From award-winning author R. F. Kuang comes Babel, a thematic response to The Secret History …
'I gave them a Kreyòl-French match-pair,' Victoire said. 'And it worked, worked like a charm, only Professor Leblanc said they couldn't put it in the Current Ledger because he didn't see how a Kreyòl match-pair would be useful to anyone who doesn't speak Kreyòl. And then I said it would be of great use to people in Haiti, and then he laughed.'
This book is so savagely critical of the British empire, but it is rarely didactic. It's usually these little scenes where being a colonizer warps a world view.
Mastering Genealogical Proof teaches family historians and genealogists how to reconstruct the relationships and lives of their ancestors. Readers learn …
Mastering Genealogical Proof teaches family historians and genealogists how to reconstruct the relationships and lives …
The Genealogical Proof Standard, although not intended to guide research planning, offers a yardstick for measuring completed research's credibility. Consequently, "reasonably exhaustive" applies to end products, not plans. Planning research is good practice, but a plan, no matter how extensive, might not lead to proof.
IT’S THE CASE OF AMANDA’S LIFETIME, BUT SOLVING IT WILL REQUIRE HER TO BETRAY ANOTHER …
Supposedly like John le Carré but with more female spies
4 stars
The author's goal was to write something like John le Carré but with more female spies. I haven't read enough le Carré to judge the resemblance. Amanda Cole is a CIA agent, the daughter of CIA agent Charlie Cole. Posted in Rome, she interviews a Russian walk-in who claims that Senator Bob Vogel is about to be assassinated on a trip to Egypt. The station chief tells her that everything is too fantastic to believe, suggests Russia is testing them with fake info, and orders her to do nothing. Of course, Bob Vogel is killed in Egypt in exactly the way the walk-in predicts. Amanda starts on operations to make use of the source.
When Vogel's chief of staff goes through the papers on his desk, he has extensive notes on meetings with a Russian oligarch. Meetings that she knows nothing about, and she knows everything about the Senator's business. …
The author's goal was to write something like John le Carré but with more female spies. I haven't read enough le Carré to judge the resemblance. Amanda Cole is a CIA agent, the daughter of CIA agent Charlie Cole. Posted in Rome, she interviews a Russian walk-in who claims that Senator Bob Vogel is about to be assassinated on a trip to Egypt. The station chief tells her that everything is too fantastic to believe, suggests Russia is testing them with fake info, and orders her to do nothing. Of course, Bob Vogel is killed in Egypt in exactly the way the walk-in predicts. Amanda starts on operations to make use of the source.
When Vogel's chief of staff goes through the papers on his desk, he has extensive notes on meetings with a Russian oligarch. Meetings that she knows nothing about, and she knows everything about the Senator's business. Notes that indicate he's getting information on Russian shenanigans that he hasn't shared with the CIA. She brings them to Amanda Cole's attention when Cole informs her that Vogel didn't die of natural causes.
And the last page of those notes has the Russian oligarch passing on Charlie Cole's name, to what end is unclear. So Amanda Cole is both trying to beat the Russians at their spy game as well as figure out what involvement her father had in it.
The spycraft contained is mostly psychological and small pieces of leverage, but there's also the occasional more active skulduggery.
The first novel of a new space-opera sequence set in an all-new universe by the …
Scalzi does space opera
3 stars
The premise is that faster than light travel is only possible for space ships if they enter "the Flow" at specific points and exit at specific points, like getting on and off one way buses at specific stops. The ruling house of the Interdependency maintains control by granting monopolies to specific guild houses who must produce their goods on specific planets. Thus, one planet is dependent on the monopoly goods of another planet and vice versa. And the ruling house of the Emperox collects tribute from all the other houses/planets because they control the hub of the Flow, the "central" location where most trade has to transit.
OK, so that's the setup. However, a Flow physicist on an outlying planet has figured out that the Flow is collapsing, which means that every planet has to become self sufficient beforehand. Or die.
