As I was reading the first part of this book, trawling through countless numbers of examples of how the fossil fuel industry is raping and pillaging our Earth, how our political leaders are in their pockets, and how were are constantly being bombarded with propaganda as to how climate change is really nothing to worry about while the true effects are being hidden behind beautiful pictures much like the slums of Dehli where during the Commonwealth Games, I simply couldn't help thinking about how we as a species are heading down a path that not only will end up destroying the planet, but also destroying that which we hold dear while ceding ever more power to the aristocrats that currently rule the planet. I guess a part of me was used to what I had read in Klein's two previous books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine where she basically tells us how bad things are yet offers no solutions that I expected that this book, with the enormity of the crisis that we are facing, would once again end with a completely hopeless note.

However this is not the case, particularly since we are talking about our future here. Simply by taking the strategy that Klein used previously would result in us giving up and basically eating and drinking because we might as well have fun now if the climate change is going to have such an impact upon our world that everything that we have managed to build for ourself is inevitably going to be destroyed. Instead Klein actually ends on a message of hope, dedicating half of the book to revealing how former enemies have united against a common foe and how mass movements are developing to push back against the corporate interests that currently dominate our thinking.

Mind you, there is still a pervasive belief amongst society that climate change first of all is somebody else's problem, or that it is rubbish (such as my uncle's statement that 'Climate Change is crap' without actually providing me with any evidence to support that view). The scary thing is not so much the climate change deniers but rather those who are basically apathetic towards the situation, those who accept that something must be done, but leave it to somebody else to solve the problem, or even believe the corporate propaganda that suggests that they are doing something, but not demanding any proof that anything is being done.

Personally I have encountered numerous climate change deniers in my time that simply make the statement 'climate change is crap' with the belief that that simple statement invalidates any argument that I might raise to the contrary. Mind you these people tend to resort to logical fallacies to support their arguments, or even just raise their voices to drown out any opposition simply because they are incapable of mounting any rational argument to the contrary. However when I confront such people I try to steer away from climate change per se and put the argument in perspective by point out the real costs of our out of control industrialised society such as the destruction of the natural environment:

the fact that in many places around the world our air is becoming toxic:

while our water systems are becoming undrinkable:

It was interesting to note that as I perused the responses to this book that there where quite a few positive reactions from readers, and one who had slammed it as another part of the left wing conspiracy to take his money and his freedom (which attracted a lot of harsh criticism). At first it seemed like Goodreads is full of people who actually care about the environment and desire to see a better world that isn't ruled by corporate interests, however I then realised that this is social media, and that when I jumped over to [book:Atlas Shrugged] I discovered that there was just as many positive responses to that book. The thing with social media is that you can pretty much filter out anything that you don't like so that the only things that you see are those that reinforce your worldview.

I still remember when I first became aware of the crisis that our modern uncontrolled capitalist society is creating. A friend of mine handed me a little booklet about the World Trade Organisation and suddenly my right wing individualist worldview was changed forever. Yet I have to admit that despite the fact that I don't own a car, and don't live a life where I am endlessly consuming, I know I could do much better. The reason I don't own a car has more to do with the fact that it is cheaper to use public transport (and the public transport in Melbourne is pretty good), and while I may not cycle through commodities as fast as humanly possible (while cluttering my house with useless stuff, though I am probably going to need to get a new phone since my current one is now over three years old and basically reaching the end of its life span), I still buy tea in takeaway containers (and maybe a coffee) and shop at the major supermarkets.

Yet I also see some positives happening as well. Okay, while people are putting ever more solar panels on the roof, when the current Liberal (conservative) government was elected they began to systematically cripple the renewable energy industry in favour of their mates in the coal industry. However while the fossil fuel industry was enjoying bumper profits for the past twenty odd years everything changed suddenly as the price of oil and iron ore completely collapsed. All of a suddenly it isn't profitable to look for new sources of oil, yet the companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy are forced to continue pumping as they simply cannot afford to shut down any wells, which is further exacerbating the collapse. This suddenly changes the picture as cost intensive extraction methods become less appealing, but untapped reserves are suddenly left in the ground (which means that some oil baron is unlikely to come along and start fraking your backyard). Mind you, everything that I said is probably invalid because I do own shares in a gold mine and an energy company (though the energy company did purchase some windfarms so they could say “hey, look at us, we care about the environment, we own a wind farm!”).

Anyway I think I will leave it at this, however if you are interested in reading more I have written a post on the subject on my blog.

This is the last of the four Chekov plays that was in the book that I picked up in a second hand bookshop in Adelaide. The main reason that I grabbed the book was because I had never read anything by Chekov before, and also it was one of those nice hardcover editions (though I suspect that it is actually a part of a much larger collection of world literature, like the ones that are advertised in television in one of those ridiculously long infomercials, and they always cry out 'wait there's more' and then sign you up for something you are likely to regret in the future – at least this is literature, and the book looks nice, so <i>I</i> wouldn't necessarily regret it – though I do prefer my books to be eclectic in character rather than a part of an identical set).

