The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon
Publisher: Vintage
Year: 2004
Pages: 240

Those of you following along at home may remember when I read Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho. At the time, I mentioned that in some ways it was a remarkably boring book, and then a remarkably disturbing book, but all the while a remarkably fascinating book because the real meat, I believed, was not in the Devil-Wears-Prada-meets-Hostel plot, but rather in the way Ellis chose to narrate the book from the sociopathic narrator’s point of view, which brings up important points about narrator reliability, and was if nothing else one of the neatest rhetorical tricks I’ve seen in a long while.

Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time strives for the same thing, only without the gruesome torture. Rather, Haddon narrates through the eyes of a 15-year-old autistic boy named Christopher who is an idiot savant at math (for instance, he mentally calculates the cubes of the cardinal numbers to relax) but socially inept in the way that many autistics are. Autism, despite not being a new idea in pop culture (think Rain Main, or the unnoticed Mercury Rising) is still not understood very well, conflated with mental retardation. Importantly, I think that Haddon’s approach to constructing an autistic character is not only thorough, but sensitive to the issue, as well. Readers really do get a sense of the difficulty autistics have with sensory input, and with so-called “emotional intelligence.”

The book begins under the pretenses of a mystery novel (the title itself is a nod to an adventure of Sherlock Holmes) as young Christopher stumbles upon a murdered dog and ends up being blamed for it. From there, he spins his tale—part detective work in the present, part character development in the past, and part random tangents about math and science, such as the Monty Hall Problem. Without telling you how the “mystery” ends, I will say that it is solved about halfway through the book—the dead dog is a red herring in a much larger mystery that Christopher unravels. In a way, the book segues from a mystery to a bildungsroman at it tracks Christopher’s narrative progress as well as his emotional development (if you could call it that—I am unconvinced that Christopher develops emotionally at all, but does grow intellectually in a way that allows him greater interaction with those close to him).

One of the aspects of the novel that I found most compelling was when Christopher deconstructs certain things that we as ‘normal’ people take for granted, using the cold, questioning logic of a young child coupled with his own honed mathematical approach to life, which inadvertently points out the absurdities that really make no sense to a person without predispositions to the maudlin or the illogical. It’s fascinating, really

This book was a surprise for me—I didn’t know what to expect, but I was really impressed by Haddon’s debut, to the extent that I’m more than willing to read anything else he writes. If you’re at all curious about this sort of thing, give it a try: it’s only 240 pages, and quite enjoyable.

§1347 · August 30, 2006 · 3 comments · Tags: , , ,

Wednesday’s Word: shibboleth

shibboleth
n. a peculiarity of pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc., that distinguishes a particular class or set of persons

I read this delightful little word in Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct (and later in an H.L. Mencken excerpt) and decided it would be perfect for a Wednesday’s Word. It has a number of meanings, but its literal meaning is the first one, as it was used by the Gileadites to find Ephraimites, for whom the phoneme |š| or |ʃ| was unpronounceable (see Judges 12:4–6).

Shibboleths can be customs—as long as we’re talking about the Hebrews, circumcision comes to mind—but they tend to be grammatical. For a good list, see the Wikipedia entry.

§1333 · August 30, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags:

Who in the hell is Brent Roos?

It was all just a hoax, apparently. Still, I don’t think I would be out of order, were it true.

That’s what Brent Roos’ tagline asks. I’ll answer you: he’s a troll with an inflated sense of his own importance. Think I’m being a little harsh? Maybe, but read on, and maybe it’ll take only his first few sentences to sway you.

My Ubuntu machine totally crashed –motherboard and all! I was able to save the memory and cd-r/rw drives. Besides that it is a total loss. In a related story, my brother also had a similar experience, although not nearly as severe. What does this mean? Hello XP! That’s right. I’m back on Windows. I think Ubuntu has something to do with these crashes, since both mine and my brother’s were similar, and we were both running Ubuntu. Or, it could be a total coincidence, but I doubt it.

Where to even start?

There are a lot of different parts in a system. Roos claims to have only saved his system memory and optical drive, which means that his motherboard, his hard drives, any peripheral cards (if he had them), his processor, and anything else he might have conceivably had in his box is apparently broken beyond repair. Think about the kind of catastrophe it would take to kill almost everything in a computer box. What comes to mind? Lightning? Water? Dropping the damn thing while moving it? Did “Using a reliable piece of software used by millions of computer enthusiasts and network managers throughout the world” ever come to mind as in the list of possibilities? Roos admits that it may be a coincidence that both he and his brother experience hardware failures and they both used Ubuntu, but he doubts it. Why is that, Brent? Did Miss Cleo tell you otherwise?

But what I really love is why Brent thinks Ubuntu is to blame, and I will blockquote it just to highlight the inanity.

