a self-help book, much in the vein of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Jim Citrin is an executive search consultant (in other words, a CEO-only head-hunter). I don't know what his background is, but he definitely seems to worship sports and sports heroes to the degree typified in American culture.
The book attempts to provide a guiding road-map to life, from individual achiever to leadership to building an enduring legacy. The examples he provides are almost all drawn from athletes who've built a major legacy, from Joan Benoit, Billie Jean King (the person who instigated Title IX), Lance Armstrong, Tony Hawk, and Tiger Woods.
I'm not sure this book brings anything to the table that other self-help books haven't already: commitment, belief in yourself, focus, practice, and hard work. It is doubtful that if you don't already have those, reading this book will help you gain any. In fact, in one of his sections, he describes mental toughness as having the discipline to keep hitting shots and controlling the ball while allowing your opponent to screw up. His example here was Bjorn Borg. But later, you find out that Bjorn Borg retired right after being defeated by John McEnroe. This isn't uncommon in sports (Miguel Indurain retired right after his defeat by a doped up Bjarne Riis), but it does bring home that perhaps sports heroes aren't the best examples to use for inspirational leadership, even if there are a few exemplars that prove the exception.
As for leadership, I'm not sure leadership can be learned. I've attended lots of leadership seminars, but none of them really tell you how the best leaders do what they do effectively, and neither does this book (seriously: platitudes like "work hard", "focus on the success of others", and "deliver on your commitments" aren't all that useful --- in the complex universe we live in, making the right decision trumps all the others). So what we are left with are the interviews.
While the interviews are the parts of the book most worth reading, it is not clear to me that the interviews are terribly enlightening. The questions are too soft-balled, the replies too generic --- I feel like I've read these interviews all too often in sports magazines (not that I've read many).
All in all, this book could have been a lot shorter and still made its point. A casual airplane read, but seriously, if you want to read material like this, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is still the standard and you should read that first.
The Dynamic Path is properly categorized as a self-help book, much in the vein of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Jim Citrin is an executive search consultant (in other words, a CEO-only head-hunter). I don't know what his background is, but he definitely seems to worship sports and sports heroes to the degree typified in American culture.
The book attempts to provide a guiding road-map to life, from individual achiever to leadership to building an enduring legacy. The examples he provides are almost all drawn from athletes who've built a major legacy, from Joan Benoit, Billie Jean King (the person who instigated Title IX), Lance Armstrong, Tony Hawk, and Tiger Woods.
I'm not sure this book brings anything to the table that other self-help books haven't already: commitment, belief in yourself, focus, practice, and hard work. It is doubtful that if you don't already have those, reading this book will help you gain any. In fact, in one of his sections, he describes mental toughness as having the discipline to keep hitting shots and controlling the ball while allowing your opponent to screw up. His example here was Bjorn Borg. But later, you find out that Bjorn Borg retired right after being defeated by John McEnroe. This isn't uncommon in sports (Miguel Indurain retired right after his defeat by a doped up Bjarne Riis), but it does bring home that perhaps sports heroes aren't the best examples to use for inspirational leadership, even if there are a few exemplars that prove the exception.
As for leadership, I'm not sure leadership can be learned. I've attended lots of leadership seminars, but none of them really tell you how the best leaders do what they do effectively, and neither does this book (seriously: platitudes like "work hard", "focus on the success of others", and "deliver on your commitments" aren't all that useful --- in the complex universe we live in, making the right decision trumps all the others). So what we are left with are the interviews.
While the interviews are the parts of the book most worth reading, it is not clear to me that the interviews are terribly enlightening. The questions are too soft-balled, the replies too generic --- I feel like I've read these interviews all too often in sports magazines (not that I've read many).
All in all, this book could have been a lot shorter and still made its point. A casual airplane read, but seriously, if you want to read material like this, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is still the standard and you should read that first.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Too little, too late (Republicans are Evil, Part VII)
(The above link is only good for the next 7 days)
Alan Greenspan's memoir apparently criticizes Bush and his administration:
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
But Mr. Greenspan, where were you when you had the power to nip the policy in the bud? I remember when you testified in front of congress saying that Tax Cuts were the preferred way to deal with the coming budget surplus. At that time you had so much respect from Congress that if you had pointed out that the surplus was a result of saving for the baby boomer's retirement the fiscal wreck that was the result of the Bush tax cuts might not have happened. Of course, it would be too much to expect the Wall Street journal to point this out. And I am willing to bet the New York Times won't hold Greenspan's history of abetting the raid of the treasury by the wealthy class up to light, either.
As it is, your comments are too little, too late. I definitely don't trust libertarian Republicans: they have never stood up for the rights of the individual against government intrusion, nor do they stand for fiscal responsibility. By consistently voting for people who shift the burden of taxes away from today's wealthy Americans into future generations, they have given up all their principles in favor of class warfare. And as Warren Buffett says, “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Alan Greenspan's memoir apparently criticizes Bush and his administration:
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
But Mr. Greenspan, where were you when you had the power to nip the policy in the bud? I remember when you testified in front of congress saying that Tax Cuts were the preferred way to deal with the coming budget surplus. At that time you had so much respect from Congress that if you had pointed out that the surplus was a result of saving for the baby boomer's retirement the fiscal wreck that was the result of the Bush tax cuts might not have happened. Of course, it would be too much to expect the Wall Street journal to point this out. And I am willing to bet the New York Times won't hold Greenspan's history of abetting the raid of the treasury by the wealthy class up to light, either.