Can the physicist get word back to the Emperox …
The premise is that faster than light travel is only possible for space ships if they enter "the Flow" at specific points and exit at specific points, like getting on and off one way buses at specific stops. The ruling house of the Interdependency maintains control by granting monopolies to specific guild houses who must produce their goods on specific planets. Thus, one planet is dependent on the monopoly goods of another planet and vice versa. And the ruling house of the Emperox collects tribute from all the other houses/planets because they control the hub of the Flow, the "central" location where most trade has to transit.
OK, so that's the setup. However, a Flow physicist on an outlying planet has figured out that the Flow is collapsing, which means that every planet has to become self sufficient beforehand. Or die.
Can the physicist get word back to the Emperox before someone else takes advantage? What if the Emperox is a bad person? What if the local duke on his backwater planet kills him first? What if the bad guys all have extremely mustache-twirly plans that the author takes great pains to make obvious to you the reader so that who is doing what is never in question and instead the only thing you have to wonder about is will the good guys execute their scheme in time?
Also, what if everyone talks the same way? What if they all start off every conversation with some diplomatic language and then a minute in everyone says "let's cut the shit and talk without pretense" and then they do.
Anyway, for once, I enjoyed a Scalzi book. It's interesting even if it's pretty shallow.
From award-winning author R. F. Kuang comes Babel, a thematic response to The Secret History …
Babel was ruled ineligible for the Hugo award with no explanation. Internet speculation is that the ruling was done at the direction of the Chinese government or to avoid conflict with the Chinese government, as Worldcon last year was held in Chengdu China. (For those who aren't aware, the organizers of each individual Worldcon are responsible for administering each year's Hugo Awards.)
My own tastes tend to differ from the Hugo Awards, but I'm putting this on my TBR as a result of the ruling. If there's something here the Chinese government doesn't like, I may just appreciate it.
Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate …
A skeptical dive into space settlement
4 stars
If you've looked askance at Elon Musk's claim/plan to settle Mars this century, this book will validate your priors in a most entertaining way. The first 3 parts cover the physical & mental aspects of space settlement. As someone who works on satellites, none of this is surprising to me. At least a couple times a week, someone in the office will exclaim "space is hard!" as we try to solve a problem. Additionally, the book spends 2 parts of the legal and geopolitical environment of settling space. The authors' position is that space settlement nerds don't really spend enough time thinking through the ramifications. In particular, while there are better frameworks for space settlement than what we have, there's not a clean path to get there and space settlement nerds aren't really moving society in a real way to get there. There's an extended discussion of an attempt to …
If you've looked askance at Elon Musk's claim/plan to settle Mars this century, this book will validate your priors in a most entertaining way. The first 3 parts cover the physical & mental aspects of space settlement. As someone who works on satellites, none of this is surprising to me. At least a couple times a week, someone in the office will exclaim "space is hard!" as we try to solve a problem. Additionally, the book spends 2 parts of the legal and geopolitical environment of settling space. The authors' position is that space settlement nerds don't really spend enough time thinking through the ramifications. In particular, while there are better frameworks for space settlement than what we have, there's not a clean path to get there and space settlement nerds aren't really moving society in a real way to get there. There's an extended discussion of an attempt to establish a new state in space by dint of a small cubesat launched by a space society. (As a side note, I'm quite surprised that the book doesn't go into the attempts to create micro-states such as Sealand. Those would be a lot easier to attain statehood with that space environments, and yet none of those has even come close to succeeding.)
What really makes the book though is that the authors are both funny and pay attention to the weird facts of space. Steve Bannon once ran Biosphere 2! The humor won't be a surprise to regular readers of Zach Weinersmith's web strip, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate …
If a nation wants to convey to the world that they are the strongest and best, they can, of course just announce it at the United Nations. But it won't be convincing. Talk is cheap. Space programs are not. Very few nations can successfully fire a guy around the world at 7.8 kilometers per second, then land him and send him on a goodwill tour. Human spacefaring has little utility for the price, especially compared to things like military or commercial satellites, but what it does do is dramatically demonstrate wealth, organization, and technical competence. Throw in the fact that early space rockets were often literally the same as military rockets, and you have an excellent show of raw power that demands to be taken seriously. You of course never hear a politician say, "we choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it'll provide short-term geopolitical advantage," but something like that is a pretty solid explanation.