I think Ubuntu was over-stressing my hardware.

Let that sink in for a bit. Then consider that Roos claims to be a computer expert, with years of experience using both Windows and Linux. Now, I don’t care about Ubuntu, per se: it’s my distribution of choice, but I understand that it’s not for everybody. But, when Roos says “Ubuntu,” he really means “Linux,” as though Linux is still some alpha-quality piece of software notorious for crashing system and frying hardware—if you doubt for even a second the depths of Roos’ idiocy, consider that he also seems to think that Windows XP is not only a wonderful operating system, but completely stable as well (because he’s never had a hardware failure in the five years he used XP! Conclusive, rock-solid proof!).

So, certainly Roos overestimates his technical knowledge (he has two degrees, he says, which I think reflects rather poorly on his alma mater) and his capacity to make qualified judgement. That fulfills the latter part of my initial statement. But why do I think Roos is a troll, rather than a simpleton? Because in announcing to the world that he is switching from Ubuntu back to Windows XP, he also takes considerable time to let loose some old, tired canards about Windows v. Linux, and just about have an orgasm singing the praises of that which is Windows, while at the same time of course villifying Linux as though it had killed his firstborn child instead of (ostensibly) his hardware. So, here we go:

There are some in the Ubuntu forums, but not many, who can be considered professionals –as far as having any official credentials of being a professional in the computer field. I happen to be one of those people with official degrees and certifications.

Certifications don’t mean anything—just because Roos got his silly A+ cert, or an MS cert., doesn’t mean he knows anything important when it comes to computers. If he did, he might know better than to say things like “I think Ubuntu was over-stressing my hardware.”

It is my professional opinion that Ubuntu is not even close to as polished of an operating system as Microsoft Windows XP. Not even close, especially for new users. The Linux desktop will never be what the fanboys want it to be, because of companies like Microsoft –who make better software. Sorry.

Perhaps in other parts of the world this may not be the case. However, in America, we prefer to use the best –which happens to be Microsoft.

I think it’s clear that Ubuntu has plenty of polish—it and Novell’s SLED are probably the two most polished Linux distributions there are. What Linux in general still doesn’t have is comparable third-party driver support (for certain things like Wifi or Gfx cards). Linux is also very user-friendly, but it depends on how deeply you need to delve into the system. As I’ve noted before, mid-level users are stuck between knowing exactly what they are doing, and not needing or being able to do anything.

Furthermore, what do differing countries have to do with anything? I don’t know if Roos is aware, but both Microsoft and Linux are available globally. And what the hell does “[I]n America, we prefer to use the best” mean? Some vague attempt at turning the issue into one of nationalism? But notice that Roos conflates “ubiquity” with “quality.” Here in America Brent, as in most of the rest of the world, people tend to use what’s popular, not what’s best. Just like the Billboard Top 40 isn’t a good indicator of the best music being made, neither is Windows being the dominant operating system any indication of its quality. I noticed that Roos uses Firefox and Flock—doesn’t he know that Microsoft’s browser, Internet Explorer 6, must be a better piece of software?

The fanboys complain about insecurity with Windows. This is another myth. With an anti-virus, a firewall software (or preferably a router), an anti-spyware software, and a decent HOST file, it is very easy to keep a Windows system very clean and secure. All of this software will cost you nothing. It is all free.

First, calling Linux proponents “fanboys” is textbook trolling. Secondly, Windows insecurity isn’t a myth, and to say “Windows isn’t insecure! After you install this, this, this, and this, it’s perfectly secure!” Sorry, Brent, but that means that your firewall, antivirus, and antispyware apps are secure—and Windows isn’t. Your logic is that 5=7 because 5+2=7. It doesn’t work that way.

Even though Windows is despised by many (who coincidentally hate capitalism), I have never had any single sort of hardware issues with the OS.

Ah, the old Linux=Communist canard. Serious, Brent: are you for real? Could you possibly be any more of a flailing caricature?

I can’t even go on—Roos pumps out a steady stream of horseshit for another 10+ paragraphs. Here are some highlights, which I think can stand without comment.

  • I happen to find Windows to be much more stable than any Linux distro.
  • I think [Windws is] great, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the world.
  • [S]ince [Ubuntu] you killed two computers that I know of, I must terminate [it]
  • Windows is by far a superior desktop/office operating system, by leaps and bounds.
  • I have a lot of experience with many OSes, and software. The bottom-line is that Microsoft rocks.
  • Most commercial apps are commercial for a reason. Most free apps are free for a reason.
  • Yes, FOSS is great, and it helps standards, and all, but –standards are truly set by the products which offer the most productivity. [...] There is a reason for .doc and .xls being the standard format. Everyone uses MS Office formats, because MS Office is the best Office software[.]
  • The software built for Microsoft Windows is the best.
  • To say that Linux holds up to Windows, in terms of productivity, is an absolute joke!
  • You shouldn’t have to tweak your operating system, just to have functionality. Sure Windows takes a few tweaks, but they are very simple, and uncomplicated.
  • By the way, why do so many people hate Microsoft? I have never understood this.

