The End by Lemony Snicket

Rating - 2: not worth reading (skip it)

If you have read the first twelve Series of Unfortunate Events books, you are going to read the last one, and if not, you are probably not going to skip to it. Does that make this review superfluous?

When we last left the Baudelaire orphans, they had plunged into the sea on a small boat with Count Olaf. As usual, things get worse from there. They wash up on the shore of an island where all things eventually wash up, which is of course tied to their mysterious pasts and the mysterious mystery of VFD.

Does this work as a conclusion to the series? No. It really does not. While this is not Buffy Season Seven, where new ideas are introduced then left unused or unresolved, we still have an entire series left almost entirely unresolved.

A better parallel is probably Evangelion, if you have seen that, which works really well since there were 13 volumes of that when it was on video cassette. The last one, which I found enormously enjoyable and strangely appropriate, resolved almost none of the existing issues and instead wandered in a different direction.

There is a bit about how mysteries are never really resolved, nor is all of history understood, but each answer or story spawns new questions and stories in an infinite regress. This is taken as a reason why nothing at all will be explained. It is like Sherlock Holmes ending the story with, "Well, we'll never really know everything that happened here, so how about a spot of tea, eh?"

This leaves us with a decent Unfortunate Events book, not one of the better ones. Olaf pursues them amidst people with an unusual mental hang-up. Logic is askew. The recent books' absurd ponderings of moral equivalence between Olaf and the orphans continue. There are some great scenes, mostly ones that confound expectations in a variety of ways. There are also examples of playing with Lemony Snicket language, some of which work very well and some of which drag on needlessly. The ballerina diggers in the dark digression works well, drags on unnecessarily, and reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld quote about unknown unknowns.

So which of the books are worth reading? Mostly the earlier and shorter ones. Somewhere around books 7-9 the story starts going downhill. The formula shifted significantly after book seven, with the change in how the orphans became victims of fortune in each volume. The later ones gain some credit for starting to explain things and making some links clear, but this last book makes it questionable whether there was ever a coherent backstory at all. I think I know a chunk of it, such as it is, but I have no idea how much is implied or inferred in that mental narrative. The Unauthorized Autobiography stands out as the best single book, combining all the best elements of the absurdist Lemony Snicket style.

No, perhaps Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the best parallel: an enjoyable ride with some of the best moments available, but a disappointing ending.

Amazon link
The Whole Series
The Unauthorized Autobiography

Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett

Rating - 2.5: parts of it are worth reading once (borrow it from a library)
Rating - 2: not worth reading (skip it)

It is difficult enough to motivate yourself to read academic prose without the argument's failing halfway through. I agree with Prof. Barnett's approach to constitutional interpretation and am sympathetic to the case he wants to make, but I do not believe that this book's argument carries the day. [Update: but the early parts are worth reading.]

Randy Barnett sets forth a theory of constitutional legitimacy based on natural rights and of constitutional interpretation and construction based on original meaning. He is a scholar of the Ninth Amendment, so this treats heavily upon retained rights, which have been trampled by the expansion of the government far beyond its enumerated powers.

I will start by saying that I am always pleased by a return to the Founders in discussion of modern politics. We do not see enough references to The Federalist Papers in our daily lives. American traditions are not so old that we cannot return to our founding documents in considering the current system.

That is centerpiece of Prof. Barnett's approach to the Constitution, original meaning originalism. Frankly, there are not a lot of other options beyond originalism and making things up. Most constitutional interpretations and constructions are mixes of those two: you argue either that the Constitution says what you want it to say or that it does not but we should pretend it does anyway. Usually, you phrase "pretend" in some way to make it sound like what you are making up is really in there, really, if you keep looking or extend the argument that the text is really making, really, keep looking. This is how we get "penumbras, formed by emanations": if you put several lights on the Constitution, from the right angles, and look in the half-shadows, you can make out the shape of the policy you want to be there.

"Original meaning originalism" is looking at the words of the Constitution (or whatever else you are interpreting) and seeing how they would be understood by a contemporary. The meaning of a law or contract is set when it is enacted; the meaning does not shift, and it is not a living document. This is distinguished from original intent in that we are not going to divine what the lawmakers really intended (rather than what they actually wrote). Many people plead original intent because they really want to believe that the Founders would have agreed with them on most issues, at least the smart ones.

In reality, the reasons that a law is passed are often something other than the high-minded rhetoric that is entered into the public record, and a great many legislators have voted for something that did not mean what they thought it meant (or they might not have read it at all). The opponents and cynics are usually more on-target for what a law means and does.

It is on this rock that the argument founders. Prof. Barnett argues that the Necessary and Proper Clause limits Congress to enumerated powers, with a narrow reading of "Necessary" that is tightly bound by "Proper." He relies heavily on James Madison for this argument, and who could be a better source for what the Constitution means than the Father of the Constitution?

