Bad Reviewer Quotes, Bad Days in History Edition

We have a copy of Michael Farquhar's Bad Days in History: A Gleefully Grim Chronicle of Misfortune, Mayhem, and Misery for Every Day of the Year, which I had intended to read one day at a time over the course of 2021, but it was engrossing and I quickly got too far ahead (was at mid-March in mid-January), so I put it aside to pick up again in March, but forgot to put in a calendar reminder, and so here I am on December 31 trying to power through it.  

It's... good, I guess?  but I'm not entirely certain it's that much better than looking through the Wikipedia entries for "on this day".  Part of my hesitation comes from the fact that entries vary from a couple sentences to a couple pages.  I know they can't all be particularly detailed, because Farquhar is writing a sub-500 page book and not a 732 page book.  And sometimes the short ones work well, like the day Joan of Arc's death sentence was nullified, 25 years after she was burned at the stake.  

That sort of tale seems to fit the "Gleefully Grim" part of the subtitle, and the quote from the Washington Post's review on the front cover leans into this: "An upbeat catalog of defeats, faux pas[,**] and falls from grace that contributed to some very crummy moments."  Similarly, the Portland Book Review*** quote on the back cover states, "A wonderful morbid and entertaining collection."

A lot of the entries are morbidly entertaining.  Then there are entries like July 30, 1865, when Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an asylum.  This is not merely a morbidly entertaining "crummy moment", but the culmination of nearly 20 years of trying to get fellow doctors to wash their hands before examining patients -- especially in the obstetrics department.  There are many more entries like this, which I think are important, but they are sobering tragedies, not "upbeat defeats". 

** Fixing the lack of Oxford comma

*** Note that the full review is more measured; this is just a bad choice of quote for the book cover.  

Jupiter's Legacy

I haven't read the comics; just seen the Netflix show.  Reading the synopsis of the comics, it doesn't seem like a particularly faithful adaptation.  That can be fine, but there are problems with the structure of the storytelling.

The basic premise of the show is the conflict between two generations of superheroes, where the codes of conduct the old superheroes lived by maybe don't work anymore.  This is a great idea, with a lot of potential.

The series begins when the next generation are small children, then jumps forward to when they're young adults who are joining their parents as superheroes, and then flips back and forth between the present and the time before their parents gained their super powers.  Flipping back to the past can be a great technique when the events of the past directly affect, or provide a mirror for, the events of the present; unfortunately, the scenes of the past have little to zero bearing on the scenes in the present.  We are simply being shown two different stories in parallel. 

There are at least a couple of approaches that could have worked:

1. If they want the past to be about the period before the old generation got their super powers, then the "present" time period should be when the next generation are small children, before their powers manifest, so that we can examine the similarities and differences between what generation went through when their powers were nascent.
2. If they want the present to be when the next generation are young adults at the beginning of their careers as superheroes, then the past time period should be just after the old generation got their super powers, so that we can examine the similarities and differences between what life was like as a super in the "good old days" versus the now.
   

The promised premise suggests #2, but the show's choice is to take the past from #1 and the present from #2, and it just doesn't work at all.  

 

The perverse incentives of bag-based trash dropoff pricing

The Burlington drop-off center hasn't accepted trash since the pandemic began, and it was the only spot in Chittenden County where you paid by weight.  We produce very little trash outside of plastic packaging, so being forced to pay by bag at the South Burlington drop-off center has roughly doubled the cost of disposal.  

Worse, the pricing by bag creates a perverse incentive: our household trash bags cost $6 per bag to dispose of, but I can buy contractor bags, stuff 4 household trash bags into the contractor bag, and pay $8 to dispose of the contractor bag, instead of $24 for the household trash bags individually.  

Hauling our own is still cheaper than having it picked up, because we produce about 2-3 bags of household trash per month, and last we checked, a private contractor costs $35/month.