Spoilers What Book Are You Reading?

[LizKat]

New translation of Nguyên Du's central epic poem of Vietnam, The Song of Kiêu: A New Lament, with extensive preface and historical commentary by the translator, Timothy Allen. From the publisher's summary:

The Song of Kieu tells the story of the beautiful Vuong Thuy Kiêu, who agrees to a financially profitable marriage in order to save her family from ruinous debts, but is tricked into working in a brothel. Her tragic life involves jealous wives, slavery, war, poverty, and time as a nun. Adapted from a seventeenth-century Chinese novel, Jin Yun Qiao, written by an unknown writer under the pseudonym Qingxin Cairen.
​

Timothy Allen became intrigued by the poem when working in Vietnam in the late 1990s: he realized that no matter where he traveled from the mountains in the north to the southern delta, no matter if in cities or rural villages, everyone seemed to know of the poem and was eager to discuss it at length.

Allen first translated sixty lines of the work and won the Stephen Spender prize for that effort back in 2008. A Hawthornden Fellowship then made it possible for him to finish the translation and provide the enlightening commentary that appears in this 2019 Penguin Classics edition. He offers a fascinating exposition of how a formulaic Chinese novel, written during the early Qing era, related to chaotic Chinese conflicts with coastal pirates and internal conspirators in 1556, prior to the fall of the Ming dynasty (1644), and how the epic poem by Nguyên Du (1766-1820) evolved as enduring myth during perceived parallels in the chaos of late 18th-century Vietnamese history.

 

[RootBeerMan]

Reading the SF classic "The Long Tomorrow" by Leigh Brackett. I read this one decades ago and liked it, so it's time to revisit it.

 

[Gutwrench]

Good Manners -for- Nice People
Who Sometimes Say F*ck, Amy Alkon

 

[Huntn]

No spoilers please!

I’ve started The Handmaid’s Tale, the narrative grabbed me immediately, but so far it’s mostly about a dystopian society where women have been subjugated into human cattle to be bred, the ones that are fertile, a description of the present, with current happenings from the narrator’s perspective, and much reminiscing about the good old normal days. Don’t consider this statement my negative critique, as I am in the first couple of chapters and the stage still maybe being set.

However, I’m not usually into stories all about misery, and without dropping spoilers about the book (or the tv series), I’d like to know if this story goes somewhere significantly? I don’t want to know if it is a happy or unhappy ending for the narrator, but it would be nice if there is some shakeup in the status quo.

As I ask this, I also wonder if I should be asking? Sometimes there are thrills to be found in such stories, not knowing as I think of the Shawshank Redemption, but in other stories, it has been, why did I just read this, as I think of Cold Mountain or maybe The Road, the latter, I only saw the movie.

So maybe just say it’s well worth the read, or not.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Ultralearning (2019) by Scott Young. The book has been recommended by Cal Newport (Deep Work, So Good They Can't Ignore You, Digital Minimalism) and James Clear (Atomic Habits). The author gained some fame after he accomplished the feat of finishing the MIT's 4-year Computer Science course in less then a year, and for learning 4 languages in 12 months, all to a fluent level. The premise of the book is that there are principles that can be used to structure our learning activities so that they can be effective.
The principles are:
1) Metalearning - basically, prepare your learning activities, understand what and how things have to be learned, at least in a general way.
2) Focus - this is obvious, don't do six thousand things at once and make sure that your environment and schedule are set up to be as focused as possible.
3) Directness - this one was very interesting. Young proposes a "doing" methodology, almost to the point of being an apprentice, rather than learning almost exclusively with books. If you want to learn programming, then build apps. He agrees that some subjects can't really be learned this way, but he still suggests to work towards a product. For example, if you want to learn about the civil war, aim at creating a 150 page book on the civil war. I truly liked the project-based idea.
4) Drill - basically try to find all the faults in your learning, and methodologies themselves. IF you can't recall dates, work on them. If you don't grasp some concept, try to "build it" or "retro-engineer it".
6) Feedback - This is arguably one of the most important elements. Brutal feedback is necessary. Young criticizes the fact that most of high education is more grade based rather than feedback based, which means that students and teacher will focus on a YES/NO, GOOD/BAD mentality, which will damage learning. In his opinion it is very important to receive brutal feedback on what exactly is bad.
7) Retention - here the author talks about retention. He's for spaced repetition, but he recommends working over and over on the various subjects that we want to learn. He makes the point that usually little time is needed to maintain knowledge and that usually we only need to work on the most advanced subjects.
8) Intuition - this is about mastery and learning how to "feel" what is right and wrong. It usually takes lots of time.
9) Experimentation - in the author's opinion, once someone reaches a certain level of mastery, the best thing to retain information is to work on what's outside the previously set boundaries. For example, if you work on the Civil War, then try to work on the independence of the US trying to connect it to the Civil War.