Sadly, President-to-be Madison lost. Those who have argued for a strict limitation to enumerated powers seem to have lost right from the beginning. Either the Constitution does not mean what Madison thought it meant, or people started distorting it before it was even ratified.

In the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we find that opponents' most dire predictions were fair if not understatements. The Anti-Federalists said that this Constitution created a national government that would undermine federalism and assume virtually all powers to itself; it has. People argued against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that enumerated rights would be treated as an exhaustive list rather than examples; they were right.

Consider there to have been two dichotomies: the Constitution does or does not establish a government of nigh-unlimited powers, and a government of nigh-unlimited powers is or is not a good thing. This gives you four positions: the Constitution limits, which is good; does not, which is bad; does, which is bad, or does not, which is good. When you vote, you do not mark "yes because..." so it is hard to tell whether those who voted for the Constitution favored enumerated or broad powers.

We find Madison and Hamilton arguing on the same side for the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, both arguing for provisions that they opposed in the interest of passing the whole. The Constitution was sufficiently ambiguous to accommodate proponents of enumerated or expansive powers, both of whom made public statements in favor the document contrary to their documented positions elsewhere. I am struck again by the difference between public statements and actual meaning.

Given that respectable people of the time disagreed about the meaning of the Constitution's plain language, there is considerable room for discretion in constitutional construction. Where the text is ambiguous, you must build something on top of it, and the evidence presented here is not strong enough to tightly constrain that construction.

Perhaps this is a flaw in original meaning originalism, if there can be such dispute about the plain meaning of the words even at the time. That there is dispute does not change the facts of the matter, but it does give us pause 200 years later as we try to pick out the facts. Eyewitness accounts differ, as it were.

What I take away from the extended First Bank of the United States example is that Madison lost. The Bank was the first big test of how expansive the new national government's powers were. The majority of Congress voted for the Bank, the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court upheld it. It is hard to take that as evidence that Madison's understanding of the plain meaning was the common one. At best, it allows you to argue that the Necessary and Proper Clause needs construction, which you think should go your way; it certainly provides no aid for an interpretation of strictly enumerated powers.

If one perspective seems to have lost almost every significant fight since the Founding (outside the Lochner Court), it seems questionable that it is the true original meaning. If we are warned at every turn about what horrible things will happen, and we do it anyway, it becomes hard to argue that the consequences are accidental.

I do think that Prof. Barnett gets the better of the battle he pitches between the Ninth Amendment and Footnote Four (-Plus). Unfortunately, as he says, there has been little attempt to take the Ninth Amendment seriously, and jurisprudence concerning it is about as extensive as Third Amendment jurisprudence. Also, he is relying on Madison's losing Bank argument again. Finally, because there is a matter of construction in the establishment of unenumerated retained rights, the plain text of the Ninth Amendment does not make for a slam dunk over the presumption of constitutionality.

The chapter on the Commerce Clause starts out tightly argued but falters as it goes on. "Commerce means trade" is a textbook example of textualist originalism, delving into uses of the word. "Among the Several States" receives similar treatment; Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn were travesties. "Regulate does not prohibit" is weaker, because it admits including prohibition in part, and Congress need only define the subject sufficiently large to define the prohibition as only a part. To use an example cited, if Congress cannot regulate lotteries by prohibiting them, it could regulate gambling by prohibiting lotteries and allowing other types. "If you want to gamble, you must do so in this way."

A difficulty of the writing style is excessive writing for and limited writing against. You would think that an attempt to overthrow most of a century's constitutional interpretation would have more animosity, a greater feeling of clashing titans. Instead, I am left with the feeling that the other side has been sold short, if represented at all.

The first quarter of the book, for example, addresses how we establish the legitimacy of government and in what conditions laws bind in conscience. I presume this is a live issue in Prof. Barnett's intended audience, although most citizens are content to follow laws because men with guns enforce them. Maybe it is taken as a given that we all know about popular sovereignty as the dominant theory.

Some of this is just a matter of unusual ordering. Prof. Barnett tends to make his case before arguing against his opponents. I expect someone to demolish the old building before constructing a new one in its place. It is a matter of when you introduce the villain in your storytelling. Maybe we are assumed to know who the enemy is; I am too sympathetic to the book to be able to assume that of a general audience.

There are some oddities in which sources are selected and neglected or which uses are favored. At times, Prof. Barnett makes a great deal about how two words are used together consistently ("Necessary and Proper"), so they must have distinguishable meanings and separate import. In another case, "commerce and trade" is treated like "completely and totally" or "flotsam and jetsam" (ignore this latter example if you know the difference between them; there is none in normal use). This is another point where the brief treatment of the opposing position leads me to wonder what has gone entirely unmentioned, although it could be hideously unfair to ask for point-by-point explanations of why all 803 uses of "regulate" and "regulation" in the Pennsylvania Gazette support (or fail to oppose) his position (and I would not read it if someone wrote it).