As it is, your comments are too little, too late. I definitely don't trust libertarian Republicans: they have never stood up for the rights of the individual against government intrusion, nor do they stand for fiscal responsibility. By consistently voting for people who shift the burden of taxes away from today's wealthy Americans into future generations, they have given up all their principles in favor of class warfare. And as Warren Buffett says, “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Building a Custom Bike Part II
Changes from last time:
- 3rd water bottle cage (mounted on the wheel side of the down tube). I asked Carl to draw in a 28mm tire just to make sure it would clear with room for renders. (Looks like it does!)
- 43mm offset on the fork. The Bridgestone RB-1 had a 45mm offset. I've test ridden a fork with a 40mm offset on the same geometry, and to be honest I cannot tell the difference. I simply might not be sensitive enough to feel 3mm difference. The 43mm works fine on the Fuji (though the Fuji has never seen a load), but it handles just fine. I sent my Bruce Gordon low rider rack to Black Sheep for mounting and sizing, so that the low rider mounts will work exactly on the fork as specified. The built fork will be sent to Carl directly for final verification and building.
- Not seen in the diagram: spoke holders for spare spokes! A nice feature on touring bikes but never seen on stock frames. This is another reason we buy custom.
Things to explore in the future: finish of the bike (Satin? Polished? Shot-peened?), possible head tube extension so I use fewer spacers? Pardo suggests that I go for a 72 degree seat tube so I can use a no-layback seat post, but the road feel is important to me, and I'm not sure I want a seat tube that slack, having ridden one like that on the Heron Touring bike, which feels unnecessarily sluggish to me when I put power to the pedals.
So far, Carl's been a pleasure to work with. There's a 5 week wait to delivery, but everything looks good. One note is that Carl is raising his prices for custom frames, so if you want one built by him, take note!
Follow up: More Dinotte Nastiness
In April, I wrote a review of the Dinotte Tail-light, pointing out the weaknesses of the product, mostly the mounting options, which works if you're a night racer or luggage-less rider, but not if you're a user of Carradice-type saddlebags, the best solution for randoneuring or light touring today.
That article must have touched a nerve, since I received e-mail today from Dinotte asking me if I would retract my negative article if they sent me one of their new seat post mounts. Ethical issues aside, a look at the new mount would show you that it negates none of the weaknesses I had pointed to in the earlier article.
As a follow-up, I ditched my Dinotte light recently and went back to my ancient Vista-lite, a 10 year-old design that while not providing as much light, provide enough for others to see me, can be mounted on my seat stays, and is extremely pleasant to use. I will very likely sell my Dinotte light to someone who doesn't use saddelbags, or to a night racer.
I hope Cat-eye will start using higher powered LEDs in their lights. Their line of lights already feature superior mechanical linkage to the Dinottes, and it would not displease me to see a line of products clearly designed with thought for the utility cyclist beat out a line of products designed for night racers.
That article must have touched a nerve, since I received e-mail today from Dinotte asking me if I would retract my negative article if they sent me one of their new seat post mounts. Ethical issues aside, a look at the new mount would show you that it negates none of the weaknesses I had pointed to in the earlier article.
As a follow-up, I ditched my Dinotte light recently and went back to my ancient Vista-lite, a 10 year-old design that while not providing as much light, provide enough for others to see me, can be mounted on my seat stays, and is extremely pleasant to use. I will very likely sell my Dinotte light to someone who doesn't use saddelbags, or to a night racer.
I hope Cat-eye will start using higher powered LEDs in their lights. Their line of lights already feature superior mechanical linkage to the Dinottes, and it would not displease me to see a line of products clearly designed with thought for the utility cyclist beat out a line of products designed for night racers.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Review: Making Comics
Making Comics is perhaps the logical sequel to Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, a really great book deconstructing comic books, how they work, and what the medium is about.
Having done so, McCloud sets out to write a book for practitioners, showing how to construct comics. Obviously, the most important construction tool is the story, but nobody can really teach you how to be a great story teller like Alan Moore, so he focuses on the tools you have available to you.
McCloud gave an hour talk about this book at Google, and it was a great talk (unfortunately, it will not be out on video any time soon). He explores sequence construction, drawing humans, faces, and body language, how to integrate words with pictures, and world building. The penultimate chapter is probably the only chapter that non-comic book writers would read and find interesting, which is a taxonomy of comic book creators, and what they are about.
The construction process is interesting, and well laid out for a course about comics. I doubt, however, that someone like Alan Moore would need it, so I scratch my head thinking about what the audience for this book is. Probably the fanboy, or the aspiring comic book artist in school. As with writing, having an understanding of novel construction doesn't mean that you'll construct a great novel, while great novelists do not necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about novel construction, but the book itself is entertaining and perhaps when I read a comic book next time, I'll analyze it differently because of what I learnt in this book.
I enjoyed this book, but think that most people are better off with McCloud's prior book, Understanding Comics. Not because this book is bad, but it's for a specific audience, and if you're not a fanboy, you probably won't be interested.
Worth picking up at the library.
Having done so, McCloud sets out to write a book for practitioners, showing how to construct comics. Obviously, the most important construction tool is the story, but nobody can really teach you how to be a great story teller like Alan Moore, so he focuses on the tools you have available to you.
McCloud gave an hour talk about this book at Google, and it was a great talk (unfortunately, it will not be out on video any time soon). He explores sequence construction, drawing humans, faces, and body language, how to integrate words with pictures, and world building. The penultimate chapter is probably the only chapter that non-comic book writers would read and find interesting, which is a taxonomy of comic book creators, and what they are about.
