Library Shelf Listing

Finding new books is harder than it should be. Independent bookstores are closing shop, and big box stores who only carry whatever bribes their way past the exorbitant stock keeping fees. Databases and libraries become impossible to navigate unless you already know what you're looking for. Even with online resale, you can only search within your own vocabulary. Now rare are the times when one can simply look upon a bookshelf and see some hitherto unknown title.

I know I must not be the only one with this problem. So, I offer a listing of my own shelves, such that anyone may use my listing as reference for their own.

My books get divided into three categories: Fiction, Arts, and Sciences. ... however, what I classify as what depends more on my own idiosyncrasies and opinion of the book than anything else.

I will only list books that I liked, were interesting, or at least not terrible enough to be disowned. Self-authored books are not listed. Multiple copies in different languages are listed only under one entry. Scientific work that risks being quickly outdated are unlisted. Favourites are italicized. Items are listed alphabetically, but not in the order in which I first read them, so inter-related lines of thought between multiple books may be listed in a confusing order.

I take recommendations for others, within reason.

Recent Additions

All About Pinball

Bobbye Claire Natkin, Steve Kirk

Whim prompted me to research what I could about pinball, but there unfortunately wasn't much on the subject. The world of book publishing had absolutely no interest in the topic, and no academic discipline ever deigned to take up the study of pinball or pinball machines. The largest academic library in Canada had only three books on the subject, and one of them wasn't even in English. This was the only thing I could get my mitts on, and it was a long-discarded public library copy from the late 01970's.

The majority of the text was written by Bobbye Claire Natkin, who wrote it as a social history of pinball from its very beginnings up until the late 01960's. There are many analogues between the pinball of this time and how video games were introduced to society in the 01980's through to the mid-aughts, in the social pressures applied to the new form of media, as well as how those social pressures changed both the medium itself and the medium's overall reach.

Like computers and video games, when pinball arrived unto the world for the first time, it attracted everyone's interest: men and women, young and old. It was only as pinball evolved through time where larger social forces shaped pinball's opinion of itself. When the Great Depression of the 01930's hit, it began “the golden age of pinball,” noted for the time in which it was most profitable to own and run pinball machines as a business move. In this newfound golden age the medium finally gained a primary audience of adolescent men, all unemployed due to the lingering economic depression, congregating in largely homosocial commercial spaces: dive bars serving copious amounts of alcohol. Even as the golden age died down, this androcentric viewpoint remained in how pinball marketed itself towards the larger world, and how the larger world chose to view pinball. This quasi-gendered social migration mimics how video games were marketed to mass audiences during their early days: first as a general-purpose source of nuance, towards another androcentric viewpoint. When console manufacturers pivoted to compete for space with children's toys, adopting that other industry's business style and marketing practice, they also inherited the latent sexism which saw the majority of young girls “pushed out” of a space that was solely choosing to pursue male demographics to the exclusion of all else. (A choice we would all begin to dearly regret come time for the 02010's when the piper was paid for this falsely-given sense of psychological ownership from the men who grew up under that old system.) It was so interesting to me that this dynamic has happened multiple times throughout history in reaction to new game-based media.

Another point of commonality were the many—in this case, successful—attempts at subjecting the new medium to regulation. However, unlike the industry-backed, anti-competitive hatchet-jobs which video games had to endure during their years subject to the whims of older society's moral entrepreneurs, the regulation of pinball had a more realistic grounding. Pinball's earliest days, and even earliest forms, were designed as a means of real-money gambling. Accordingly, “the pinball laws” attempted to control pinball's influence and its connections to criminal networks. (The majority of the material at my academic library relating to pinball was actually sorted in the law and criminology catalogues.) Yet the actual attempts at legislation often left much to be desired. One instance of the “slot laws” banned pinball machines and slot machines by outlawing the slots needed for coin-operated machinery, which had the unfortunate side-effect of also banning coin-operated vending machines for serving bottled soft drinks across many states in the US.

