COMMENTS TEMPORARILY CLOSED - MIGRATING FROM HALOSCAN/ECHO TO DISQUS
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Book Review: Who Moved My Cheese?, by Spencer Johnson
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues
With the Obama administration approaching like a Mack truck, it's a good time to take a look at Who Moved My Cheese?, the popular - and reviled - handbook on coping with change.
Johnson summarizes his theory thus (source: Wikipedia):
Posted by Alan at
1:20 PM |
Johnson summarizes his theory thus (source: Wikipedia):
Change Happens
They Keep Moving The Cheese
Anticipate Change
Get Ready For The Cheese To Move
Monitor Change
Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old
Adapt To Change Quickly
The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese
Change
Move With The Cheese
Enjoy Change!
Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!
Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again & Again
They Keep Moving The Cheese.
The book is especially hated by many who received it as a gift from employers; Amazon reviewer M. Swartz encapsulates the common reaction:
This is a book written for unquestioning, mindless followers, not a book for leaders. But a tool that leaders would use to try and control their subordinates.
The ultimate problem with the book is that it addresses only a small subset of change; most types differ from Johnson's model in one or more ways.
What are the characteristics of change? The following, I believe, covers most of the bases:
- Change involves the gain and/or loss of a resource (person, object, time).
- Change may or may not be due to someone's error or duplicity.
- Change may or may not be reversible.
- A substitute for a lost resource may or may not be available.
- An available substitute for a lost resource is either chosen by or forced upon the individual.
- Change is either a net benefit, a net loss, or a break-even.
A more thorough analysis of change will include these topics among its inquiries:
- Protection against duplicity.
- How to fix your mistakes.
- How to persuade others to fix their mistakes.
- Discerning when change can and should be challenged.
- Adapting to the irreversible negative outcomes from change.
I wonder if Who Subprimed My Cheese will ever join the list of parodies...
Labels: Book reviews
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Book Review, The Once and Future King, T. H. White
This classic is actually a compilation of four stories: The Sword in the Stone (1938), The Queen of Air and Darkness (1939), The Ill-Made Knight (1940), The Candle in the Wind (1958).
The first is the most enjoyable, telling of Arthur's boyhood, ending with his fateful encounter with the sword Excalibur that establishes him as the King of England. Merlyn's tutelage of the young Arthur is paramount to the story. The primary lessons involve Arthur being turned into an animal, and all address the issue of Might. He learns of raw predatory power from the fish, rank, protocol and duty from the falcons and hawks, totalitarianism from the ants, cooperative society from the geese, and self-reliance from the badger. This essay touches on these themes.
There is also an adventure in which the boy Arthur and his stepbrother Kay join a quest to rescue several captives from Morgan la fey's enchanted castle, which is made completely of various foodstuffs. The prisoners are lashed to columns made of pork - I'd like to see someone try to pull that off at Guantanamo...
The second recounts several key events. Arthur conceives and implements the Round Table. He defeats the rebellion of King Lot of Lothian and Orkney. Lot's four sons - Gawain, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth - become Arthur's knights after their father's defeat. Their mother Queen Morgause (sister of Morgan la Fey) uses sorcery to seduce Arthur - not knowing him to be his half-brother (Arthur was the product of Uther Pendragon's rape of Morgause's mother) - and conceives Mordred.
The third and fourth tales are a depressing and often plodding read; they fall on my list of Stuff To Read Once And Only Once. Amidst Sir Lancelot's falls from and returns to grace, various feuds develop amongst the knights, the worst involving the Orkneys. They feud with Pellinore after the old knight kills their father in combat. Arthur earns several black marks from the brothers; old Pendragon's sin against their grandmother, Arthur's liaison with Morgause (they never learned that she engineered it), his attempt to cover up his indiscretion by having the baby Mordred killed.
Arthur reforms the criminal code by replacing trial-by-combat with jury trial, but this comes back to bite him when the Orkneys expose the affair between Lancelot and Guenevir. The "ill-made knight" escapes capture while the queen is sentenced to deaths; he rescues her from being burned at the stake, and in the ensuing battle Gaheris and Gareth are killed.
This sets up Mordred's plans for Might; as Arthur has Lance under siege in a French castle, Mordred spreads the lie that the two are dead and usurps the throne. Arthur gives up the siege to war with Mordred, and some days afterward Lancelot learns of the events and leaves to join his king in England to fight Mordred. The story ends with Arthur, on the even of battle, instructing a boy (who is supposed to represent Thomas Malory, the authoritative source on Arthurian legend) to return to his home and to keep alive the tale of King Arthur and the Round Table and the ideals they represent.