The construction process is interesting, and well laid out for a course about comics. I doubt, however, that someone like Alan Moore would need it, so I scratch my head thinking about what the audience for this book is. Probably the fanboy, or the aspiring comic book artist in school. As with writing, having an understanding of novel construction doesn't mean that you'll construct a great novel, while great novelists do not necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about novel construction, but the book itself is entertaining and perhaps when I read a comic book next time, I'll analyze it differently because of what I learnt in this book.
I enjoyed this book, but think that most people are better off with McCloud's prior book, Understanding Comics. Not because this book is bad, but it's for a specific audience, and if you're not a fanboy, you probably won't be interested.
Worth picking up at the library.
Engrish
Lisa & I spent at least 20 minutes laughing at the pictures on the above site. This is really great stuff.
One of my favorites:
One of my favorites:
Review: The Fall of Kings
Kushner & Sherman wrote this book before the recent Privilege of the Sword, but the book takes place a good forty years after that book and sixty years after Swordspoint.
The novel involves a University professor, Basil St. Cloud, and of course, a scion of the Tremontaine, Alec Campion, the heir to the duchy. The two are involved in a romantic gay affair (nearly everyone in Kushner's novel is gay or at least bisexual), while St. Cloud's position as a professor revolves around some seemingly innocuous politics.
The politics takes a sinister turn when Basil St. Cloud challenges another professor to an academic debate revolving the ancient kings of the land and their wizards. The political authorities are not amused, as there has been recent uprisings in the North and trouble-makers from the North have come to the city asking for a return to the Monarchy.
St. Cloud comes across an ancient spellbook, and wheels begin to move, as St. Cloud and Campion re-enact the ancient relationships between Wizard and King, and St. Cloud learns the truth behind the land he lives in.
The prose is well-written, and the characters if a little wooden, quite compelling. Though I suspect that Kushner has only a few templates for the male characters --- all her men seem either treacherous, feckless, or mad, the story seems competently handled.
So why did I feel this book to be a disappointment? The book reminds me of the ancient days of American television, where the goal was that each episode returned the universe to status quo, so that script writers could all write episodes independently knowing that everything will be untouched. Characters could get married in TV shows as long as their spouses got killed off at the end of each episode, resulting in a staleness to the long running shows, as nobody ever seemed to remember events between each episode.
Similarly, The Fall of Kings seemed determined to leave Kushner's lovely toy set and stage reset by the end of the novel, rather than taking the story to its natural conclusion. This veering away from substantial change in the setting and landscape left the novel with a bad taste in my mouth, and diminished my opinion of Ellen Kushner's serial works by a notch.
Not recommended.
The novel involves a University professor, Basil St. Cloud, and of course, a scion of the Tremontaine, Alec Campion, the heir to the duchy. The two are involved in a romantic gay affair (nearly everyone in Kushner's novel is gay or at least bisexual), while St. Cloud's position as a professor revolves around some seemingly innocuous politics.
The politics takes a sinister turn when Basil St. Cloud challenges another professor to an academic debate revolving the ancient kings of the land and their wizards. The political authorities are not amused, as there has been recent uprisings in the North and trouble-makers from the North have come to the city asking for a return to the Monarchy.
St. Cloud comes across an ancient spellbook, and wheels begin to move, as St. Cloud and Campion re-enact the ancient relationships between Wizard and King, and St. Cloud learns the truth behind the land he lives in.
The prose is well-written, and the characters if a little wooden, quite compelling. Though I suspect that Kushner has only a few templates for the male characters --- all her men seem either treacherous, feckless, or mad, the story seems competently handled.
So why did I feel this book to be a disappointment? The book reminds me of the ancient days of American television, where the goal was that each episode returned the universe to status quo, so that script writers could all write episodes independently knowing that everything will be untouched. Characters could get married in TV shows as long as their spouses got killed off at the end of each episode, resulting in a staleness to the long running shows, as nobody ever seemed to remember events between each episode.
Similarly, The Fall of Kings seemed determined to leave Kushner's lovely toy set and stage reset by the end of the novel, rather than taking the story to its natural conclusion. This veering away from substantial change in the setting and landscape left the novel with a bad taste in my mouth, and diminished my opinion of Ellen Kushner's serial works by a notch.
Not recommended.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Queuechup is unethical
Spamming my address book? Not cool. Even though I took precautionary steps (e.g., using my spam trap address), it still spammed my address book. If you received an invite from me, delete it. It wasn't really from me. Others have reported similar experiences. Please don't make the same mistake. No wonder social networks have a bad name.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/03/185547.php
http://mashable.com/2007/09/02/quechup/
http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2007/09/spam_alert_just_say_no_to_quechup_1.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/04/quechup-is-rotten-do.html
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/03/185547.php
http://mashable.com/2007/09/02/quechup/
http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2007/09/spam_alert_just_say_no_to_quechup_1.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/04/quechup-is-rotten-do.html
Monday, September 03, 2007
Review: The Bottom Billion
Karl Pfleger raved about this book, and he's a pretty smart guy, so I ordered it from my library and read it. This book is essentially a response to both William Easterly's White Man's Burden and The End of Poverty, a ridiculously over-optimistic tract by Jeff Sachs.
Paul Collier examines the problems of most of the third world countries (mostly African) and looks at the causes of their continual poverty. He pins it down to a few problems: conflicts (including wars), being land-locked and unable to trade, having a lot of natural resources (like oil), and bad governance.