Subject to these pressures, the game of pinball itself transformed into something else entirely. While commonplace in our minds today, the introduction of flippers to pinball machines was a comparatively late innovation in the sphere of pinball gaming. The anti-gambling pressures forced the function of flippers to change from a once-small-and-unreliable gimmick towards becoming the central point of focus. When it came time for the United States Supreme Court to consider overturning the pinball laws in 01976 (two years before the publication of this book), the question of if pinball was a game of skill or a game of chance was eventually put to the test. Roger Sharpe demonstrated for the court how pinball was a game of skill by successfully predicting the outcome and trajectories of various flipper shots. This won the court over and saved the game of pinball from being federally banned from the country, but it was predicated on a hidden secret, how the game of pinball was no longer the same “pinball” which justified the existence of those harsh laws in the first place. Even Natkin and Kirk are very open about how the “pinball games” of that supposedly-golden era were comparatively much more “boring” compared against those of (then) modern design, where anticlimactic “house balls” (launched from the plunger which drain from the board almost immediately) were more the rule than the exception.

Further proof of this can be seen in the existence of Pachinko in Japan, which was originally based on the games of “corinthian bagatelle” which also influenced early pinball. Pinball itself even gets its name from this older form, being a game of pins and balls. Yet, Pachinko is purely a game of chance hardly much different from a slot machine, and is treated as such even in Japan. Further comparing pinball to its arrival in Francophone countries, which happened after the Second World War, pinball isn't even called pinball any longer—but rather as flipper. “I want to play some pinball,” becomes “je veux jouer au flipper,” or “ich möchte flipper spielen,” or even “voglio giocare a flipper.” The game is referred to by its most obvious element at the time of naming, and the differences between these two names are traces of change in essential form. In this sense, the true inventor of pinball might not be any one person or company, but instead the combined weight of the entire US legal system.

After the Fact?

Marcus Gilroy-Ware

Back when I was a university undergraduate, my chosen major in studying the effects and efficacy of propaganda systems didn't render me very amicable. For a while it caused me to act irrationally, with my fear of commercial advertising approaching that of a phobia, making many of my friends beg—more often threaten—me to chill the fuck out. So obscure a topic it was, my masochistic indulgences transformed me into some woebegone inspector from a cosmic horror novel; that I had made the self-destructive choice to gain insight into something forbidden and arcane, whilst “normal people” could only view me as a jibbering madman locked away in an asylum of my own making.

How innocent those halcyon days were! So quickly and suddenly it all changed... Ever since the 02015 US Presidential Elections and the British Referendums on European Union Membership, everyone and their dog is worried about the current state of misinformation and propaganda. (Often unstated, the current state of other people's misinformation and propaganda... Never a bad word about their own!) Yet for how things were suddenly different, from my perspective, it was as if nothing changed at all. My reaction to the “sudden appearance” of these “new problems” was more muted, seeing things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal as little more than extensions of Facebook's piss-poor cybersecurity policies, or Youtube's runaway recommendation algorithm a result of exploitable flaws in its core design. None of these issues—which would've been easy to fix were it not for the poor management and leadership at those companies—dared approach the systemic mass and complexity the persuasive systems of old commercial broadcasting would employ on the regular, or in how spin-doctors embedded within the halls of government could willingly and knowingly abuse the intricate structures of the fourth estate to begin multiple wars under false pretenses. ... which even now remain largely unsolved problems! The appearance of “misinformation” suddenly being “everywhere” had less to do with an increase in propaganda overall, and more to do with how the exact quality of propaganda degraded past the point of necessary function. The propaganda was of poorer make, less expertly designed compared to what it managed one decade earlier, and started to demand more difficult things of its audience: that they willingly spend more effort to ignore their own degrading material conditions, incorporate a higher amount of mental gymnastics into its past-come-current justifications, and adopt new political stances which were more likely to cause active disagreements with the people they knew in their lives. The rampant narcissism of the Trump administration in the United States tested the everyday functioning of the national media, as “highly respectable mainstream outlets” who were nonetheless beholden to the state apparatus, began bending over backwards to accommodate Trump's wild and unpredictable antics. It revealed an unfortunate system of “garbage goes in, garbage comes out,” with the federal government as the point of input; an odd thing for a supposedly free-and-independent press to start doing. The Trump administration's professional and personal stubbornness meant they had difficulty adapting to the political marketing systems that were already in place, which the earlier Bush administration used effectively to support their false war efforts, and the later Obama administration continued with characteristic smooth-talking aplomb. The Biden administration's purported “return to normal” would've likely meant the old marketing systems could resume their once-usual operation, implicitly-but-not-outrightly admitting their institutions required this high level of marketing finesse and propaganda throughput to maintain function. (Would they even survive without it?) Fortunately or not, the neoliberal Biden administration's rank incompetence in handling the novel coronavirus pandemic has prevented such, for now. ... and thus this “epistemic crisis,” as some have taken to calling it, continues unabated.