I have never liked love-triangle plots - all that selfishness and wasted emotional energy. The Lancelot-Guinevere is especially pathetic. It's bad enough that a bored housewife seeks a little excitement with some dude who fulfills fantasies of flash and excitement. But it's even worse that a man who has the code of chivalry drilled into his soul obsesses over his king's wife. Even when I was a teenager I didn't chase after girls who were dating someone else. You're a hundred times the chick magnet than I am, Lance - get a life and look for someone who's actually available.
No surprise, Arthur and Lancelot are the best-developed characters. Guinevere is not a two-dimensional character, but that third dimension could use a little filling out. Morgause and her knightly sons are fascinating characters. Scarcely anything is said of the Grail quest.
The character I like the most is King Pellinore. He embodies the chivalric code more than any of the others, in my opinion. When he finds the Questing Beast injured, he nurses it back to health rather than nabbing the poor creature and declaring the quest fulfilled. This stands in stark contrast to the Orkneys' quest for a unicorn, which ends with Agravaine killing the creature.
For those interested in Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, the University of Virginia Library has the entire text online here. No talking owls in that version.
Posted by Alan at
8:35 AM |
The first is the most enjoyable, telling of Arthur's boyhood, ending with his fateful encounter with the sword Excalibur that establishes him as the King of England. Merlyn's tutelage of the young Arthur is paramount to the story. The primary lessons involve Arthur being turned into an animal, and all address the issue of Might. He learns of raw predatory power from the fish, rank, protocol and duty from the falcons and hawks, totalitarianism from the ants, cooperative society from the geese, and self-reliance from the badger. This essay touches on these themes.
There is also an adventure in which the boy Arthur and his stepbrother Kay join a quest to rescue several captives from Morgan la fey's enchanted castle, which is made completely of various foodstuffs. The prisoners are lashed to columns made of pork - I'd like to see someone try to pull that off at Guantanamo...
The second recounts several key events. Arthur conceives and implements the Round Table. He defeats the rebellion of King Lot of Lothian and Orkney. Lot's four sons - Gawain, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth - become Arthur's knights after their father's defeat. Their mother Queen Morgause (sister of Morgan la Fey) uses sorcery to seduce Arthur - not knowing him to be his half-brother (Arthur was the product of Uther Pendragon's rape of Morgause's mother) - and conceives Mordred.
The third and fourth tales are a depressing and often plodding read; they fall on my list of Stuff To Read Once And Only Once. Amidst Sir Lancelot's falls from and returns to grace, various feuds develop amongst the knights, the worst involving the Orkneys. They feud with Pellinore after the old knight kills their father in combat. Arthur earns several black marks from the brothers; old Pendragon's sin against their grandmother, Arthur's liaison with Morgause (they never learned that she engineered it), his attempt to cover up his indiscretion by having the baby Mordred killed.
Arthur reforms the criminal code by replacing trial-by-combat with jury trial, but this comes back to bite him when the Orkneys expose the affair between Lancelot and Guenevir. The "ill-made knight" escapes capture while the queen is sentenced to deaths; he rescues her from being burned at the stake, and in the ensuing battle Gaheris and Gareth are killed.
This sets up Mordred's plans for Might; as Arthur has Lance under siege in a French castle, Mordred spreads the lie that the two are dead and usurps the throne. Arthur gives up the siege to war with Mordred, and some days afterward Lancelot learns of the events and leaves to join his king in England to fight Mordred. The story ends with Arthur, on the even of battle, instructing a boy (who is supposed to represent Thomas Malory, the authoritative source on Arthurian legend) to return to his home and to keep alive the tale of King Arthur and the Round Table and the ideals they represent.
I have never liked love-triangle plots - all that selfishness and wasted emotional energy. The Lancelot-Guinevere is especially pathetic. It's bad enough that a bored housewife seeks a little excitement with some dude who fulfills fantasies of flash and excitement. But it's even worse that a man who has the code of chivalry drilled into his soul obsesses over his king's wife. Even when I was a teenager I didn't chase after girls who were dating someone else. You're a hundred times the chick magnet than I am, Lance - get a life and look for someone who's actually available.
No surprise, Arthur and Lancelot are the best-developed characters. Guinevere is not a two-dimensional character, but that third dimension could use a little filling out. Morgause and her knightly sons are fascinating characters. Scarcely anything is said of the Grail quest.
The character I like the most is King Pellinore. He embodies the chivalric code more than any of the others, in my opinion. When he finds the Questing Beast injured, he nurses it back to health rather than nabbing the poor creature and declaring the quest fulfilled. This stands in stark contrast to the Orkneys' quest for a unicorn, which ends with Agravaine killing the creature.
For those interested in Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, the University of Virginia Library has the entire text online here. No talking owls in that version.
Labels: Book reviews
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Vendetta vs. Just War
On this Guy Fawkes Day I have a guest post over at Samizdata, on certain philosophical implications in Alan Moore's graphic novel V for Vendetta.
Posted by Alan at
7:11 AM |
Labels: Book reviews, Politics
 |