"Choke" by Chuck Palahniuk (2001)

"Just so you know, what you're reading is the complete and relentless story of an addict."

I'm pretty familiar with Chuck Palahniuk.  I've read Fight Club, I've read Invisible Monsters, and now Choke.  He's well known for his "transgressional fiction," and he's particularly well known in the Pacific Northwest, where I grew up.

The protagonist of Choke is both a sex addict and employee of a colonial theme park.  As a way of paying for his mother's hospitalization, he goes to restaurants and pretends (?) to choke on food.  After these episodes of choking he receives financial support from the people who've "saved" him.

Like Palahniuk's other novels Choke is very short, and if you find it particularly interesting you could probably finish it in an afternoon.  It's written in Palahniuk's spare, minimalistic style, and little beyond the characters' inner thoughts are described.  It's very much the direction J.G. Ballard was headed in around the time he wrote Crash, though I think Ballard is a much better writer.

Which is not to say that Choke is bad by any means.  It's actually my favorite of the Palahniuk novels I've read so far, easily eclipsing both Fight Club and Invisible Monsters.  It's also the most simultaneously depressing and funny thing I've read in a while.

I do think, however, that Fight Club has more to say about Western society, again in that J.G. Ballard/Tom DeLillo fashion that we don't see much of now.  But Choke seemed more heartfelt to me, and ultimately more human.  Sure, Fight Club is more quotable, but Choke has more emotion going for it.

Related Entries:

"Purity" by Jonathan Franzen (2015)
"Artemis" by Andy Weir (2017)
"A Little Life" by Hanya Yanagihara (2015)
"The Fishermen" by Chigozie Obioma (2015)

"Purity" by Jonathan Franzen (2015)

"He put his glasses back on and stared straight ahead.  A ghost was in the room with them.  'It's not possible,' he said.  'I don't have a daughter, and even if I somehow did, what are the chances of her living under my roof?"

According to Wikipedia, Jonathan Franzen's most famous novels are The Corrections and Freedom, neither of which I've read.  He was close to winning the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and he's been referred to as a "great American novelist" by at least one major news outlet.  Purity is his most recent book, and was released five years after Freedom.

In Purity, a young woman goes in search of a father she's never known.  She does so over the objections of her eccentric mother, who's cut all ties with their shared past.  In her search the young woman crosses paths with a number of other people, all of whom have knowledge of her missing parent.

It starts out well, and I liked the main character from the beginning.  Her struggles with student debt and sexual insecurity make her very accessible, even if her neuroses seem a bit over the top at times.  By the end of the novel I was happy she'd found some kind of closure in her life, though certain elements of her sexuality seemed a bit too dictated by the story the author wanted to tell.

Where this book struggles is in the middle, with all of the other characters.  Every woman in this book is a manipulative neurotic, and every man is a cowardly intellectual.  After a while it began to seem like they were all doppelgangers for one another.  As a reader I wanted to like them, but at times they seemed pointlessly eccentric, as if the author made them that way for the sake of stringing the plot along.  I get that he was making some point about the male-female dialectic, and perhaps also how younger generations might transcend this dialectic, but including female characters who weren't manipulative neurotics and male characters who weren't cowardly intellectuals would have given this story a lot more depth.

And then there's the ending.  Kind of a let down if you ask me.  All of that personal drama just to end like that.  It was very frustrating.  And Purity isn't short either.

Would I recommend this book?  No, not really.  I just don't think it's worth the effort.  But would I read another book by Jonathan Franzen?  Yes, I think I would.  There's enough in Purity to make me curious about his more famous efforts, and I think those other novels are probably much better.

Related Entries:

"Artemis" by Andy Weir (2017)
"A Little Life" by Hanya Yanagihara (2015)
"The Fishermen" by Chigozie Obioma (2015)
"China Rich Girlfriend" by Kevin Kwan (2015)

Superhero Movies From October 2018 Onward (5)

For reviews of older superhero movies click here and here.  It felt like time to get rid of the "baggage" those older entries carried, so I'm starting again from October 2018's Venom.