The information disorder caused... what might best be described as a veil cracking. It rent across the already-extant and ubiquitous propaganda systems of the world's English-speaking mass media, turning them less invisible and “suddenly” much harder to ignore. What we consider to be the new problem was always there, always with us, and we only now noticed because of the more recent malfunctions. There was always a problem, but we only ever dared to admit it after the fact. ... and yet, what “market” is there for such a defeatist observation? What liberal or conservative has any use for the cold comfort that their worlds were already enslaved by propaganda? Both massive and far-reaching? And that they were either too blind, or too dumb, to notice? My well-educated expertise in the matter commanded no attention before the veil cracked, and it continues to command no attention even now. ... and yet, I'm drawn to it all the same. Perhaps because having a degree in the field makes me think I have a responsibility toward it, however impotently. ... or perhaps for the same wildly emotional non-reasons I once got the harebrained idea to try and discover a “cure” for corporate branding. That there might be a “cure” for this too? ... a foolish idea, naturally. The ongoing cybersecurity disaster known as surveillance capitalism will continue its ravages no matter how many ad-blockers, automated tracking over-writers, algorithm-generated content removers, and well-curated HOSTS files I huddle behind. Still, there might be mitigating strategies, which one could use to prevent trouble on a more local level when these errant mass systems start—eventually, invariably—causing problems for everyone.

To that end, I made the choice to brave this book. I view it as a much more effective version of what Weatherall and O'Connor tried, and failed, to accomplish earlier. Gilroy-Ware takes the anti-commercial curriculum I had quite ravenously downed in my undergraduate years when the primary object of study was still the erstwhile broadcast media, and marries it to the now-modern context of the Internet, with current endemic problems as natural continuations of unsolved issues from the past. Yet that same continuation is as much of a strength of Gilroy-Ware's historiography of information disorder as it is a weakness; where the main topic is both chased through and away from a mountain of prerequisites on so many other things: the history and development of neoliberal capitalism, how neoliberal capitalism's conception of itself changed and modified throughout its development, the changing political situation and how various sub-publics of differing orientations reacted... Get through all these topics, and then, eventually, we can talk about information disorder. A little. As a treat.

As frustrating as that description is, all of the requisite material is—unfortunately—well and truly necessary. There are multiple different mass audiences with dire cravings for misinformation: be it ungrounded lies about politicians or political parties they dislike, slanderous gossip about minority groups they may have an unhealthy fixation on, mostly-invented hero narratives about some mysterious figure who will solve all their personal or political problems (but often won't), or soothsayers who in more recent times might say things about the coronavirus pandemic more agreeable—or less liable to induce inconvenience—than what some faceless “scientific consensus” might say. To get into why these specific mass audiences even came about is to understand the material conditions which gave rise to them in the first place, and the blame for that will inevitably lay at the feet of the neoliberal world order and its “market-driven society,” which Gilroy-Ware frames as the academic antagonist of the book.