He also explains, as many others have recently, that China's success has actually made it harder for other emerging countries to compete by exporting manufactured objects at lower cost, since China and India both have sufficiently large numbers of people to keep wages depressed at a global level for many years.
He then examines instruments for assisting countries out of poverty. These are targeted aid (expert advise right after a revolution, and money later if a new regime is judged not to be corrupt). military intervention (using the British in Sierra Leone as a model), setting up international laws and charters (like the ones that prevent bribery in the US) so that foreign companies that exploit resources are obligated to try to use the cash in good ways, and better trade policies, much like those espoused by Joe Stiglitz's book last year, Making Globalization Work (Last year's Book of the Year) That last bit shouldn't be a surprise because Collier was one of Stiglitz's proteges at the World Bank.
What does that leave the individual? The problem with most of these solutions is that there's not a ton you can do. Targeted aid isn't something an individual (unless you're Bill Gates) can fund. Neither is military intervention or fixing international law. So while Collier spends page after page imploring the public in rich countries to understand how their governments aren't working to help out developing countries, there's ultimately not much you can do. I can't get myself worked up enough about development to lobby my congressman when I've got so many other priorities, and I'm one of the few who will care enough to read this book. I doubt if others will even bother to read this book, which while not technical is a slog at times.
Hopefully, enough technocrats in positions of power will read this book and make the world a better place for the bottom billion. But I'm not holding my breath.
I recommend this book as good reading for those who genuinely want to help the bottom billion. It should be considered a good start before heading into the specifics (like Easterly's book, and even Jeff Sach's). But I will say I am not optimistic about the outcome. There just isn't enough incentive for folks in rich countries to care about the poor in other countries when for instance, we can't even get health insurance for everyone in the US. Let's fix that first, and then the citizens might have enough largesses to fix the problems the rest of the world has.
Paul Collier examines the problems of most of the third world countries (mostly African) and looks at the causes of their continual poverty. He pins it down to a few problems: conflicts (including wars), being land-locked and unable to trade, having a lot of natural resources (like oil), and bad governance.
He also explains, as many others have recently, that China's success has actually made it harder for other emerging countries to compete by exporting manufactured objects at lower cost, since China and India both have sufficiently large numbers of people to keep wages depressed at a global level for many years.
He then examines instruments for assisting countries out of poverty. These are targeted aid (expert advise right after a revolution, and money later if a new regime is judged not to be corrupt). military intervention (using the British in Sierra Leone as a model), setting up international laws and charters (like the ones that prevent bribery in the US) so that foreign companies that exploit resources are obligated to try to use the cash in good ways, and better trade policies, much like those espoused by Joe Stiglitz's book last year, Making Globalization Work (Last year's Book of the Year) That last bit shouldn't be a surprise because Collier was one of Stiglitz's proteges at the World Bank.
What does that leave the individual? The problem with most of these solutions is that there's not a ton you can do. Targeted aid isn't something an individual (unless you're Bill Gates) can fund. Neither is military intervention or fixing international law. So while Collier spends page after page imploring the public in rich countries to understand how their governments aren't working to help out developing countries, there's ultimately not much you can do. I can't get myself worked up enough about development to lobby my congressman when I've got so many other priorities, and I'm one of the few who will care enough to read this book. I doubt if others will even bother to read this book, which while not technical is a slog at times.
Hopefully, enough technocrats in positions of power will read this book and make the world a better place for the bottom billion. But I'm not holding my breath.
I recommend this book as good reading for those who genuinely want to help the bottom billion. It should be considered a good start before heading into the specifics (like Easterly's book, and even Jeff Sach's). But I will say I am not optimistic about the outcome. There just isn't enough incentive for folks in rich countries to care about the poor in other countries when for instance, we can't even get health insurance for everyone in the US. Let's fix that first, and then the citizens might have enough largesses to fix the problems the rest of the world has.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
First sail of the year
 |
| Sailing on the Bay |
So it begins. My next trip will be a sailing cruise in the Virgin Islands! We're flying there to first get our SCUBA certification, and then we'll sail around the islands on a sloop. My previous long sailing trip was in 1998, with a week sail in the Pacific Northwest. I enjoyed it, but I really really really wanted warm water. The Virgin Islands has that in spades, and in December, I'll be ready for an escape from cold weather!
One of my previous crew members, Lea will be returning as first mate (should I fall off the boat). I still have room for a couple more. We'll see how it goes. Maybe Scarlet and I have learned our lessons from our last trip --- we probably shouldn't be on the same boat for more than a couple of days. Though who knows. It's been 9 years, and maybe a sufficient quantity of board games will distract us from ourselves.
I was really afraid that I'd become rusty, since I'd not been sailing more than once a year. But yesterday reminded me that I'm good enough, and a couple more trips to polish me up will be what the doctor ordered.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Meng gets famous!
Meng's a great guy, and he's from Singapore too. But the most annoying thing about working in the same company as him is getting mistaken for him! That's not too terribly annoying when it's a stranger. But when it's someone who you know somewhat well doing it, it gets very irritating.
A few months ago, apparently, he had the reverse experience. Someone came up to him and started talking about bikes and bike rides. It apparently took Meng a few minutes to realize that someone had mistaken him for me. So here's to Meng. And I now have a great line for anyone who mistakes me for him. I just say, "No, you want the millionaire next door."
A few months ago, apparently, he had the reverse experience. Someone came up to him and started talking about bikes and bike rides. It apparently took Meng a few minutes to realize that someone had mistaken him for me. So here's to Meng. And I now have a great line for anyone who mistakes me for him. I just say, "No, you want the millionaire next door."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters Movie Review
ust saw King of Kong a week ago, and thought it was a great documentary.