Superhero Moves On The Way*

The Suicide Squad (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, August 6, 2021 in the States)

The Batman (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, June 25, 2021 in the States)

Morbius, the Living Vampire (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, July 31, 2020 in the States)

Wonder Woman 1984 (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, June 5, 2020 in the States)

Birds of Prey (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, February 7, 2020 in the States)

Joker (Taiwan Release Date Unknown, October 4, 2019 in the States)

The New Mutants (Comes Out in Taiwan August 2, 2019?)

Spider-Man: Far From Home (Comes Out in Taiwan July 3, 2019)

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (Comes Out in Taiwan June 6, 2019)

Avengers: Endgame (Comes Out in Taiwan April 24, 2019)

Hellboy (Comes  Out in Taiwan April 11, 2019)

Shazam!

What I Liked: Zachary Levi and Asher Angel are both examples of great casting, the story is well thought out, and the battle at the end takes some interesting twists and turns.  I consider Shazam! a vast improvement over Aquaman, which was trying to do too much in too short a time, and also Captain Marvel, which was in my opinion one hot mess of a movie.  Shazam! is much smaller-scale compared to those other two films, but its smallness works to its advantage.  It's very focused and to the point.

Mark Strong, who was wasted on Martin Campbell's Green Lantern, has much more to do in Shazam!  Even if his reasons for being "evil" aren't that well thought out, he's still a good (bad) villain.

What I Didn't Like: The battle at the end goes on a bit too long.  I think shortening it would have made for a better movie.  The introduction of the rest of the Marvel Family feels a bit rushed, even if it was gratifying to see them onscreen together.

Future/Sequels: No definite plans for any sequels as yet, but one of Shazam's other villains is introduced in a post-credits scene.  It's early to say, but I think this movie will be well received and I'd be surprised if a sequel isn't announced soon.

Captain Marvel

What I Liked: There's a part about halfway through, when Carol Danvers is reunited with an old friend.  In that part you can see Brie Larson's skill as an actress.

The fight on the spaceship near the end is oddly satisfying, but some of my satisfaction may have to do with 90s soundtrack, and the fact that I was a much younger guy when those songs were everywhere.  Nostalgia, in other words.

What I Didn't Like: Going back to the comic books, I never found Carol Danvers especially interesting, and this movie did nothing to change my mind.  Really, what is her reason for doing anything in this film?  At what point does her character change or make any real kind of discovery?

She's also so much more powerful than anyone she comes up against in this movie.  There's no sense of threat when "danger" strikes.  Jude Law?  Nope.  The Skrulls?  Not really.  Ronan the Accuser?  Their confrontation is a non-event.

I've also got to say, the explanation given for Nick Fury losing his eye really bothered me.  It's always seemed like this event should be of crucial importance, but in the movie it's explained in such an offhand manner.  The randomness of this explanation diminished the entire film.

Future/Sequels: Strap yourself in because Avengers: Endgame is less than two months away.  After Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home Marvel has announced no other films, though if Captain Marvel does well I'm sure we'll see a sequel.  I've heard a lot of talk about an Eternals movie, but we'll see.

I think what's going to make or break a Captain Marvel sequel is the Asian market, especially China.  If it goes over big in Beijing and Shanghai (as Aquaman did) you can be sure there will be another one.  If, however, this movie fails to find an audience in such places, I imagine Kevin Feige will start vaguely alluding to "future adventures" without making any real commitment.

Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

Does this one count?  Batman and the Justice League are in it.  It also features the newer and older versions of Aquaman.

What I Liked: It's a funny movie, though not as good as the first.  This said, it's not nearly as hyper as the first one, which might be a relief for those who found the first film slightly overwhelming.

What I Didn't Like: It does drag a bit toward the end.  It's weird to say, but I found myself having to really concentrate on Lego Movie 2.  There are SO many references, to so many things, that after the first hour my brain got tired.  

Future/Sequels: There might be a sequel to the Lego Batman movie, though there's no release date as yet.  There might also be The Billion Brick Race.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

What I Liked: Everything.  In my opinion this movie's awesome from start to finish.  The characters, the plot, the animation, the soundtrack, all of it's great.  I suppose it depends on how it does financially, but Spider-Verse could be a real game-changer for CBMs.

For me the best part of the film was the Bill Sienkiewicz-inspired sequence halfway through.  I've been a huge fan of that guy for years, and seeing his art animated almost brought tears to my eyes.  That version of the Kingpin?  That's all Bill Sienkiewicz.

