We Are Not Saved

Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart By: Nicholas Carr Published: 2025 272 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? On its surface, this is a fairly typical anti-social media book, though Carr does have some interesting things to say about weaknesses inherent to the medium: content collapse, algorithmic engineering, and hostility generation. All things I'll get to in a bit. What's the author's angle? Carr comes from the Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman school of media criticism. Media have inherent properties that lead to different sorts of communication, and different strengths and weaknesses. Carr, like many, thinks that social media has some particularly salient weaknesses.  Who should read this book? When considering whether to read a non-fiction book, one has to consider where it fits with one's various interests. If you're really interested in the negative effects of social media, then I would definitely read this book. If it's one of many interests, but not in your top 5-10, then you can probably skip it.  What does the book have to say about the future?

A story of one Palestinian's fight against brutality, bureaucracy, and bishops.  We Belong to the Land: The Story of a Palestinian Israeli Who Lives for Peace and Reconciliation By: Elias Chacour and Mary E. Jensen Published: 1990 212 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? An autobiographical account of Chacour's struggles as a Palestinian Christian working to build up his community in Galilee (Ibillin) while under continual pushback from Israeli bureaucracy and internal church politics. What's the author's angle? At the time the book was written Chacour was a Melkite Greek Catholic Priest in the town of Ibillin. (He was later appointed to be the Archbishop of Haifa.) He has worked tirelessly to resolve the Palestinian problem using nonviolent means that emphasize reconciliation and the common background of both people. He pushes for Palestinians to be treated with dignity, but also for them to create dignified institutions. These institutions, particularly the school he founded, take up most of his energy. Who should read this book? As part of my post on Israel and Hamas I asked for books making the pro-Palestinian case. One of my readers recommended this book. It was a good book, but to the extent that it illuminated the problem it did so very obliquely. This is the story of a non-violent Palestinian Christian written over 30 years ago. Certainly it helped my understanding at maybe a 30,000 foot level?  But it didn't shed much light on the current crisis.  However, if you want the story of someone who took a really "bad hand" and did something truly extraordinary with it, then this is your book. Specific thoughts: If every Palestinian and every Israeli resembled Chacour and his congregation then the problem would be solved.

Asterios Polyp by: David Mazzucchelli The Last Equation of Isaac Severy: A Novel in Clues by: Nova Jacobs The Impossible Fortune: A Thursday Murder Club Mystery by: Richard Osman The Moviegoer by: Walker Percy Academy of Outcasts by: Larry Correia

The power of positive thinking and cocaine! The Kid Stays in the Picture By: Robert Evans Published: 1994 432 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? This is the autobiography of Robert Evans. It jumps around a lot, but it's mostly built around his time as head of production for Paramount pictures from basically 1966-1974. Evans had basically zero experience, but by working himself nearly to death he produced such films as: The Godfather, Love Story, Chinatown, and Rosemary's Baby. In the process he saved the studio and became one of the most iconic figures of "New Hollywood".  Or to come at it from another angle, imagine Hollywood in its most wheeling and dealing, debauched, and drug-fueled state, that's what this book is about. What's the author's angle? Evans is an obvious narcissist, and it's clear that he has axes to grind, scores to settle, and crimes to explain. But he also has people to thank, stories to embellish, and insights to dispense. This is the author's book in a way that few books are. If Evans had any kind of editor, or even a lawyer look over this book I'm sure he told them to piss off far more often than he listened to them.  If you pick it up on audio, Evans did the reading which adds a whole other layer to his stories. Who should read this book? If you enjoy meeting that person at the party, the person who name drops like each name is a bomb and he's over Germany in 1945. The guy who tells one insane story after another, stories so insane you can't believe they're not exaggerated. But it's also possible that they've actually been toned down for legal reasons. If you enjoy outrageous raconteurs, then this is the book for you. Specific thoughts: What does success look like?

Chesterton mostly lost me after Arthur and Alfred, but I feel like I got his point in spite of that. A Short History of England By: G.K. Chesterton Published: 1917 107 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? The book is titled the "History of England", but it's really a book about the soul of England. Chesterton examines this soul chronologically from the "Age of Legends" down to the time the book was written, which happened to be the middle of World War I. What's the author's angle? It's Chesterton, so there's obviously a religious angle, and a traditional cultural angle. Even expecting this, I was surprised by how much he missed the old guild system, and other features of medieval life. There's a lot of anti-rich sentiment in the book, but he's also no socialist either.  Who should read this book? I don't think it's practical or even wise to read everything Chesterton wrote, but I have a vague goal to read most of what he's written. Even then I'm pretty sure that knowing then what I know now I would have advised myself to skip this book, or at least only read the first few chapters.  The big problem is that Chesterton is not dispensing English history (contra the title) he's interpreting it. He assumes you already know a ton of history, and he's just going to tie it together in a new way. I'm sure a highly educated Englishman in 1917 would have had no problem with Chesterton's references, but 100 years on, this poor American was frequently completely lost. Here's an example: It will be apparent, when I deal with that period, that I do not palliate the real unreason in divine right as Filmer and some of the pedantic cavaliers construed it. They professed the impossible ideal of "non-resistance" to any national and legitimate power; though I cannot see that even that was so servile and superstitious as the more modern ideal of "non-resistance" even to a foreign and lawless power. But the seventeenth century was an age of sects, that is of fads; and the Filmerites made a fad of divine right. Who or what is Filmer and the Filmerites? One could look it up (apparently it refers to a 17th century political theorist, Robert Filmer) but you're not going to get any information from the book. This selection, with its two references, is the first and last time the name shows up.  I'll tell you what I got out of the book and you can go from there, but as a general matter I wouldn't recommend reading this book. It has all the normal Chesterton witticisms and turns of phrase, but there are easier places to get those.