For those who don't know what the documentary is about, here's the official website:
http://www.billyvssteve.com/
It is a great documentary in the sense that it has compelling characters, a story you'd imagine only exist in fiction, and a very satisfying resolution to the entire film.
And its about video games, albeit, not really the type of games folks play here, but really, classic gaming is one of those things that folks who've been around long enough look back with fond memories of. I hope anyway =).
This is a documentary, so there's very little to spoil..it basically talks about one man's quest to break the donkey kong world score record and all the difficulties he faced OUTSIDE the game to get his score recognized.
spoilers below, so skip if you want to watch..
The movie starts off talking about the current holder of the record and gives you an interesting perspective on his personality....he's quite a bit of a character and along the way you find out about his philosophy on life, among other things. For those of you who's read http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-David-Sirlin/dp/1413498817]David Sirlin's Playing to Win[/URL]
it then introduces the challenger, and although not a very strong character, is immensely more likeable than the current holder of the record.
The movie then goes on to talk about the challenger's road to getting his record recognized by Twin Galaxies, the official record keepers...of which the record holder is a judge of. Many problems ensue, where the validity of the machine the challenger plays on, the bias towards "their own" that twin galaxies has, and the no-show'ness of the champion to defend his record live.
All in all, its much less of a movie about video games as it is about competitiveness and what people will do to be #1. Some of the interviews come off as disparaging video games and video gamers, but more often than not, its the video gamers themselves that does the most to shoot themselves in the collective foot (they had the most outrageous and...funky quotes).
The documentary ends with the community finally accepting the newcomer into his clique.
Spoilers End
There was a little Q&A with the producer and director of the film later, and when asked why there seemed to be so much bias towards the current record holder, they said it was because he shut himself off from their interviews...he had all sorts of conditions for interviews on him to happen and part of one of those conditions is never mentioning the challenger's name or his feats! They also said as much as possible, they did not put anything they showed on video out of context.
I have to highly recommend this film because I think its a great human story first of all, enjoyable by all, and secondly, because i think its on a topic that all of us on this sub-forum can relate to. =) Great humorous movie too, and when you laugh its because you can relate to whats being said as much as the situations you see.
Go see it if its showing in your hometown!
New-Line's already picked up the movie to be fictionalized (although with the same producer/director, and they already said they're going to stick to the facts as much as possible, recreating stuff that was spoken instead of shown), so it'll soon be mainstream soon enough...a few years maybe!
For those who don't know what the documentary is about, here's the official website:
http://www.billyvssteve.com/
It is a great documentary in the sense that it has compelling characters, a story you'd imagine only exist in fiction, and a very satisfying resolution to the entire film.
And its about video games, albeit, not really the type of games folks play here, but really, classic gaming is one of those things that folks who've been around long enough look back with fond memories of. I hope anyway =).
This is a documentary, so there's very little to spoil..it basically talks about one man's quest to break the donkey kong world score record and all the difficulties he faced OUTSIDE the game to get his score recognized.
spoilers below, so skip if you want to watch..
The movie starts off talking about the current holder of the record and gives you an interesting perspective on his personality....he's quite a bit of a character and along the way you find out about his philosophy on life, among other things. For those of you who's read http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Win-David-Sirlin/dp/1413498817]David Sirlin's Playing to Win[/URL]
it then introduces the challenger, and although not a very strong character, is immensely more likeable than the current holder of the record.
The movie then goes on to talk about the challenger's road to getting his record recognized by Twin Galaxies, the official record keepers...of which the record holder is a judge of. Many problems ensue, where the validity of the machine the challenger plays on, the bias towards "their own" that twin galaxies has, and the no-show'ness of the champion to defend his record live.
All in all, its much less of a movie about video games as it is about competitiveness and what people will do to be #1. Some of the interviews come off as disparaging video games and video gamers, but more often than not, its the video gamers themselves that does the most to shoot themselves in the collective foot (they had the most outrageous and...funky quotes).
The documentary ends with the community finally accepting the newcomer into his clique.
Spoilers End
There was a little Q&A with the producer and director of the film later, and when asked why there seemed to be so much bias towards the current record holder, they said it was because he shut himself off from their interviews...he had all sorts of conditions for interviews on him to happen and part of one of those conditions is never mentioning the challenger's name or his feats! They also said as much as possible, they did not put anything they showed on video out of context.
I have to highly recommend this film because I think its a great human story first of all, enjoyable by all, and secondly, because i think its on a topic that all of us on this sub-forum can relate to. =) Great humorous movie too, and when you laugh its because you can relate to whats being said as much as the situations you see.
Go see it if its showing in your hometown!
New-Line's already picked up the movie to be fictionalized (although with the same producer/director, and they already said they're going to stick to the facts as much as possible, recreating stuff that was spoken instead of shown), so it'll soon be mainstream soon enough...a few years maybe!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes - New York Times
We like to read articles like this, about how bad pollution is in China, and think, "At least we're not this bad." But in this inter-dependent world, we're the enablers of China's pollution. Our insistence on cheap ipods, toys for kids, and support of the 2008 Beijing Olympics all together provide support for the kind of regime that insists environmentalists keep quiet for the sake of "social stability."