As I have mentioned in the other Chekov plays I have commented on, this is basically a modernist play which once again sticks with a similar theme: the changing nature of Russia at the end of the 19th century. Modernism, as I can see, is a movement away from the stories of the past where you dealt with kings and princes, and towards the ordinary in life. In this place Chekov actually explores how the nobility are being thrust into the ordinary of life, and the struggles that they face in the process.

The issue that is raised here is that in the past society was very much separated by class, and the nature of class meant that there was no real vertical movement. However the modern world was bringing about a lot of changes in that regards, in that the ordinary people were becoming wealthier, and the nobility were becoming poorer. In Russia, a pretty backwards country by the standards of the rest of Europe, there was still a lot of resistance to this change, but the change was coming about nonetheless.

Modernism, thus, is a movement away from the epic poetry of the past, and from the romantic poetry and prose of the early nineteenth century. The high ideas of love and destiny were no longer the mainstay of society, as a rising intellectual class began to have access to literature that the ordinary people of the past did not. This period also saw the beginnings of the pulp novels, which picked up on the idea of the adventurous kings and princes, though in many cases the pulp novels also dealt with ordinary people, but gave them the opportunity to be able to rise above their class.

The other thing about this play that I have noticed is that there are a number of discussions regarding environmentalism. It seems that the idea of the environment was a concern back then, though I suspect it had a lot more to do with the idea of the beauty of nature rather than today where we are dealing with concepts ranging from poisoning the Earth to changes in the climate. There are discussions about clear cutting forests, but it seems that the characters in this play are more concerned with the natural beauty of the forest rather than any scientific concepts such as erosion. We see similar things in Charles Dickens, where he describes the mid-north of England being an industrial wasteland, though I suspect that this has changed a lot since his days.

Purpose:  I keep handwritten book journals with notes toward reviews.  I need a new one and haven't purchased it yet. This entry will hold notes until I purchase my new journal.

Quote: "archery is a means of display, not combat" 

In discussion of A Gest of Robyn Hode

Analysis: The bow is for competitions, but in this ballad when Robin fights it's with a sword. This is an important distinction.  In my ROS (Robin of Sherwood) fanfic that I wrote some time ago, I portray both Robin Hoods shown in the series. It's a TV series that originally aired on the BBC. Robin of Loxley was portrayed by Michael Praed.  Robert of Huntingdon was portrayed by Jason Connery. The bow is Robin of Loxley's  weapon. The sword is Robert of Huntingdon's weapon.  The distinction is one of class in my fanfic.  Robin of Loxley is a peasant.  The bow would be primarily for hunting for food which is an outlawed activity contrary to the forest laws.  He is given a sword by Herne which is sacred.  It's not his primary weapon. Robert of Huntingdon is a nobleman who I portray as fighting in tournaments before he becomes Robin Hood.  The sword is his primary weapon. The sword is considered more honorable than the bow by members of his class.  This issue is brought up in my fanfic.  Robert of Huntingdon does use the bow, but has more of an affinity toward the sword because of his upbringing.

Quote: "This is, the poetry reminds us, Robin enjoying his 'downfall'.  It is not, as it often will often be in the nineteenth century, a statement that life au naturel is actually much better than the harassments of ordinary urban society."  In discussion of The Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntington

Analysis: This Robin Hood makes the best of it like Shakespeare's Prospero on his island in The Tempest who has also been exiled from the halls of power.

Re comparison to 19th century poets--  The 19th century Romantics are in some ways precursors to the theorists who are responsible for the founding of the modern environmental movement.  There is an element of environmentalism in my fanfic interpretation of Robin of Loxley, but not in my portrayal of Robert of Huntingdon who is motivated very differently. 

I think that the ROS spelling "Huntingdon" emphasizes that he's a fictional character who never existed.  The really interesting thing is that David, Earl of Huntingdon, who is portrayed in ROS as Robert's father, was an actual historical personage who was the brother of the King of Scotland. I discovered this when I read The Normans of Scotland which is why I portray Robert as a Norman in my fanfic. I think it's very interesting that  this aristocratic exiled Robin Hood could be considered a member of the Scottish royal house--particularly when you consider the later historical development of Jacobitism which was an attempt to restore the Scottish House of Stuart to the English throne. I enjoy seeing historical continuities.

Well, this is the second of the Cat's Cradle trilogy, and I have only vague memories of what actually tied these novels together. The Timewyrm series were tied together with the Timewyrm (and ended up being cyclical with the end of the series coinciding with the beginning) and I suspected that these were tied together as well but I simply cannot remember what the relevance of the Cat's Cradle was (and I suspect that it has nothing to do with the book of the same name by Kurt Vonnegut).