The market-driven society has a clear and obvious need for the existence of misinformation. Given the result of the Second World War, the utopian ideals of the libertarian and objectivist thinkers who gave rise to the neoliberal world order did so under the fear governments of any stripe would once again trend towards “totalitarianism,” of ever-nebulous definition. It was their belief that placing more and more of the apparatus of the state (be it the American state, British state, or any state at all) in the hands of private businesspeople at an arms-length from public political machinations, would promote long-term stability in those respective countries, based on their belief in economic persons being fully rational agents with access to perfect information. With the benefit of historical hindsight, we can see just how hopelessly naïve these ideals were. Never once did any of these original neoliberals stop to ask the question if private business even wanted the responsibility of arranging the affairs of a nation, extending well beyond their own company's realm of expertise. The early warning signs happened when the cigarette lobby throughout the world began to collate their research correlating their products with lung cancer, and when fossil fuel companies had the same advance notice about their industry and the greenhouse gas effect. In both instances, the industries opted for short-term private interests over long-term public safety, and begat systems of mass persuasion to service those aims for as long as possible. Thus was the need for “professional misinformation” within the modern context, with its only limiting feature, for the time, being the otherwise limited bandwidth of mass-broadcast media systems. (Circumstances which they nonetheless exploited to their benefit.)

What prevented this form of professional misinformation from being dealt with as a once-off aberration were the workings of power and how power tries to retain itself by obscuring its functioning, such that the people within their thralls remain fully enthralled, without becoming immune to power's force. Gilroy-Ware quotes Marx by saying “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.” This applies even when, perhaps especially when, the ruling class is composed entirely of brain-dead morons who might only have a tenuous grasp of the society they supposedly lead. Marx and Engels used the metaphor of a “camera obscura” to describe how people react to this process. The ruling ideas are promulgated by large sections of the state apparatus which form the society one resides in: from large systems like the mainstream media to other dominance-enforcing things like schools, the church, and police forces. ... but those ruling ideas, despite their wide spread, only cover a limited real use case at best; conforming super-well to the needs and circumstances of society's elite, with little consideration given to how those ideas would serve anyone else of differing circumstance. The result for anyone who has to carry these widely-available ideas, while being ill-suited to actually apply them, is a feeling that everything is perfectly right—and perfectly wrong—simultaneously. Like the man living in the film projection of a pinhole camera, everything he sees is right-side up, yet he can't shake the feeling that the whole world is upside down. This skewed perspective causes people to misconstrue their relationship to power, and inadvertently allows power to perpetuate further.

... yet, these ancient (and sometimes needlessly complicated) propaganda systems only addresses the need for professional misinformation among the society's elite. What about society's non-elite, who nonetheless also participate in the creation and spread of misinformation? The world of social media has shown us that misinformation is not a solely elite affair, be it as a target or a creator thereof. Much research has been done into the hold of group affiliations, and how group belonging determines which orthodoxies (or heresies) one is likely to hold fast to, even should it fly in the face of plainly-observable material conditions. While needs and motives of the elite are easily traced, what are we to make of non-elite actors doing the same? What motives could they possess? What possible power could these powerless peoples still seek to perpetuate? ... the answer to this may prove a bit more complicated.

The highly capitalistic societies of the Euro-Atlantic world produce widespread suspicion. Accounts in the media of “real” conspiracy may in some cases be telling us what we already know: we are always in danger of being “fucked over” under capitalism, and this is celebrated as a strength, rather than being considered a weakness. Long before he became president, for example, Donald Trump bragged on TV about how he had “screwed” then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi when he came to New York and wanted to lease some space.

The original neoliberals in 1947 might have extolled the virtues of the free market, and thought that it would prevent totalitarianism from happening again, but they assumed the trading it involved would take place according to a certain moral and ethical standard, which was forgotten during the “greed is good” phase of the 1980s. As the market-driven society took shape during this period, the system of “you scratch my back, I scratch yours,” became “even if you scratch my back a lot, I will only scratch your back to the minimum possible threshold I can get away with,” and the burden of responsibility shifted from an honest seller to a cautious buyer, whose goal was not to get “screwed.” To normalise a perverse game in which everybody is expected to try to extract the best possible result for themselves from every co-operative interaction outside their immediate family, be it a profit margin or some other outcome, makes a degree of suspicion virtually guaranteed. How serious Milton Friedman really was in the suggestion that the free market would “foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world” we will never know, but capitalism’s widely felt adversarial transactionalism is a key part of the politics of suspicion because it means swimming in waters that you know for a fact contain sharks.