Ultimately, I found it a useful book.

 

[LizKat]

6) Feedback - This is arguably one of the most important elements. Brutal feedback is necessary. Young criticizes the fact that most of high education is more grade based rather than feedback based, which means that students and teacher will focus on a YES/NO, GOOD/BAD mentality, which will damage learning. In his opinion it is very important to receive brutal feedback on what exactly is bad.

Yep... like receiving back a hastily prepared paper for a Western Civilization class? -->> with a very recognizable drawing of a manure shovel scrawled on the title page in red ink. The grade of D+ was apparently because I didn't actually fabricate anything in it. The shovel was for having basically shot the breeze so to speak for ten pages. I got "the picture".

 

[yaxomoxay]

Yep... like receiving back a hastily prepared paper for a Western Civilization class? -->> with a very recognizable drawing of a manure shovel scrawled on the title page in red ink. The grade of D+ was apparently because I didn't actually fabricate anything in it. The shovel was for having basically shot the breeze so to speak for ten pages. I got "the picture".

ahahaha that is fantastic!

 

[0388631]

Looks like I know what I'll be reading soon. Seeing as I haven't read a single book in 2019... Oh, well. I could probably squeeze in 25-40 books by December 31.

Edit: Red Sparrow novels.

 

[0388631]

Yep... like receiving back a hastily prepared paper for a Western Civilization class? -->> with a very recognizable drawing of a manure shovel scrawled on the title page in red ink. The grade of D+ was apparently because I didn't actually fabricate anything in it. The shovel was for having basically shot the breeze so to speak for ten pages. I got "the picture".

Been there, done that. Albeit better presentation. I was, in my youth, very good at saying a lot without alluding to much. Worked fabulously for papers that I began a day or two before they were due. Easier to write 50 pages of drivel than communicate a concept and self-research you didn't do and couldn't make up on the fly.

I think most professors then gave up after a few pages and just graded it an 'A' so they could get on. I did the same sometimes when communicating with them during a lecture or post-lecture if I was put in a position I couldn't find myself out of. In effect, it's what made me, I believe, critical of long-winded speeches or passionate debate that says a lot without saying piss all.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Been there, done that. Albeit better presentation. I was, in my youth, very good at saying a lot without alluding to much. Worked fabulously for papers that I began a day or two before they were due. Easier to write 50 pages of drivel than communicate a concept and self-research you didn't do and couldn't make up on the fly.

I think most professors then gave up after a few pages and just graded it an 'A' so they could get on. I did the same sometimes when communicating with them during a lecture or post-lecture if I was put in a position I couldn't find myself out of. In effect, it's what made me, I believe, critical of long-winded speeches or passionate debate that says a lot without saying piss all.

They gave you an "A"?

Lazy sods.

You might have received a "B" - or, more likely a "C" - from me if the camouflage (of work done) was credible, but I never granted an A unless there was some sort of originality (of thought, of conclusions drawn, of research, or of all three) in an essay.

A D, on the other hand, I was equally careful about, and rarely awarded. That, too, was something special, but in a different way.

But back to @yaxomoxay and @LizKat and "tough love" and "brutal feedback", I very rarely gave it unless the kid in question needed a serous boot up the backside and had the character who could deal with such a calling out.

Most of the the, you needed them to want to learn, and for that, humiliation rarely works, as it leads to resentment and a dislike of you and your subject. You want them to want to learn and to want to improve; that means telling them where the essay did well (sometimes, that required serious investigation because it was difficult to find) where they made a bit of a mess of things, but that they can do better.

However, I will say that unless you had the real upper class entitled brats, (arrogant, contemptuous, entitled, lazy, and I did encounter a few of them), you rarely had students bursting with excessive confidence, so you had to create can environment where they felt safe - safe to take criticism and safe to make mistakes, and safe to ask questions and want to learn.

Most students did better when they wanted to learn and wanted to demonstrate to you that they had indeed improved and had put the work - and thought - in.

 

[0388631]

They gave you an "A"?

Lazy sods.