This book is set in the near future where everything goes to hell in regards to Earth. It is very dark and gritty and in a way different to what a lot of fans would normally expect from Doctor Who. Many of the episodes are very light hearted, high-science fiction with the occasional commentary, but in general it was mostly for entertainment purposes. In fact, I found it difficult to see if there was really any indepth commentary within any of the Doctor Who stories of the past. However, come the novels, this begins to change.

Environmentalism is something that I care about. While there is a debate over the legitimacy of global warming, this debate seems to push a lot of the other issues to the background, such as poisoning the air and water supplies. I have known people who go out of their way to bombard us with anti-global warming propaganda, however refuse to listen to any other aspect of the argument. Me, I try to steer away from the global warming debate as there are other, more serious, things that we need to confront and I will go over some of them briefly (at least to the extent that they relate to this book).

One I have mentioned about is of particular concern to me and that is poisoning the air and water supplies. It is a proven fact that toxic chemicals that are pumped into the atmosphere do not bode well for people living in the proximity of the factory. In fact, in a lot of cases (but not all), toxic chemicals do not rise, but they fall. Take mustard gas for instance. The most dangerous aspect of mustard gas during World War I was that it was heavier than air, so it will fall into craters and trenches where people would be sheltering. This is not taking into account the amount of damage it would do to one's respiratory system.

The poisoning of water supplies is also a serious concern. Just like pumping toxic smoke into the atmosphere, dumping toxic chemicals into the rivers, or even on the ground where it can sink and become mixed with the ground water, is just as, or more, damaging. We need both air and water to survive, but whereas toxic air can slowly kill us (and it is interesting to note the rise in cancer throughout the 20th Century) toxic water can be even worse. Consider what will happen if all of our water supplies become poisoned. All of the sudden, not only will we have nothing to drink, but we will also have great difficulties growing things.

This is where the rise of the mega-corporations come into play. There is only one thing that they care about and that is profit. If it is too expensive to properly dispose of waste, then they automatically go the cheaper way. Sure enough wealthy people can get around the problem of poisoned water, but those of us who are stuck on limited wages simply get stuffed around. Where as in the past (I remember) we could easily, and cheaply, get our hands on clean drinking water, that has changed a lot. I remember a time when the corner store did not stock drinking water in their fridges, but as our natural water supplies become more toxic, bottled water becomes more popular, and in the end it could be argued that it is more beneficial for corporations to poison natural water supplies as it means that they can then charge more for clean, drinkable, bottled water (unless, of course, you have a water tank, like my parents).

This will be the last Darksun book that I review because, to be honest, I did not I continue reading the series after this book, even if I read the book, but I am pretty sure that I did because I wouldn't be writing a review of it if I hadn't. One of the keys to whether I read it or not is generally the date, because around this time I had returned to Highschool and was generally mostly other books, and specifically not reading books related to Dungeons & Dragons (though I still had a friend that would lend them to me, and surprisingly, he still does that).

This is apparently a love story about a woman who is torn between the types of magic she wishes to practice. The Darksun world was created as some post apocalyptic world that arose after some magical Armageddon. As such a bulk of the world is lifeless desert and any life that does exist is generally destroyed by the defilers. There are two types of sorcerer in Athas (the name of the Darksun world), the preservers and the defilers. The preservers seek to use magic sparingly as it is clear that the source of magic comes from life, and misuse of magic destroys life. The defiler is the opposite: they simply do not care. It is needless to say that the sorcerer kings are defilers, and they generally use the life force of their slaves to cast spells.

This is reflective of the world in which we now live. I do not believe the creators of any of the Dungeons and Dragons worlds ever meant them to be allegorical. Howcver, the concept of the post apocalyptic world appeared shortly after World War II since we had invented weapons that could easily send us there. Dungeons and Dragons, though, tends to take us to lands of adventures, and throw magic into them. We have seen this before in Gamma World, and now a more developed world setting hit the shelves.

To me, it is the debate between industrialisation and preservation. Our world, in fact our magic (that being science) throws us into this debate. One could argue that the industrialists, the oil barons, and such like them, are like the sorcerer kings of Athas. They wield tremendous power and the result of their lust for wealth and power is the destruction of the world around us. There are numerous books and documentaries that I can refer you to in that effect, so I won't go into a long diatribe about that here. However we also have the green movement, which are like the preservers in that they seek to use science sparingly, and look for ways to preserve nature and the world in which we live. This, however, has been around for quite a while, but really took off significantly in the late 90s as we came to see the pollution and the destruction that industry was levelling. Once again, I do not believe Dungeons and Dragons was trying to be political, but in a way, not only have they done so with this setting, but it was quite before its time in its allegorical message (not that it was intentional).