The best thing that could happen for China's environmental future (and quite possibly the world's) would be for the Olympic athletes to band together and call for the canceling of the 2008 Olympics. But of course, that would never happen. The kind of person who becomes an Olympian is the kind of person who says "Yes" to a question asking "If you could take a drug that would guarantee you an Olympic gold medal but would kill you in five years, would you take it?" Against that kind of competitive instinct, what's a little bit of particulate matter?
The best thing that could happen for China's environmental future (and quite possibly the world's) would be for the Olympic athletes to band together and call for the canceling of the 2008 Olympics. But of course, that would never happen. The kind of person who becomes an Olympian is the kind of person who says "Yes" to a question asking "If you could take a drug that would guarantee you an Olympic gold medal but would kill you in five years, would you take it?" Against that kind of competitive instinct, what's a little bit of particulate matter?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Review: Cyclist's Training Bible
Over and over again, this is the book that's mentioned most often by serious looking cyclists. You know the type. The ones who weigh what they eat, shave grams off their bikes, and shave their legs. My heroes all this time though has been folks like Eric House: who's never owned a heart rate monitor. They'd never ride with a power meter, and think of riding daily as "training."
Nevertheless, I wanted to see what the hype was about, and so bought a copy of this book. The thesis of this book is that you must make every ride count, and train with a purpose. At long last I understood where the phrase "junk miles" comes from. It comes from this book. (My bike club refers to "junk miles" as flat riding, but this book refers to "junk miles" as miles that don't add to your fitness)
To this purpose, the cyclist must have a plan to improve their fitness. This means dividing the year up into macro cycles, and treating each week as a micro cycle, with each day of the week working on a different part of the cyclist's weaknesses. What's fascinating to me is the concept of the "build" cycle, where you ramp up the intensity and effort and then drop it way back so recovery can happen.
Another interesting thing here is the emphasis on rest. Apparently, the kind of people Coach Friel trains are so driven that the hard part is to get them to back off so their bodies will recover. (Definitely not a problem for lazy old me!) So rest is built into the schedule so that the ultra-driven types know when to back off.
There are special chapters on women's needs, on nutrition, strength and weight training, as well as stage races. The emphasis on discipline and plan just comes through the book. No wonder racer-types speak of this book reverently. Anyone who can do everything the book says has either quit his job to become a professional racer, or is superhuman (or, as lately been fashionable in professional cycling, on drugs!).
In any case, everything is described in a crystal clear fashion, including the algorithm for designing an annual plan. What's also fascinating are the heuristics that he provides for determining whether you should work out on a particular day. Again, the theme here is that if there's any doubt, you should back off.
As far as whether the book achieves Coach Friel's goals, I think it does an admirable job. It's clear, consistent, and as disciplined as its author seems to be. But it all leaves me with one thought: where is the enjoyment? Where is the part where you ride up a mountain with friends, looking forward to another beautiful day? Where is the place where you hang out with your friends at dinner, reminiscing with your companions? The book has no place for them. You are encouraged to ride alone as much as possible, lest your competitive instincts take over and you work too hard. Or perhaps your companionable instincts take over and you work too little. No wonder the serious cyclists I meet never ask if I want to go for a ride!
Ultimately, I enjoyed the book for the view it gave me into the serious racing cyclist and their approaches to the sport. Again, and again, however, I am reminded of what a friend of mine once said to me: "The problem with you, Piaw, is that you want to enjoy the ride. Don't you realize that unless you're throwing up at the end of the ride, you didn't go hard enough?" Perhaps someone needs to write a version of this book for the touring cyclist who wants to enjoy the ride.
Nevertheless, I wanted to see what the hype was about, and so bought a copy of this book. The thesis of this book is that you must make every ride count, and train with a purpose. At long last I understood where the phrase "junk miles" comes from. It comes from this book. (My bike club refers to "junk miles" as flat riding, but this book refers to "junk miles" as miles that don't add to your fitness)
To this purpose, the cyclist must have a plan to improve their fitness. This means dividing the year up into macro cycles, and treating each week as a micro cycle, with each day of the week working on a different part of the cyclist's weaknesses. What's fascinating to me is the concept of the "build" cycle, where you ramp up the intensity and effort and then drop it way back so recovery can happen.
Another interesting thing here is the emphasis on rest. Apparently, the kind of people Coach Friel trains are so driven that the hard part is to get them to back off so their bodies will recover. (Definitely not a problem for lazy old me!) So rest is built into the schedule so that the ultra-driven types know when to back off.
There are special chapters on women's needs, on nutrition, strength and weight training, as well as stage races. The emphasis on discipline and plan just comes through the book. No wonder racer-types speak of this book reverently. Anyone who can do everything the book says has either quit his job to become a professional racer, or is superhuman (or, as lately been fashionable in professional cycling, on drugs!).
In any case, everything is described in a crystal clear fashion, including the algorithm for designing an annual plan. What's also fascinating are the heuristics that he provides for determining whether you should work out on a particular day. Again, the theme here is that if there's any doubt, you should back off.
As far as whether the book achieves Coach Friel's goals, I think it does an admirable job. It's clear, consistent, and as disciplined as its author seems to be. But it all leaves me with one thought: where is the enjoyment? Where is the part where you ride up a mountain with friends, looking forward to another beautiful day? Where is the place where you hang out with your friends at dinner, reminiscing with your companions? The book has no place for them. You are encouraged to ride alone as much as possible, lest your competitive instincts take over and you work too hard. Or perhaps your companionable instincts take over and you work too little. No wonder the serious cyclists I meet never ask if I want to go for a ride!