I just don’t have the strength to talk about all of these. Let the idiocy speak for itself. If you’re truly that dumb, Brent Roos, then by all means enjoy Windows XP: you two deserve each other.

§1342 · August 27, 2006 · 6 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Foe

Foe Foe by J.M. Coetzee
Publisher: Vintage
Year: 1987
Pages: 160

I first heard of Foe on someone’s blog (sadly, I forgot where), and upon looking into the author, I was amazed to learn that J.M. Coetzee is a man of considerable fame and (ostensibly) talent; I was more amazed to learn that he doesn’t seem to have written any books that break the 200-page mark. I understand that restraint is a quality inherent to some of the most talented writers in history (Poe comes to mind, as does Hemingway), but I was incredulous. Then I read Foe.

I will say that reading Foe in its entirety took me only about two hours: the book sits at 160 pages of medium print with wide margins. I think it is safe to say, however, that reading Foe and understanding Foe are two entirely different phenomena. Like other terse authors (Conrad’s Heart of Darkness springs immediately to mind), Coetzee has a special talent for making dense, meaningful prose that defies perfunctory reading. In fact, I would posit that the plot details of Foe (a post-modern evaluation of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe) are in fact of little consequence: the book doesn’t serve to tell a story. Like Frank Stockon’s “The Lady or the Tiger,” it serves as a mere vehicle for Coetzee’s question to his audience about the nature of the story and the storyteller—and serves as fodder for a laundry list of academic papers and High Concept speculation, as is the wont of much post-modern literature.

In brief, Foe is an altered retelling of the Robinson Crusoe story: in this version, the narrator is Susan Barton, an Englishwoman in search of a missing daughter who ends up stranded on an island with Crusoe (here ‘Cruso’) and his servant Friday. However, Coetzee’s characters are considerably different than Defoe’s: Cruso is an indifferent man, toiling away at useless projects, blithely unconcerned with rescue; Friday is a mute former slave, brooding and silent and reticent. When Cruso dies en route back to England after they are rescued, Barton takes up responsibility for Friday and desires to get the story of Cruso (with whom she became semi-romantically involved) into print, and so enlists the help of the famed author Daniel de Foe.

The book is told in four parts, divided by their nature.

  1. Concerned chiefly with Barton’s experiences on the island, her impressions of Cruso, and the telling of her personal story.
  2. Written in the form of letters to de Foe, who, after agreeing to take on the project, disappears with debtors on his trail. Concerned primarily with the quickly-unraveling relationship of Susan to Friday, to the memory of Cruso, and to reality itself.
  3. Written in standard narrative after Susan and Friday travel to Bristol to find Foe. Concerned primarily with deconstructing the novel thus far.
  4. A short epilogue of sorts, consisting of a stream of confusing dream imagery, which so far proved immune to all my attempts at understanding it.

You can see where my expectations about a 160-page book were knocked on their ass. As I said, Foe doesn’t really serve to give us any new information. If we were looking for details of Cruso[e]‘s adventures, we could read the original. No, what Coetzee is doing is “scrutinizing the gulf between a story and its telling”; he also brings into play questions of feminism and gender, language, and Truth-with-a-capital-T. Foe has been labeled an archetypal postmodern novel; I would have to agree, though it seems impudent to attach labels. The book is a fantastic piece of work, but requires more than a mere few hour of reading to appreciate it.

§1332 · August 27, 2006 · 1 comment · Tags: , ,

This one’s for you

One week ago, I helped Allison move into her dorm at WIU. It’s been an interesting week since then for the both of us—she’s getting used to college and dorm life, I’m suddenly faced with an abundance that’s both nice and horrible, and we’ve both had to adjust to the long distance relationship paradigm.

Allison and I and her graduationI don’t know how people did it before cell phones and digital photos. For all the asking people did about how we were going to manage, I admit that we seem to be doing just swimmingly so far. Long distances change the dynamics of a relationship, but it’s not always a deficiency: when she comes home for a family reunion on Labor Day weekend, or when I go down to visit her in late September, or when we celebrate our 4-year anniversary in October, the meetings will be that much sweeter. What’s more, Allison isn’t the sort of person who goes to college to drink and wash out her first year, so instead I get the supreme pleasure of seeing her grow as a person, and it makes me love her even more.

I know you’re out there reading this, Allison: I love you. You mean the world to me.

§1340 · August 26, 2006 · 3 comments · Tags:

← Older entries