You might have received a "B" - or, more likely a "C" - from me if the camouflage (of work done) was credible, but I never granted an A unless there was some sort of originality (of thought, of conclusions drawn, of research, or of all three) in an essay.

A D, on the other hand, I was equally careful about, and rarely awarded. That, too, was something special, but in a different way.

That particular time, yes. It's easier said than done. Not so easy when you can't get through everything even with an adjunct and an assistant or two, and have a few hundred students in total. Or the subject matter, at least for that professor, was rather complex. Literary breakdown papers? Easy as pie to a relative extent. I'd be surprised if any professor today sits through 300-500+ 50 page, single space essays delving into statistical analysis and cited domestic and foreign laws.

When I sat in front of a committee of 15 for my Master's thesis, I know for a fact that only a few had read the entirety of the paper or had read the paper and read the binder of research I'd made copies of for them to examine. I had included a rather humorous quip in an example and the bizarre looks of confusion on the others' faces sealed the theory that only a few had read it in full after those who had brought it up as "funny and original."

It was about 140 pages, again single space as asked of the time. I don't recall how many pages the data binder was. Funny thing is my thesis went onto one of those micro things and was plagiarized years later. I was informed of the plagiary by my alma mater at some point around the time I donated money. I wasn't told of any specifics of who or when it happened.

When I finished up, I decided to destroy my then typewriter as a form of expression. Not being bound by "hand cuffs" that required me to sit at a table for hours a day pouring over research material and notes and whatnot. I chose a bat as my weapon and promptly managed to crack it in half. The bat, not the typewriter. Thing was made of steel or some metal. I threw it in a recycling dumpster. Some time later I realized I needed one so I bought one of those fancy (at the time) electric typewriters.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

That particular time, yes. It's easier said than done. Not so easy when you can't get through everything even with an adjunct and an assistant or two, and have a few hundred students in total. Or the subject matter, at least for that professor, was rather complex. Literary breakdown papers? Easy as pie to a relative extent. I'd be surprised if any professor today sits through 300-500+ 50 page, single space essays delving into statistical analysis and cited domestic and foreign laws.

Depends on the professor.

I did; I would never have dared grade - or feel able to stand over my grade - (my grades were hardly ever questioned) an essay, exam or term paper without having read it all. Professional pride and all that, plus you were awarding (or not, as the case was) grades that would influence their future.

Now, that doesn't mean that your own temperament was always tranquil by the end; there were days when I longed to murder some students, lazy, entitled individuals who submitted vast volumes of drivel and hoped to get away with it.

Sometimes, they genuinely didn't understand the stuff, which is why they wrote rubbish - then, you would have to concede that perhaps you had been a bit above their heads when teaching that section of the course; that meant, a spot of returning to that subject, and perhaps rephrasing how you expressed it.

Other times, they were just trying it on: Lazy gits (and, by the way, that cocky trying it on, @LizKat's post notwithstanding, was mostly something done - wth supreme indifference and boundless confidence - by male students; the girls don't have the confidence to write reams of arrogant nonsense and hope you wouldn't notice).

Those were the ones where you would sit down and have a small chat, while politely dismantling the rubbish they had written.

The funny thing is, I was very patient and polite with students - but am a lot less so with such idiocies now, in a different professional environment.

 

[foggystone]

Secondhand Time

 

[0388631]

Depends on the professor.

I did; I would never have dared grade - or feel able to stand over my grade - (my grades were hardly ever questioned) an essay, exam or term paper without having read it all. Professional pride and all that, plus you were awarding (or not, as the case was) grades that would influence their future.

Now, that doesn't mean that your own temperament was always tranquil by the end; there were days when I longed to murder some students, lazy, entitled individuals who submitted vast volumes of drivel and hoped to get away with it.

Sometimes, they genuinely didn't understand the stuff, which is why they wrote rubbish - then, you would have to concede that perhaps you had been a bit above their heads when teaching that section of the course; that meant, a spot of returning to that subject, and perhaps rephrasing how you expressed it.

Other times, they were just trying it on: Lazy gits (and, by the way, that cocky trying it on, @LizKat's post notwithstanding, was mostly something done - wth supreme indifference and boundless confidence - by male students; the girls don't have the confidence to write reams of arrogant nonsense and hope you wouldn't notice).

Those were the ones where you would sit down and have a small chat, while politely dismantling the rubbish they had written.