Ultimately, I enjoyed the book for the view it gave me into the serious racing cyclist and their approaches to the sport. Again, and again, however, I am reminded of what a friend of mine once said to me: "The problem with you, Piaw, is that you want to enjoy the ride. Don't you realize that unless you're throwing up at the end of the ride, you didn't go hard enough?" Perhaps someone needs to write a version of this book for the touring cyclist who wants to enjoy the ride.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Review: James Tiptree Jr, The Double Life of Alice B Sheldon
I will confess something: even though his stories were widely acclaimed as I was growing up, and I'm positive I've read many of them, I do not remember any of James Tiptree's stories. Perhaps they were too difficult for an adolescent, or perhaps their themes just slipped by me --- I had then, as now, a preference for hard science fiction, not social science speculation.
But Alice Sheldon's life I found completely fascinating. Here was a woman both beautiful and intelligent (how many of her fans were both?), and a high achiever in many ways, yet never happy. Born to adventurous parents who were world travelers, writers, and successful socially, she perhaps felt too much pressure to live up to her mother's and her own expectation. But Julie Philips, in weaving Sheldon's life, tries too hard to turn all those advantages (wealth, upbringing, beauty, intelligence) into disadvantages:
Alice had the bad luck to be extremely pretty. If she hadn't been, she might have given up the popularity contest. She might have studied harder, prepared for a career, and not cared what people thought. She and the other awkward, bright girls might have been friends. Instead she cared about appearances, practiced femininity and flirtation, and got addicted to the rewards for being a pretty girl.
Maybe that could be an excuse when you're 12, 14, 16, or even 25. But when you're in your 60s and still addicted to the rewards for being a pretty girl, I think you have to start taking responsibility for your own life, and I think Philips was being too generous to her subject when she pontificates thus.
But perhaps Philips wasn't generous enough when she glosses over Sheldon's mental illness (she appears to have at least a mild case of manic-depression), addiction to drugs (amphetamines being the main one), and her tragic case of being gay but born in the wrong time, where coming out would not have been either trendy or bearable, especially to a woman with all the "advantages" she had.
Philips spends well over half the pages in this long book on the pre-Tiptree Sheldon, and it definitely takes that much time to understand the remarkable person Alice Sheldon was, independent of her eventual career as a much-celebrated science fiction author. She was in many ways, a woman pioneer who was perhaps not recognized for being one of the first women enlistees in the World War 2 army, early work with the CIA and photoanlysis, one of the first women to get a post-graduate degree of any sort, in short, an extremely gifted individual.
Her ability to write truly shone, however, only while she was using her pseudonym, for which she is most famous. Her biography certainly justified it: the time in the army, the facility with camping and the outdoors, her life in the CIA... It was no wonder she fooled so many other writers into believing that Tiptree existed and was indeed a man. Reading some of the flirtatious exchanges between Tiptree and Ursula Le Guin, for instance, makes me want to dig through all of Sheldon's correspondence. (You have to remember, this was someone who wrote a letter a week to several friends at a time when e-mail didn't exist!) What was surprising was that her writing suffered once she was outed, despite the honors bestowed her by science fiction fandom, a community proud of its tolerance and open-mindedness. A lot of this, ultimately, was laid by Philips on the door of her "advantageous upbringing", which I believe to be bollocks. It was clear by this time that Sheldon shied away from any activity where failure could blow her up, and hence needed the protection of a psuedonym to write with freedom. That her personality was constructed this way was perhaps the result of her mother's continuous achievements that led her to feel pressured to achieve, but perhaps also a result of the all-too-common female situation: most women seem to have so many choices in their lives that they have a hard time picking one thing to do really well (Sheldon's biography definitely demonstrates that), while most men I know (or have read biographies of), seem to pursue the one thing they love or are good at single-mindedly, to the cost of everything else. That difference might account for the failure to adapt to success that Sheldon had --- she always had the choice to retreat to herself and attempt different things, while a man in her situation probably would think he had no choice but to work even harder.
The ultimate tragic ending of her life is well known, though not the details. Philips, unfortunately shies away from the fact that ultimately, Sheldon murdered her husband before committing suicide. I was vaguely aware of it, but other narratives had led me to believe that this was a suicide pact, but the Philips' analysis, if correct shows this to be murder. Worse, pre-meditated murder. Philips comes up with all sorts of excuses for Sheldon, but ultimately, this story in the end is one of mental illness mixed amongst brilliance and hard work.
A fascinating life, worth reading even if you're not a feminist, and definitely worth paying paperback prices for if you can't get it out of your local library. (Note: the paperback will not be out for a year)
But Alice Sheldon's life I found completely fascinating. Here was a woman both beautiful and intelligent (how many of her fans were both?), and a high achiever in many ways, yet never happy. Born to adventurous parents who were world travelers, writers, and successful socially, she perhaps felt too much pressure to live up to her mother's and her own expectation. But Julie Philips, in weaving Sheldon's life, tries too hard to turn all those advantages (wealth, upbringing, beauty, intelligence) into disadvantages:
Alice had the bad luck to be extremely pretty. If she hadn't been, she might have given up the popularity contest. She might have studied harder, prepared for a career, and not cared what people thought. She and the other awkward, bright girls might have been friends. Instead she cared about appearances, practiced femininity and flirtation, and got addicted to the rewards for being a pretty girl.
Maybe that could be an excuse when you're 12, 14, 16, or even 25. But when you're in your 60s and still addicted to the rewards for being a pretty girl, I think you have to start taking responsibility for your own life, and I think Philips was being too generous to her subject when she pontificates thus.