The adversarial transactionalism of the market-driven society produces a lot of well-earned suspicion, and thus that suspicion has to go somewhere and be applied to something. When obvious culprits are not available, shifting this suspicion onto the “mainstream media” (or what at least appears as such) might seem like a logical conclusion. It is, after a fashion, not wrong. If there is a fundamental problem with the ruling ideas of a society, then the state apparatchiks which keep breathlessly repeating them are not blameless in the damage it generates. This focus on “the politics of suspicion” forms Gilroy-Ware's primary thesis throughout the book, and effort is spent to trace its effects. While everyone carries this high degree of suspicion, what is not evenly distributed is the necessary context to know its cause. As shown with the “camera obscura” problem, not everyone has the information that their fermenting levels of suspicion results from the market-driven society; and even those who might have that inclination are not guaranteed to have any answers as to what to do about it. (So intractable a problem it is...) Thus when trying to find outlets—or targets—for this suspicion, we often end up in something of a mess, with everyone agreeing on the existence of the general malaise and mistrust, but very little agreement on a proper response. So you may have identified the “mainstream media” as a problem. Good for you! Have you decided on any alternatives? Will they do a better job? Are they free from the problems which caused the issues in the first place? The more such questions posed, the less likely a consensus will hold. The organized elements of the right-wing media might paint a target on minority groups or immigrants who, like Schrödinger's cat, might or might not even exist despite the widespread media coverage they're given. The less organized elements of the right-wing have instead opted for conspiracies of their own imagining, which again blame imaginary concepts and organizations, or to real groups and peoples about issues which either don't actually concern them at all, or only through other people's misunderstandings. Even the perfectly centrist liberals were not above plays towards conspiration, with them reacting to the failures of their institutions and ideologies by assigning blame: to Russia, to China, to “fake news,” to “echo chambers,” to a need for more education, to a lack of critical thinking... to literally anyone or anything other than themselves.

This is in some way the trouble with the “sudden” appearance of information disorder. The entire happenstance curricula based on misinformation—what it is, how to identify it, what dangers it poses to democracy—always had less to do with propaganda systems as I understood it a decade ago, and more to do with bourgeois centrists having a panicked reaction to their own degrading circumstance. ... a circumstance which they, themselves, created through their actions and ideologies by propping up the market-driven society in the first place. To that end, finding a “cure” for information disorder might be less helpful overall, for the only thing the existence of such a “cure” would do, is free those same bourgeois elites from the consequences of their own actions. Even if I were to take the reasonable-sounding route to things that Fisher and Ury claimed in their studies on conflict mediation—to acknowledge that this amount of suspicion is perfectly healthy, and the goal shouldn't be to try and suppress it or combat it, but rather to simply be smarter about how one reacts to it—that would solve one problem, only to invite a means of abuse. (... as already happened in the world of conflict arbitration.) This is more or less what the elite elements of the right wing already do when they promulgate racism, make scapegoats of vulnerable peoples, or instead try to direct that same suspicion towards their competitors within the business world. A less openly-partisan technocrat might employ similar methods, to look for some type of “release valve” to keep the suspicion levels managed and controlled, but not fundamentally addressed: the marketing and mass propaganda system offering itself in solution to the very problems it caused!

At the end of the day, though... I think this is a book I'm only going to keep around for the utility of its citations and bibliography. As much as I might “like” the subject matter, this is most decidedly not a book one reads for enjoyment. While reading, I grew quite disheartened at every new section and chapter, to the point of almost not wanting to even finish it. The one thing I regret—something a past version of myself would be aghast by—is not using a yellow highlighter on the pages, or making notes-for-later in the margins. While a useful book, it is also a thoroughly unpleasant one, and I'm almost dreading the day I might need to revisit its material.


Karen E. Fields, Barbara J. Fields

This was my first book from Verso, who was a publisher I've always wanted to read books from by the basis of their catalogue, but could never quite grant the occasion. Seeing the pictured passage from Racecraft piqued by interest enough to finally prompt a book, or six.

This book concerns the subject of the race-racism evasion, an ever-present rhetorical sleight-of-hand employed by both individual racists and racist superstructures, “through which immoral acts of discrimination disappear, and then reappear camouflaged as the victim’s alleged difference.” Upon first groking the concept, I was reminded of the passage from Jean-Paul Sartre's Réflexions in which he pondered the “bad faith” employed by the anti-semites of World War 2. Those old, antiquated passages highlighted the seeming futility in trying to argue, disprove, or even constructively persuade against unserious sophists who indulge in public displays of racism throughout various online and media fora in the name of accumulating social capital.