The funny thing is, I was very patient and polite with students - but am a lot less so with such idiocies now, in a different professional environment.

I think we're at different ends here. It wasn't drivel in terms of actual drivel. It was fact that had been expanded and twisted and turned to add wordage to meet the requirement.


Examples:

From: Geopolitical turmoil.

To: The cause and effect of nation states debating and often lampooning of mission critical laws and statues that in turn may affect neighboring countries or hamper trade between the two countries at hand. These volatile acts affect individuals from those in government to the lowly skilled or unskilled laborer.

From: Trade wars.

To: Countries who decide to rebel and retaliate against nation states they're in communications with to enact or remove laws that may either hamper or aid trade agreements set forth by a prior government or of a current one at that point in time. These measures may affect the income or expenditure of these nation states, and will affect their economies on a global and domestic scale.

Everyone loves a bit of circumlocution. Sounds like a definition, but it's explaining without getting to the point.

As for the students who write actual drivel because they have a hard time understanding the material... I can't blame them. Some professors don't make time for 1-on-1 or won't, or lecture so obscurely that it's difficult for some to take in the material.


IIRC you taught European literature and Russian history as a professor. It's harder to write drivel for those subjects as it's laid out impeccably. Even the most basic of source materials is concise.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think we're at different ends here. It wasn't drivel in terms of actual drivel. It was fact that had been expanded and twisted and turned to add wordage to meet the requirement.


Examples:

From: Geopolitical turmoil.

To: The cause and effect of nation states debating and often lampooning of mission critical laws and statues that in turn may affect neighboring countries or hamper trade between the two countries at hand. These volatile acts affect individuals from those in government to the lowly skilled or unskilled laborer.

From: Trade wars.

To: Countries who decide to rebel and retaliate against nation states they're in communications with to enact or remove laws that may either hamper or aid trade agreements set forth by a prior government or of a current one at that point in time. These measures may affect the income or expenditure of these nation states, and will affect their economies on a global and domestic scale.

Everyone loves a bit of circumlocution. Sounds like a definition, but it's explaining without getting to the point.
.....


IIRC you taught European literature and Russian history as a professor. It's harder to write drivel for those subjects as it's laid out impeccably. Even the most basic of source materials is concise.

It is, but, while exams are one thing, if an essay of that sort was proffered (especially from a student who had gone well beyond first year), I'd expect an example of a source, (for example, after "these measures" - adding in "for example", or "such as" - an actual instance where that had happened, or fact, perhaps in a foot note, just to demonstrate that they knew what they were talking (writing) about, and could apply real world examples (or texts, or sources).

Anyway, in my remarks on the essay, I'd offer a comment to the effect that this was too general, and needed more critical or interrogative analysis and greater use of appropriate sources.

When going feedback to the student, I'd elaborate on that, giving explanations and examples.

But, yes, we are at different ends to some extent, and some subjects encourage this tendency more than others; there is some very lazy thinking and writing in fields such as economics and sociology, and sometimes, politics/political/science (by academics and commentators); history has its own discipline (chiefly because something either happened or it didn't).

As for the students who write actual drivel because they have a hard time understanding the material... I can't blame them. Some professors don't make time for 1-on-1 or won't, or lecture so obscurely that it's difficult for some to take in the material.

That is a fair comment, and one of the drawbacks of the university system is that people who are often genuine experts in their subjects, but who cannot teach - or explain this material in a way that is comprehensible to the non-expert - to save their lives, receive appointments.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Very interesting posts here

Most of the the, you needed them to want to learn, and for that, humiliation rarely works

Let me clarify that the author (and myself) is not arguing for humiliation. By brutal feedback the author means feedback that surgically points out all the flaws, weak points, and pitfalls of whatever is under evaluation. In other words, don't hold back honest feedback for fear of offending and/or laziness, and don't fear/resent honest feedback from the experts (or whoever is the audience) due to ego.
Professionalism (on both sides) is the key.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Very interesting posts here



Let me clarify that the author (and myself) is not arguing for humiliation. By brutal feedback the author means feedback that surgically points out all the flaws, weak points, and pitfalls of whatever is under evaluation. In other words, don't hold back honest feedback for fear of offending and/or laziness, and don't fear/resent honest feedback from the experts (or whoever is the audience) due to ego.
Professionalism (on both sides) is the key.

Okay: It was the word "brutal" that I took - and take - issue with.

Agree completely that professionalism is the key.