What I Didn't Like: Small complaint: no Spider-Woman.  I've always liked Spider-Woman more than Spider-Man, and it would've been wonderful to see Jessica Drew (finally) show up in this movie.

Future/Sequels: There's talk that Spider-Woman could feature in the sequel alongside Spider-Gwen and Silk, but such plans are tentative of course.  It's entirely possible that a sequel would feature Spider-Man 2099 instead.

Aquaman

What I Liked: Atlantis looks cool.  Amber Heard is easy on the eyes.  The battle in the end - aside from a ridiculous pause in the action for a predictably romantic moment - looks amazing.

What I Didn't Like: Weird moments of exposition.  Instead of showing the audience what's happening/has happened, the characters in this movie often feel the need to stop whatever they're doing and explain things.  The only part of this movie where the action flows seamlessly is when Aquaman and Black Manta have their big showdown halfway through.

The part in the beginning about Aquaman's parents could have been removed entirely.  It adds absolutely nothing to the story, and starting the movie from the adult Aquaman's first appearance would have made a lot more sense.

This movie gets dumber as it goes along.  By the end I was laughing at certain scenes and bits of dialogue, and I wasn't the only one.  And before someone chimes in with "at least it doesn't take itself so seriously," let's remember there's a difference between laughing WITH a movie and laughing AT a movie.

The small ray of hope being that it's not as terrible as Justice League.  Not that this is saying much.

Future/Sequels: Shazam!, also set in the DCEU, will be out in a few months.  After that it's a long wait until Wonder Woman 1984.  Aquaman 2?  It's kind of early to tell, but the movie's been doing well in China, and those wanting a completely brainless superhero romp will be all over this one.

Venom

What I Liked: After a really clunky beginning there are some great action sequences.  Everything after Venom shows up is much better than the 15 minutes that try (and fail) to set up the story.  The fight between Venom and Riot near the end is very good.

What I Didn't Like: That beginning part.  It feels like they weren't sure what kind of movie they were making.  Horror?  Action?  Science fiction?  Going more for the "body horror" elements would have improved the film, and the spaceship/alien invasion subplot could have been dispensed with altogether.

As clunky as the beginning is, the dialogue throughout the movie is by far the worst part.  None of the actors seem at ease with what they're saying, and a couple of lines are unintentionally hilarious.

Future/Sequels: There are plans for a sequel with Woody Harrelson's Carnage in a bigger role.  I think that after setting up the general premise, a sequel is bound to be better.  Harrelson would also make a great villain.  Last I heard, Sony's next comic-based movie will be Morbius the Living Vampire, with Jared Leto as Morbius.  There may be some crossover between Venom and Morbius.

Related Entries:

Some Other Movies From 1995
Some Other Movies From 1997
Some Other Movies From 1999
The Other Movie Oscars: The 2000s

Some Other Movies From 1995

I thought it over, and I'm pretty sure that in 1995 I was working at Home Depot and living near Green Lake.  It was a good year for me.  I suppose that was the year I learned how to be an adult.

The top 5 movies of 1995 were Toy Story, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Apollo 13, GoldenEye, and Pocahontas.  GoldenEye remains one of the best Bond movies, and it should be noted that it was also directed by Martin Campbell, who later directed Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.  A lot of people think Judi Dench was introduced as Q in the Daniel Craig movies, but her first appearance as the character was in GoldenEye.

Oh, and Se7en came out that year too.  I'd be hard-pressed to say which was better, GoldenEye or Se7en, but they're both indisputably great.  As a huge Bond fan I'm inclined to say GoldenEye, but yeah, Se7en...

Other good movies from 1995 were Braveheart, Leaving Las Vegas, Murder in the First, Apollo 13, The Usual Suspects (big year for Kevin Spacey), 12 Monkeys, Trainspotting, In the Mouth of Madness, The Quick and the Dead, Rob Roy, The Basketball Diaries, Crimson Tide, Kids, Desperado, Showgirls (a very misunderstood movie), Dead Presidents, Casino, Wild Bill and Heat.  It's hard to believe Casino and Heat came out the same year, but then again the early 90s were a good time for gangster movies.