Prof. Barnett receives props for being the first author I have ever seen argue explicitly for a self-evident, unalienable natural right to drink (one's own) Diet Mountain Dew (page 59 of the hardcover). Strictly, he only asserts such a right when one is thirsty, but I think his view of natural rights is broad enough to allow soda consumption at your discretion. (I should note this is not being entirely flip; one of the Founders cited refers to one's natural right to wear a hat as an example of, "Look, we could spell all this out, but do we really need to?")

The Structure of Liberty looks interesting, so I may need to read another of Prof. Barnett's books. For many topics where I was interested in further depth, he pointed there.

As a last random note, it is hard to argue that there neither is nor ever has been a "Constitution in Exile" movement with this book's existence. "No, it's not exiled, just kind of lost...since Lochner." Wikipedia cites this book as the key example of such a movement (of which no one claims to be a member). If you are interested in discussion of that, Wikipedia also helpfully provides a link to a Volokh Conspiracy set of discussions on the topic. Prof. Barnett is a contributor to that group blog.

Amazon link
Laissez Faire Books link

Author's website

Book Selection Policy

"Eclectic."

There is no coherent pattern in which books will be selected. The range of materials is broad and their order is essentially random. Every book I read gets a post.

I acquire books from many sources. Libraries are always good places to go for books, both for particular titles and for Friends of the Library book sales in which you fill a bag with books for $3. Titles may arrive as gifts, loans, found items, or long-standing members of my library that may or may not have been read. Many titles came from an American Library Association conference where I acquired copies of several hundred recently or soon-to-be released books. An occasional review copy appears by mail. Also, I buy books.

Titles so far have included classics, modern literature, foreign translations, poetry, graphic novels, short stories, young adult literature, science fiction, biography, religion, politics, sociology, role playing games, thrillers, ghetto lit, compiled comic strips, e-books, fantasy, and children's books. Some are in the public domain, some are out of print, and some have yet to be printed. Quality has ranged from phenomenal to abominable. I decided that the manual to Civilization IV does not count as a book, though it is longer than several books I have reviewed.

The main factors that move a book up the list are trusted recommendations, "this looks interesting," and physical proximity. Some of the randomness comes from my owning hundreds of books that I have not read; I might grab any one in passing. Updating Bayesian priors, a few good books from a publisher will move their books up the list, while a few bad books in a row will move them down. Positives are more important than negatives.

I do read science fiction and fantasy, not exclusively, but I know that some people disdain both. I personally disdain Harlequin, Danielle Steele, and their ilk, so you are not likely to see many here.

There are more short books than long ones, which makes sense because I can read more of them. If I split my time evenly between 1000 page books and 100 page books, I will have ten times as many reviews of short books. Also, I do not always feel like committing myself to a long or difficult book. This helps keep young adult books in the rotation.

If you think a book needs a review, send me a recommendation or a copy. No promises, but who knows what I might read tomorrow?

Teen Titans: Jam Packed Action - Volume 1 by Rick Copp, Tom Pugsley, and Greg Klein

Rating - 2: not worth reading (skip it)

See previous Jam Packed Action title. The review is the same, only this time the series is Teen Titans. The episodes converted are "Crash" and "Wavelength."

Again, not spectacular or iconic episodes, and if you do not already know who everyone is, you will not keep up. Except for Robin, the Teen Titans are less well known than iconic heroes like Superman, and the characterization in these episodes is far poorer than the JLU example. The fights were easier to follow, but the show's periodic use of anime conventions just looks like bad art in the screen captures (particularly Cyborg's face).

I am not giving any other volumes in these series a chance, although again, young fans of the shows may find these to be great books for long car trips. Still, you can do better.

Amazon link

Anne Freaks Volume 1 by Yua Kotegawa

Rating - 3: worth reading once (borrow it from a library)

Many books fail to recognize the need for a narrative hook. Anne Freaks opens on Yuri burying his mother's bloody corpse in a field.

Anna appears on the scene to offer some assistance with body disposal. While Yuri is having visions of his murdered mother and Anna is addressing the fine points of killing and getting away with it, things start getting a bit darker.

This is the first in a series, and it maintains the chance of being revised up or down in its rating based on the rest of the series, assuming I can find a library that stocks the title. That might not be as easy as one could hope.

If it is not clear yet, the series is just a touch macabre. Killing one's parents is a dominant theme. Anna has no compunctions about killing anyone inconvenient or threatening. One of her nicer moments is when she lets people run away after dousing them with gasoline and bringing out a lighter. Yuri is easily led, and he vacillates over whether he did in fact murder his mother. Their third companion is an angry punk.

That said, the series also holds the promise of tenderness amidst the noir. Our protagonists are teenagers cast adrift, with only each other for solace. Life is harsh, only Anna seems to have a clue what is going on, and she is not sharing much. Insert teenage angst and drama here, which could be done well or badly in future issues.

Anna is a fun character, bouncing between "cute older sister" and "ninja assassin death princess." It is a common enough juxtaposition, but it seems to be done well.

Creepy and compelling. It merits looking at the next volume and seeing where this goes.

Amazon link