Perhaps it is US culture, (and I totally take the point that shielding the students from the fact that they have submitted work of an adequate standard and cannot expect rewards, praise or to be allowed to coast on that, is completely counter-productive), but I cannot countenance a situation where the word "brutal" would be considered appropriate in the context of delivering feedback in a university setting.

This is not simply because - apart from the issue of ethics, from a practical perspective - humiliation will not usually work as a learning tool (unless it is the negative response of not wishing the experience to be repeated, the same response that goes for being beaten), as the student will not wish to be "open" to learning, receiving correction, and to wishing to improve their academic performance, - and nor will they ever enjoy learning. It is also because encouraging the delivery of "brutal" feedback can facilitate the release of and give permission to the sort of bully who enjoys this position of power (because it is protected by academic credentials and position), and enjoys not just delivering feedback, but delivering it brutally, under cover of academic necessity.

So, my stance is that one can be polite, professional and respectful, and yet deliver a serious critique of a student's work, in a way that will make the student want to accept the feedback, will want to understand what they need to do, and will want to do better in the future.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Okay: It was the word "brutal" that I took - and take - issue with.

Agree completely that professionalism is the key.

Perhaps it is US culture, (and I totally take the point that shielding the students from the fact that they have submitted work of an adequate standard and cannot expect rewards, praise or to be allowed to coast on that, is completely counter-productive), but I cannot countenance a situation where the word "brutal" would be considered appropriate in the context of delivering feedback in a university setting.

This is not simply because - apart from the issue of ethics, from a practical perspective - humiliation will not usually work as a learning tool (unless it is the negative response of not wishing the experience to be repeated, the same response that goes for being beaten), as the student will not wish to be "open" to learning, receiving correction, and to wishing to improve their academic performance, - and nor will they ever enjoy learning. It is also because encouraging the delivery of "brutal" feedback can facilitate the release of and give permission to the sort of bully who enjoys this position of power (because it is protected by academic credentials and position), and enjoys not just delivering feedback, but delivering it brutally, under cover of academic necessity.

So, my stance is that one can be polite, professional and respectful, and yet deliver a serious critique of a student's work, in a way that will make the student want to accept the feedback, will want to understand what they need to do, and will want to do better in the future.

Yeah I should've probably clarified what I meant by brutal, which is about the content itself and nothing else, and it's not meant as in giving freedom to insult or humiliate anyone. Brutal is simply meant that if a comedian is testing a sketch with a test audience (or other comedians), his audience should tell him "this joke ain't funny because of X" instead of simply smiling at every joke. The book makes the example of Jon Stewart, Chris Rock, Stephen Colbert and others that each time they want to test a routine they go to a few specific clubs in which the audience provides feedback. He said that the feedback is so honest and direct that the expert comedians have to warn the audience that what they are doing is actually testing routines and that theirs is not a "regular" show. The book obviously makes other more "serious" (as in serious topics) examples, but that's the core concept behind my "brutal feedback" definition.
(I also wonder if the word brutal is stronger for you brits... however yeah I should've probably chosen a milder word to better express what I wanted to say )

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yeah I should've probably clarified what I meant by brutal, which is about the content itself and nothing else, and it's not meant as in giving freedom to insult or humiliate anyone. Brutal is simply meant that if a comedian is testing a sketch with a test audience (or other comedians), his audience should tell him "this joke ain't funny because of X" instead of simply smiling at every joke. The book makes the example of Jon Stewart, Chris Rock, Stephen Colbert and others that each time they want to test a routine they go to a few specific clubs in which the audience provides feedback. He said that the feedback is so honest and direct that the expert comedians have to warn the audience that what they are doing is actually testing routines and that theirs is not a "regular" show. The book obviously makes other more "serious" (as in serious topics) examples, but that's the core concept behind my "brutal feedback" definition.
(I also wonder if the word brutal is stronger for you brits... however yeah I should've probably chosen a milder word to better express what I wanted to say )

I think that it well may be; this side of the pond, "brutal" carries a connotation of excess (brutally bad would mean exceptionally bad), of a latent potential for violence, and of something that - if directed at you - would not be in the context of any sort of equal relationship, that the relationship, by definition would be one where an imbalance of power exists.

It s a strong word, and carries significant weight.

However, I see the point, and would see "genuinely or completely honest feedback" as allowing you to do the same thing; the kind of public service positions that would allow you "to speak truth to power" would cover the concept as well.

The key thing is to be able to (or to try to) do it professionally and with respect.