Worst movie?  I'd nominate Batman Forever.  I grew up reading Batman comics, and even I had a hard time focusing on this movie.  Something about it just seemed so all over the place, as if it didn't know what it wanted to be, or why.

Some Good Ones

1. Die Hard with a Vengeance

Surprisingly, I'd never seen this before.  In this one Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson team up to stop Jeremy Irons.  Director John McTiernan uses New York in the way he used the skyscraper in the first movie.  I liked it more than the first one, but then again I've never understood the popularity of the first one.

In a way it's too bad Jeremy Irons is so much older now.  He would have been the perfect choice to play David Bowie whenever that biopic is inevitably made.

2. Ghost in the Shell

Don't bother with the more recent live-action version.  It's boring.  It's like a mountain made out of a molehill, or at best an excuse for Scarlett Johansson to walk around almost-nude.  The original anime is far better, even if the animation looks a bit dated now.  Just get settled in with a nice cup of coffee, because it gets kind of deep.

3. Whisper of the Heart

The complete opposite of Ghost in the Shell in almost every respect.  Where Ghost in the Shell is intellectual, this one's romantic.  Where Ghost in the Shell is action and intrigue, this one's about daily life.  Instead of the cyborgs and AI in Ghost in the Shell, Whisper of the Heart is about junior high school students confronting adulthood.  But both movies are good.  This one's also really sweet, and if you have the patience to make it to the end it will leave you with a very hopeful feeling.

Fun Fact: This anime was produced by Studio Ghibli, the same studio that produced the celebrated Spirited Away.  It was directed by a different person however, and didn't enjoy the same level of success.  A sequel, The Cat Returns, was released in 2002.

4. Tales from the Hood

Inner-city, episodic horror film in the tradition of Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt (below).  I was prepared to hate it, but as it turns out it's really good.  The fourth of the four parts, reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange, is somewhat preachy and obvious, but the first three parts were well done.  I particularly liked the second part, featuring a standout performance by David Alan Grier.

Fun Fact #1: David Alan Grier also appeared in Jumanji (below).  I always felt like that guy should have been more famous.

Fun Fact #2: The sequel, Tales from the Hood 2, was released as recently as 2018.

5. The Cure

Heartwarming and all, but going out into the woods and boiling whatever plants you find will probably kill you at some point.  In The Cure two boys become friends while one of them contends with AIDS.  It's well-acted and suitably understated.

6. Choke

Documentary centered around Rickson Gracie's participation in the Vale Tudo tournament.  It was 1995, so ultimate fighting wasn't really a thing yet, and the sport is referred to as "no-holds-barred fighting," "street fighting," and "freestyle fighting" at different points in the documentary.  I'm still not a huge fan of this sport but the documentary was interesting.

Two That Are Just Alright

1. Dead Man

Predictably arty film by Jim Jarmusch.  Johnny Depp stars as an accountant in a Western frontier town.  Interesting cast, but it moves very slowly and I didn't like it as much as some of Jarmusch's other films.  Reviewers have compared it to Cormac McCarthy's book Blood Meridian but it's not nearly that good.

Fun Fact: This was Robert Mitchum's very last movie.

2. Catwalk

Documentary on the state of fashion in 1995, featuring Christy Turlington.  Being a heterosexual man, I could only enjoy this one so much, but it passes by quickly enough.  Not very much depth to it, however.

Some Bad Ones

1. Friday

Five things about this movie:

     a. Chris Tucker totally carries the whole thing.  I guess Ice Cube could claim he was playing the straight man, but naw - it's Chris Tucker front to back.

     b. It needs more of a plot.  There are some funny bits in it, but in between the funny bits not much happens.

     c. The soundtrack needed work.  Whoever did it needed to think about how a good soundtrack anticipates and builds on the mood of each scene.  As it is, songs come on occasionally and it's always a relief when they do.  There's too much talking over silence.

     d. This movie wasn't, in my opinion, a success in terms of quality.  Yeah it made money, but it's just not very good.  This said, its heart was in the right place, and director F. Gary Gray went on to make much better movies.  At least some of what Ice Cube learned in the making of Friday contributed to the far superior Straight Outta Compton.

     e. This movie's cross-cultural appeal is not to be underestimated.  I watched it with my Taiwanese wife, and she thought it was hilarious.  At first glance it seems very "black," very inner-city, but a lot of what people like about Friday crosses cultural barriers.  My wife grew up in a small farming village not far from the Taiwan Strait, and yet this movie still reminded her of people, places and things from her hometown.