But perhaps Philips wasn't generous enough when she glosses over Sheldon's mental illness (she appears to have at least a mild case of manic-depression), addiction to drugs (amphetamines being the main one), and her tragic case of being gay but born in the wrong time, where coming out would not have been either trendy or bearable, especially to a woman with all the "advantages" she had.
Philips spends well over half the pages in this long book on the pre-Tiptree Sheldon, and it definitely takes that much time to understand the remarkable person Alice Sheldon was, independent of her eventual career as a much-celebrated science fiction author. She was in many ways, a woman pioneer who was perhaps not recognized for being one of the first women enlistees in the World War 2 army, early work with the CIA and photoanlysis, one of the first women to get a post-graduate degree of any sort, in short, an extremely gifted individual.
Her ability to write truly shone, however, only while she was using her pseudonym, for which she is most famous. Her biography certainly justified it: the time in the army, the facility with camping and the outdoors, her life in the CIA... It was no wonder she fooled so many other writers into believing that Tiptree existed and was indeed a man. Reading some of the flirtatious exchanges between Tiptree and Ursula Le Guin, for instance, makes me want to dig through all of Sheldon's correspondence. (You have to remember, this was someone who wrote a letter a week to several friends at a time when e-mail didn't exist!) What was surprising was that her writing suffered once she was outed, despite the honors bestowed her by science fiction fandom, a community proud of its tolerance and open-mindedness. A lot of this, ultimately, was laid by Philips on the door of her "advantageous upbringing", which I believe to be bollocks. It was clear by this time that Sheldon shied away from any activity where failure could blow her up, and hence needed the protection of a psuedonym to write with freedom. That her personality was constructed this way was perhaps the result of her mother's continuous achievements that led her to feel pressured to achieve, but perhaps also a result of the all-too-common female situation: most women seem to have so many choices in their lives that they have a hard time picking one thing to do really well (Sheldon's biography definitely demonstrates that), while most men I know (or have read biographies of), seem to pursue the one thing they love or are good at single-mindedly, to the cost of everything else. That difference might account for the failure to adapt to success that Sheldon had --- she always had the choice to retreat to herself and attempt different things, while a man in her situation probably would think he had no choice but to work even harder.
The ultimate tragic ending of her life is well known, though not the details. Philips, unfortunately shies away from the fact that ultimately, Sheldon murdered her husband before committing suicide. I was vaguely aware of it, but other narratives had led me to believe that this was a suicide pact, but the Philips' analysis, if correct shows this to be murder. Worse, pre-meditated murder. Philips comes up with all sorts of excuses for Sheldon, but ultimately, this story in the end is one of mental illness mixed amongst brilliance and hard work.
A fascinating life, worth reading even if you're not a feminist, and definitely worth paying paperback prices for if you can't get it out of your local library. (Note: the paperback will not be out for a year)
Building a Custom Frame (Part 1)
As I mentioned before in my recent trip report, I am done with the Heron as a touring bike. The next touring bike had to have long reach caliper brakes, which meant either a production Rambouillet frame, or a custom frame of some sort. (I had previously test-ridden a 650B Kogswell, and found them unacceptably slow and sluggish)
Ramboouilllets new, however, are exceedingly costly: $1400 for a frame and fork, which puts them into the realm of a custom frame from reputable builders for $1200. Furthermore, my desire was for a bike that rode as nicely as my 1993 Bridgestone RB-1, which meant getting as close to its geometry as possible while turning it into a suitable touring bike.
Ironically, I consider the Heron Road geometry to come extremely close to this ideal. The Heron road frame, which Roberto used in our recent alps tour to good effect feels fast and light, and would be ideal, except that once again, for $1200, it's sjust as costly as a custom job and heavy! I've ridden heavy bikes all my life, but the Fuji Team SL taught me that weight matters to a 145 pound rider, no matter what Grant Petersen says.
So it came down to a custom frame made out of Reynolds 953 Stainless Steel, some other lightweight steel, or Titanium. I consulted with Bob Brown and Carl Strong, and found that Bob did not want to talk about the weight of the finished product, while Carl was straightforward about it: he thought a 953 frame would come in around 3 pounds or so, while a Ti frame would come in at less weight with the same cost. A titanium frame would also have thicker walls and be quite a bit more dent resistant.
At this point, it came down to selecting a builder. I immediately ruled out the boutique builders like Seven, Independent Fabrications, Moots, and Merlin Metalworks. While I understood that titanium would be costly, at the prices those manufacturers would offer me a frame I would be paying more for brand name than for performance. (Folks at work were proudly telling me about the deal they got for an independent fabs steel frame at $2000!)
I eventually narrowed it down to Carl Strong and Lynskey Performance. I got turned into them because Stefan had become a big fan of Litespeed and their shaped tubes. Calling a Litespeed dealer at random indicated to me that I didn't want to work through a dealer, but since Lynskey started Litespeed, it was worth talking to them. Lynskey assigned me a salesperson and I walked through the process with them. Ultimately, however, between all the additional upcharges and a salesperson who didn't really understand what I wanted built, Carl Strong seemed like a better choice.
After all the measurements were taken, Carl and I sat down on the phone and discussed what we wanted out of the bike. I presented the geometry that I discussed above, and we talked about the modifications. After a week, I got the first draft of the frame design, and we'll work together some more to finalize what we want out of it. If this bike works out the way I think it would, I think it will be ultimately replace both my touring frame and the Fuji. There's no reason I wouldn't want a bike with this geometry to be the bike I want to ride all the time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