 

[Matz]

Thinking Statistically, by Uri Bram.

A short, useful read.

 

[LizKat]

They gave you an "A"?

Lazy sods.

You might have received a "B" - or, more likely a "C" - from me if the camouflage (of work done) was credible, but I never granted an A unless there was some sort of originality (of thought, of conclusions drawn, of research, or of all three) in an essay.

A D, on the other hand, I was equally careful about, and rarely awarded. That, too, was something special, but in a different way.

But back to @yaxomoxay and @LizKat and "tough love" and "brutal feedback", I very rarely gave it unless the kid in question needed a serous boot up the backside and had the character who could deal with such a calling out.

Most of the the, you needed them to want to learn, and for that, humiliation rarely works, as it leads to resentment and a dislike of you and your subject. You want them to want to learn and to want to improve; that means telling them where the essay did well (sometimes, that required serious investigation because it was difficult to find) where they made a bit of a mess of things, but that they can do better.

However, I will say that unless you had the real upper class entitled brats, (arrogant, contemptuous, entitled, lazy, and I did encounter a few of them), you rarely had students bursting with excessive confidence, so you had to create can environment where they felt safe - safe to take criticism and safe to make mistakes, and safe to ask questions and want to learn.

Most students did better when they wanted to learn and wanted to demonstrate to you that they had indeed improved and had put the work - and thought - in.

I haven't formal teaching credentials but I've tutored students age 10-20 and you're very right about making a tailored space for learning, and how one size does not fit all when it comes to constructive criticism. Some kids need the slats kicked out of their walls of actual arrogance and indifference before they're even able to pay attention, some may seem arrogant but are just unprepared and don't like the feeling of being caught out, some need shoring up because they can do the work but don't think so for whatever reason including low expectations in their past. With that last group I'm not going to give an A for attendance lol but I thought twice before I fashioned a way to say something about work that didn't cut it.

The prof who drew that shovel on my paper was indeed someone who "considered the source" including whatever he knew of or could draw out from the students in his classes.

In the interior of that half-baked paper I remember there were additional comments such as "I expected more here, you offer the point but then don't make it... why?" He just laughed when I tried copping to having admired his drawing of the shovel, if not the D+... but then he said something like "I can tell when someone spends 10 minutes on a three hour job, and it looks the same in a barn or on paper. Invest the three hours next time, that's all." Point taken!

 

[Gutwrench]

Moved to: What’s on your mind?

 

[yaxomoxay]

Punch and Judy Politics (2018) by Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton. What a wonderful surprise this book was!
I am one of the geeks overseas that enjoys watching the British PMQ (Prime Minister Questions) time almost every week. This book, written by two people that actually helped prepare PMQ's, is simply outstanding in its explanation of how the PMQ works, the toll it takes on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and all the tricks and tips to survive it. Apparently, it takes about 8 hour of work for the PM alone to be ready enough to survive the PMQ, and each PM has a trusted team working on the possible questions and answers. Apparently, it's an insane, weekly task for every PM. The book shows how the format changed throughout the decades through "tricks" by MP's that are very knowledgeable about the strangest rules of the House of Commons.
Style of this book is impressive, it's a page turner which is a rarity for political themed books.
Highly recommended for all the political geeks. Heck, this book even gave me a few ideas for organizing my aide-memoires.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Punch and Judy Politics (2018) by Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton. What a wonderful surprise this book was!
I am one of the geeks overseas that enjoys watching the British PMQ (Prime Minister Questions) time almost every week. This book, written by two people that actually helped prepare PMQ's, is simply outstanding in its explanation of how the PMQ works, the toll it takes on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and all the tricks and tips to survive it. Apparently, it takes about 8 hour of work for the PM alone to be ready enough to survive the PMQ, and each PM has a trusted team working on the possible questions and answers. Apparently, it's an insane, weekly task for every PM. The book shows how the format changed throughout the decades through "tricks" by MP's that are very knowledgeable about the strangest rules of the House of Commons.
Style of this book is impressive, it's a page turner which is a rarity for political themed books.
Highly recommended for all the political geeks. Heck, this book even gave me a few ideas for organizing my aide-memoires.

That sounds as though it might be an absolutely fascinating read.

 

[yaxomoxay]

That sounds as though it might be an absolutely fascinating read.

It truly is. I can't say that I am familiar with many of the individuals mentioned in the book (you probably are), but the book was still very engaging. I recommend it to you.