2. Jumanji

It's not so much that the cgi looks so dated, but that the rules of the board-game-turned-real are so arbitrary.  It's hard to stay invested in the plot when from moment to moment literally anything could happen.  As such movies go I think 2005's Zathura was much better, and even the more recent Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is head and shoulders above the original.

I'm just wondering though, which timeline is Jumaji: Welcome to the Jungle set in, exactly?  The one where Robin Williams' parents die or the one where they don't?

3. Hackers

Movie about hackers written by people who didn't know much about hackers, or computers, or law enforcement.  There's a group of good New York fashion victim hackers, and they have to outwit an evil New York fashion victim hacker.  Angelina Jolie is the most famous of the hackers, but in this movie she mostly just walks around and sulks.

Fun Fact: After filming, Jolie and male lead Johnny Lee Miller got married.  They were divorced 18 months later.

4. Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight

Gore with a side of big 'ol titties.  It has the same campy tone as the cable TV show, but as it turns out it's a lot harder to sustain that tone over the course of a 1.5 hour movie.  Billy Zane (!) and William Sadler star.  The plot?  Some nonsense about preventing hell on Earth.

Fun Fact #1: The sheriff's deputy in this movie is played by Johnny Depp's Indian friend in Dead Man.

Fun Fact #2: This movie was supposed to be the second part of a trilogy.  Various production difficulties led to it appearing first, before the proposed first part.  A sequel of sorts, Bordello of Blood, was released a year later.  I have no doubt that Bordello of Blood features even more big 'ol titties, and also a healthy dose of gore.

5. The Scarlet Letter

Demi Moore and Gary Oldman lead this "free adaptation" of the famed Nathaniel Hawthorne story.  It was only three years after Gary Oldman appeared in Bram Stoker's Dracula, so he still had that "erotic" thing going on.  The trouble is that this movie is tedious in the extreme, and it misunderstands the appeal of Hawthorne's (much better) story.

6. Family of Cops

Damn Charles Bronson was a bad actor.  In this one he stars as the head of - you guessed it - a family of cops.  The extremely formulaic script keeps it from spilling over into so-bad-it's-good territory, but it's definitely not great.  

Bronson, by the way, was 74 years old when this movie was filmed.  His last movie was Family of Cops 3 in 1999.  He passed away in 2003.

WTF? (But in a Good Way)

1. Top Dog

Master thespian Chuck Norris and an unbelievably irritating dog team up to solve crimes.  It's only 1.5 hours long and yet manages to make almost no sense at all.  Uh... drugs?  Uh... Neo-Nazis?  Uh... what?

Fun Fact: This film was directed by Chuck Norris' little brother, Aaron Norris.

Straight Horror Cheese

1. The Mangler

Tobe "Texas Chainsaw" Hooper directed this movie about a industrial washing machine that kills people.  The most famous person in the cast is Robert Englund.  Apparently they didn't have enough money in the budget for an actual police uniform for the lead character, and the acting is predictably bad throughout.

I got about halfway through and had to quit.  Between the first death and the foregone conclusion that is the machine's destruction, this movie goes nowhere.

Related Entries:

Some Other Movies From 1997
Superhero Moves From October 2018 Onward (4)
Some Other Movies From 1999
The Other Movie Oscars: The 2000s

"American Sniper" by Chris Kyle (2012)

"I realize that a lot of the problem has to do with the screwed-up culture in Iraq.  These people had been under a dictatorship for all their lives.  Iraq as a country meant nothing to them, or at least nothing good.  Most were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, very happy to be free people, but they didn't understand what that really meant - the other things that come with being free."

Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL.  He was originally from Texas, and later served four tours of duty ("deployments") in Iraq during the early 2000s.  His service as a sniper earned him several medals, and the number of his recorded kills earned him the nickname "The Legend."  Clint Eastwood later directed a film adaptation of this book, and this film - starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle - was released in 2014 to both critical acclaim and commercial success.

