Extended Phenotype

I just finished “Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1)”, by Neal Stephenson. What an incredible read. I was hooked in by the seventeenth century origins of modern physics, and quickly became riveted by Stephenson’s fictionalized (but historical) account of the origins of much of our modern world: limited government, modern financial markets, and (some measure) of religious tolerance. I’m pretty amazed at how fast 913 pages flashed by, as I begin “The Confusion : Volume Two of The Baroque Cycle (P.S.)”. The “familial” resemblance with “Cryptonomicon” is apparent but never heavy-handed; the Waterhouse family and the mysterious Enoch Root add greatly to the story but do not result in fantasy or butchered history. Fans of “Cryptonomicon” should dive in and wallow around a bit in the Baroque Cycle, as should those interested in the origins of modern science, political economy, and philosophy. Enough for now, I’ve got two volumes to go.

Other reading has been sparse and mostly technical lately, as I digest “Agile Web Development with Rails (The Facets of Ruby Series)”, which is a terrific book documenting a terrific web framework. A colleague and former coworker, Scott Laird, is pretty much a Rails expert, and is a major contributor (verging on co-author) of the Typo weblog system. He’s also looking for a new gig which will let him focus on Ruby and Rails development in Seattle, so if you know anybody who’s seeking a Ruby and Rails expert, point them at Scott’s blog!

On the non-fiction front, I’ve been reading most journal articles lately, as a follwup to Michael Sandel. I’ll be turning my attention to some evolutionary theory in coming days and weeks, and I’m still feeling like it’s time to re-read Karl Polanyi’s classic “The Great Transformation”. I read this, or parts of it, in graduate school a long time ago, but for different purposes and with much less background than I have today. I found a used copy which wasn’t trashed with underlining or highlighting (one of my pet peeves with books!), unlike the nasty old paperback copy I bought from the University Book Store several decades ago…

I took awhile finishing Michael Sandel’s “Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy” because I believe the argument it presents is critical to the future shape of progressive liberalism. As a consequence, I read it fairly slowly, with frequent asides for footnotes and chasing down referenced articles, etc. This was fairly rewarding, because it led to rethinking some of the assumptions I’d previously had about how to defend the progressive project within the overall framework of liberalism. Such a defense is sorely needed, as we all recognize. Jeffrey Issac’s “The Poverty of Progressivism” advances a persuasive argument for how progressivism has declined in stature as public philosophy, but Issac takes for granted the version of liberal political philosophy which underlies both progressive and conservative varieties of liberalism today. Sandel reaches deeper into our history, and shows how the civic republicanism of the Founding era evolved into the liberal neutrality of the modern, “procedural” republic.

Sandel writes from what might best be described as a “progressive communitarian” perspective, or better yet as a defender of self-government within a civic republic which has adopted progressive ends as its public philosophy. In this sense, his critique of how “rights-oriented” liberalism has proven hollow and unsatisfying, even as it succeeded in guaranteeing rights for minorities, women, and the disadvantaged, is an important one.

I’ve said this many times, but I’m not yet fully ready to write about how I view Sandel’s critique of “rights-oriented” liberalism. I’ve started reading review and response articles to Sandel by William Galston, Eldon Eisenach, and Mark Tushnet, among others. Once through these critical reviews, I’ll post again with more thoughts on this important book.

“Dark Light (The Engines of Light, Book 2)” and “Engine City (The Engines of Light, Book 3)” complete MacLeod’s “Engines of Light” trilogy. I finished the latter today, and found the entire trilogy to be a fast and enjoyable read. The middle book, “Dark Light,” was in my view the most interesting of the three, with fine pacing and detail. In some respects, of course, it “feels” like the middle book in a trilogy, but the detailed focus on the society of Croatan and its inhabitants was fascinating, as was the dynamics of the revolution begun and manipulated by some of the characters from book one. Engine City, the concluding novel, moves very quickly and really felt to me more of a sketch of how things turn out than the full story. This is caused, I think, by the large amount of territory — both in space and time — covered in the third novel. One is left wanting to know just a bit more about how things really work themselves out. But that’s the way of a good series, and while I don’t feel sad to be finished, as I did with the Fall Revolution series, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Now I’m moving on, fiction-wise, to finally tackle Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle. I flipped idly through the opening pages of “Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1)”, and was amazed by the density of references to Newton, Leibniz, the Glorious Revolution, the English Civil War, the Puritans, and the Thirty Year’s War. All by page 21. I’m hooked.

Finally taking a bit of a break from Michael Sandel and excursions into Philip Pettit, and began reading MacLeod’s “Engines of Light” trilogy over the weekend. “Cosmonaut Keep (The Engines of Light, Book 1)” turned out to be an excellent read, fast-paced and fascinating. I’d shied away from it after buying it at an airport bookstore when I read the synopsis, which seemed to include a more fantastic element than I typically like — in this case, the notion of a “second sphere” where an intelligence had long ago sampled life on earth and seeded a new set of worlds. I was hooked by the end of the first few chapters, however, and enjoyed the novel immensely. I’ve embarked on the second book during spare moments, and will have that to report on soon.

I also reread Richard K. Morgan’s “Broken Angels” recently, mostly because I needed a break and didn’t feel up to tackling Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle yet. Since it’s a relatively recent re-read (albeit a fun one), I’m not counting it towards the 50 book challenge.