Merely the NYT review of this book called Joan is Okay by Weike Wang made me lose track of time and walk an extra minute on my treadmill. I predict the book is going to have me glued to the spot.

by Marie Kondo & Scott Sonenshein

OK, starting at the root, go through your hard drive, open every document, and ask, “Does this spark joy?”

No, no, no. This book isn’t like that, though it might have been better if it had been. It’s only PARTLY written by Marie Kondo; the other part is written by some guy who isn’t Marie Kondo, and contains trite advice about improving life in an office. This trite advice gets into a Marie Kondo book by being called a form of “tidying.”

Examples: Stop saying ‘yes’ to everything. This is ‘tidying your time.’ Unsubscribe from email lists you don’t read. This is ‘tidying your email.’ Categorize all the decisions you have to make and see if you can eliminate, automate, or delegate them. This is ‘tidying your decisions.’ etc.

It only becomes bearable when Kondo’s voice once again returns at the end, because she can carry any book on charm alone. But really, this one is not a keeper. You do not spark joy; good-bye.

by Julia Galef

From one Julia to another…

Julia Galef is my new hero.

Galef defines ‘scout mindset’ as having clear thinking as your mission, to take a true map of the terrain. This is contrasted with ‘soldier’ mindset, which sees itself always in combat, and thus views the surroundings primarily in terms of what needs defending, etc. It’s not a perfect dichotomy, but you get the idea. Strive always to see the truth, even when unpleasant or bad for your side. A scout needs to report back with the real situation on the ground, even when the commanding officers might not like what they hear.

To be honest, the first four out of five sections may have had me leaving only a three or four star rating. Parts about overcoming bias seemed to be geared towards scientists and social scientists. Parts about about living without illusions seemed more for entrepreneurs. It all stated truths, but presented nothing earth-shattering.

The final section is where it really took off: Rethinking Identity. A chapter ensues about how beliefs become identities; and the next chapter presents my favorite takeaway: hold your identity lightly. My ex-therapist would have loved this. He always discouraged rigid thinking along the lines of “I am [this type of] person.” One should, instead of thinking, “I am a feminist,” think instead “I am someone who often sympathizes with feminist causes.” Not, “I am a vegan,” but “I am one who currently adheres most of the time to a vegan diet.” Or whatever. You find that this subtle shift has you becoming less defensive, more liable to seek truth in others’ arguments rather than digging in to a perceived threat. And if you must have an identity – try on ‘scout’ as an identity. “I am a scout.” A scout wouldn’t dismiss an argument out of hand without first giving it a fair hearing.

Some fun parts that I bookmarked:

“The Outsider Test.” When faced with a tough decision, try to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy by imagining someone else has just stepped into your shoes. What would she likely think of the situation? Try imagining that YOU have teleported from the outside into your own life, and wonder, what would you tell you to do? What I liked was her “It’s as if you’re hanging a sign around your neck: ‘Under New Management.'” I love the image. Also, this is why I love reading advice columns. It’s so easy to see the solution to other people’s problems. I try to imagine being an advice columnist answering myself; would the answer be crystal clear?

On holding your identity lightly: I have a friend who shall remain nameless who gets angry whenever I try to be a moderating influence, a la “let’s just TRY to consider where the ‘other side’ is coming from on this…” He’ll call it “coddling.” Coddling racists, coddling evil people, whatever. Galef: “It’s not a favor you do for other people, for the sake of being nice or civil. Holding your identity lightly is a favor to yourself – a way to keep your mind flexible, unconstrained by identity, and free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Finally, choosing your role models. I’ll tell you my role model easily: Tyler Cowen. Tyler is interested in everything, and disinterested about everything (in the original correct sense of the word). Tyler doesn’t take sides. Tyler is on the side of whatever improves humanity’s health and happiness, and he is, as far as I have been able to tell after many years of him being my homepage, genuinely interested in seeking out what that side actually is. He will praise or censure whoever deserves it, and does not hew to any party line. If the data seems to show that universal Pre-K, for example, is beneficial for kids in the medium to long-term, he’s for it; and if it starts to show actually the opposite is true, then he’s against it. He doesn’t come in with a pre-set belief. He really, truly wants to know the truth. And he takes interest in everything. When something just plain doesn’t interest him, he takes interest in finding out why. He follows sports and popular and unpopular arts and culture. When he doesn’t like something aesthetically, he asks himself why, and why other people might like it; what is the art trying to convey, on its own terms? He travels extensively, and he travels for the purpose of learning. You get the idea. I love Tyler.

And I love Julia! I’m going to listen to more of her podcasts.

A strange little book. Interviews with Julia Child from 1961, 1984, 1989, 1991, 1999, and then, finally, THE LAST INTERVIEW! of the title from 2004 – which is barely more than a page long. This should have been titled better.

By now we (I) know all about Julia Child; lots of repetitive biographical information could fall by the wayside, but then, the 140-page book would be even thinner. The interviews are vaguely interesting; as Child grows older and starts to hold forth on matters beyond cooking, some unlikability starts to show through. She’s human, after all. She brings up her support for Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, which is laudable; but a comment like “Who wants a baby that is from a crack mother?”, well, not so much. It’s funny back in 1991 to hear her and the interviewer complain about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, though, and the Supreme Court and the Republicans. O’Connor “has been a zero, hasn’t she”. What we wouldn’t give now to have a Justice O’Connor, and the state of the nation in 1991. Oh well. Bon Appetit!

by Amor Towles

Between book club and books people give me as gifts, I’ve read three novels by Amor Towles now, and I don’t even like him. It reminds me of how I’ve seen Elvis Costello at least as many times without particularly liking him either.

At least there were no bratty precocious kids in this one! I even surprised myself by enjoying the first half. I liked the jaunty tone, and I liked following the adventures of the crazy 20-something girls from the boarding house who managed to get so many men to buy them drinks.

But after the first half or so, the story got wacky, and I stopped understanding anyone’s motivation. Also, I feel Amor Towles really does not do Period well; the alleged time period of the story always feels slightly off, though I can usually not put my finger on why. This time I DID catch him in an anachronism – page 227, “he and his brother had hiked the Appalachian Trail for days at a time” in Maine when the character was a boy. The current year is 1938. The Appalachian Trail wasn’t completed until 1937. He couldn’t have hiked it as a boy; not even a proto-trail, as the trail was begun in New York, not Maine. I knew it didn’t feel right.

And Towles’ books are too long, with too many digressions. It’s particularly painful as you’re approaching the end, and realize that yet another long segue is being put in because he felt it was a charming little thing he had to include somewhere, and it doesn’t advance the plot one whit. I’m thinking here of the paper airplane interlude.

It’s such a shame, because Towles really can write well, and has some great ideas; he just doesn’t really know how to write a succinct story without annoyances. It was towards the end that I came across a great quote. I was trying to convey this very thought just recently, but not at all well; here it is:

“In our twenties, when there is still so much time ahead of us, time that seems ample for a hundred indecisions, for a hundred visions and revisions – we draw a card, and we must decide right then and there whether to keep that card and discard the next, or discard the first card and keep the second. And before we know it, the deck has been played out and the decisions we have just made will shape our lives for decades to come.”

A fabulous description of being in one’s twenties.