American Sniper is a straightforward autobiography, with Kyle recounting his early years in Texas, his SEAL training, his years in Iraq, and his eventual return to home and family.  His ethos of "God, country, family" will probably rub many liberal types the wrong way, but I must say I found his honesty refreshing, even if I don't share many of his priorities.  I found much of American Sniper to be a fascinating glimpse into everything from military training to American strategy in Iraq.

If you're looking for moral ambiguity, however, look elsewhere.  Kyle frequently describes the insurgents he fought as "savages," and never questions either his need to kill them or the broader military objectives in Iraq.  This is obvious from the very first chapter, in which he guns down a female insurgent.

If you enjoyed the movie, the book adds a lot of background to that story.  If you didn't enjoy the movie, you probably won't like the book.  For my part I enjoyed Clint Eastwood's take on American Sniper, and I think that those able to suspend judgement on guys like Kyle will find his story very engaging.  In the age of Trump I'm sure a lot of people will read American Sniper and see everything that's wrong with America, but if you can really hear him, and give him the time to explain what he's about, you might learn to like him and understand some of his motivations.  In this time of national division, developing that kind of empathy might be the most important thing you could do.

Related Entries:

"Fear: Trump in the White House" by Bob Woodward (2018)
"Political Order and Political Decay" by Francis Fukuyama (2015)
"The Anatomy of Violence" by Adrian Raine (2013)
"Home Below Hell's Canyon" by Grace Jordan (1954)

"How Google Works" by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg (2014)

"First, keep it flat.  In most companies, there is a basic underlying tension: People claim that they want a flat organization so they can be closer to the top, but in fact they usually long for hierarchy.  Smart creatives are different: They prefer a flat organization, less because they want to be closer to the top and more because they want to get things done and need direct access to decision-makers."

At the time this book was published, Eric Schmidt was the Executive Chairman of Google, and Jonathan Rosenberg was a former SVP (whatever that means) of Products.  At the time of writing, Schmidt is the Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., a parent company of Google, and Rosenberg is also working with (for?) Alphabet, Inc.  Schmidt is also ranked the 119th richest person in the world.  Both Schmidt and Rosenberg wrote How Google Works as a way of explaining Google's corporate philosophy.

Anyone with a computer - or maybe even anyone alive - knows Google's recent history.  The company started with their search engine, which at the time was competing with alternatives such as Microsoft's Bing and Ask Jeeves, and quickly rose to become the most influential tech company in the world.  They've also developed the Android operating system for mobile devices, bought up YouTube, and their map application, Google Maps, has become indispensable for countless users worldwide.

What might be less obvious is the corporate philosophy that has allowed this company to survive in an economy where technology continues to accelerate the rate of change.  The core of this philosophy, as the quote above suggests, is in the creation of an environment where "smart creatives" can thrive.  These smart creatives are people who innovate, not out of a desire for money but out of a need to change things.  Establishing the kind of environment that attracts (and retains) smart creatives involves a less hierarchical corporate structure, freedom to pursue individual projects, and mechanisms within the company that allow it to respond better to market forces.

As you can imagine, How Google Works is full of corporatespeak and references to bygone competitors.  It probably sounds boring to you, but it's a surprisingly easy read and I found it fairly engaging throughout.  It also had me thinking about schools where I've worked, and whether or not the Google corporate model could be applied to them.  I have grave doubts that this is possible, but in the right kind of private school, with the right kind of teachers, it just might work. 

If you're like a lot of people, you find Google both useful and kind of scary.  Useful because it's the only thing going in certain areas, and scary because it often symbolizes everything that's "wrong" with the world.  I share some of your trepidation, but I can also say that reading this book has made Google less scary for me, and it's also helped me understand some of what's driving the tech industry.  I still can't say that I view Google in entirely benign terms, but reading How Google Works has softened my opinions to some extent.

Expecting "ideological consistency" from a book written in such a general way is silly, but after reading How Google Works I recommend reading this article in The Guardian.  It points out some of the ways in which Google's history as presented in this book clashes with what actually happened.  I think this review is more pedantic than that book deserves, but it's still worth reading.

Related Entries 相關的文章:

"Misbehaving" by Richard H. Thaler (2015)
"Fear: Trump in the White House" by Bob Woodward (2018)
"Political Order and Political Decay" by Francis Fukuyama (2015)
"What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel (2012)