The problem in relying on Sartre as an attempted antidote (or even basic defense) to the sophistry employed racism and antisemitism, is that no matter how much any individual racist person might act with disregard towards large groups of people they've already decided a priori to be unworthy of respect, the societal-level superstructures of racism could not simply amount to those multiple individuals as an aggregate. Capitalism and colonialism are not unserious affairs, thus it is wrong to assume they have any also-unserious underlying basis. Despite that, there still is some means through which this form of sophistry exits the realm of “playfulness” and begins having actual effects on unwilling peoples, to the point of predator and prey. Once it passes this threshold, Sartre's initially-useful warnings about bad faith can no longer account for everything these machinations will beget, and antisemitism becomes so pervasive in social structures that even those outside of Sartre's “antisemitic” profile would become forced into acting “antisemitic” themselves.

The Fields Sisters proffer their theory of racecraft, which I interpreted in attempt to make up for Sartre's shortcomings. It's an impressive and well-researched work, but as I read it, I couldn't but feel some kind of helplessness. For every well-calculated step it takes forward, there is a risk of another step backward, and perhaps for spurious reasons. That very clear first moment in which prompts the act of racism can really only be justified in the long term by “witchcraft,” as the Fields would put it. Despite their logic flowing rather well on the basis of theirs being a historical subject—the past is a different country, they do things differently there—I wondered if those accusations of witchcraft weren't themselves just using it as a means towards narcissistic sophistry. Even if bullshit might be subject to clearly-observable rules and conventions, as the Fields take great pains to illustrate, the frustration nonetheless remains: it is still bullshit.

Book of the Day


Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, John Higgins

The one piece of Alan Moore's writing that I actually ended up liking quite a bit. ... though, I certainly did try with his others. I first found it on New Year's Eve back in 02009 and binged it straight into the small hours of the new year.

To summarize, Watchmen is a satirical reinterpretation of the same superhero comics which the Watchmen publisher usually plies their trade. Rather than the usual depictions of superheroes as these semi-mythic or heroic figures, Watchmen represents its superheroes (and even their corresponding supervillans) as semi-neurotic, flawed people, who are still suffering through life despite their supposed superpowers. The themes and plot of the story entirely extend from this premise.

I was surprisingly amenable to reading Watchmen despite having never liked the superhero genre before, either in comic or animated form. I had seen plenty, yes, but I always accepted superhero stories as things other people liked more than I did. Something about it just never clicked. Perhaps that's a reason the only two superhero comics I ever did take a liking to, this one and The Sandman, were the ones who chose to operate from entirely different first principles.

I thought at the time I was being independently-minded to seek out this old-for-the-time book, but I may have been mistaken. There was a small renaissance regarding Watchmen in the eventual leadup to the film version. In my final year of high school, I even had the “pleasure” of knowing a slightly younger fellow who had a—woefully misinformed!—admiration for the character of Rorschach. ... something which I've heard from multiple sources is a sadly more common affair than even Moore himself would've wished. Perhaps it is a small mercy that I remember at the time not quite understanding exactly what Rorschach was even supposed to be. That probably spared me no small amount of pain.

If you managed to go through what I have and still didn't see anything which caught your attention, you may also try these sources:

Dan Pollock is the curator of a well-organized HOSTS file used for blocking common sources of advertising, shock sites, and other malware. (Which everyone should totally have installed, regardless of their operating system.) He also keeps an extensive bookshelf of his own, which I use for reference sometimes as well.

Fellow Canadian writer Jonathan Ball doesn't have a bookshelf per-se, but he does engage in a thing known as the "95 Books" challenge each year since 02013, based off of a quip that a certain American idiot-president managed to read 94 books a year. He's been successful at reading more than 100 books each year compared to my average of about 25, though I should note as far as the challenge itself goes he is something of a dirty cheat. (Lots of Canadian Poetry books anyone can finish reading in about a day.) You can see the lists he has completed here.

Return to Literature Index