Hugo Jonker

I’ve been playing around with the epub format. Basically, an epub file is a zip file… with a few catches. Since it’s good to have a bit of a clue, here’s two catches I stumbled across — the hard way.

Catch 1: mimetypes

You need structure.
The first entry in your .epub file must be the “mimetypes” file. You just need it. Steal it from any other epub file — that’s easy :)
However, the file must be stored in a very precise manner in the zip file. For one, it may not be zipped. Le argh? Annoyance. Anyway, this works to create a fresh file:
zip -0X ../my-new-epub-file.epub mimetype
Where “-0″ ensures “store, not compress” and the “X” strips any

Next, you need a directory structure (META-INF/, OEBPS, cover.jpg, etc.). Again, open any existing .epub file and build your source in that fashion. Not too hard.
Now, to add all your goodies (once you’re done):
zip -Xr9D ../my-new-epub-file .epub *
r for recursive add, 9 for extreme compression.

Catch 2: HTML entities

Most & character codes are not allowed. Le crap.
Simplest solution: get rid of them. You can try using &#### codes, but there’s no real guarantee it works on devices. Alternatively, you just type the character in your favourite editor straight in the source and ignore that feeling in your gut about decent character encoding.

As you know (if not: what are you doing here? ;-), I like reading. One of the books I am reading is “Justice: What’s the right thing to do?” by Michael J. Sandel, a Harvard professor. It’s apparently based on his course, which you follow online.

I’m now at page 70, and I keep having this urge to argue with this book. I experienced it first during the introduction/motivation part (on Purple hearts for psychically wounded soldiers). It was less strong in the first chapter where Utilitarianism was discussed. Now I’m reading on Libertarianism, it’s getting too much to keep in. So I’m arguing with it here :)

And thus ended the introduction

Libertarianism is (in the book explained as) based on individual freedom, which is considered sacrosanct (in all three meanings given here). Thus, rules of a state (or, for that matter, any organisation) are only allowed if they do not encroach upon these individual freedoms. In particular, the book lists:

1. No paternalism — no laws forcing me to protect myself from harm.
   For example: no laws to wear helmets while driving a motorcycle, because: I have the right to take whatever risks I want with my own body.
2. No moral laws.
   E.g. no laws against prostitution, because I have the right to choose if I want that or not
3. No redistribution of wealth or income.
   So no taxation of the rich to give benefits to the poor, because I have the right to my earnings.

I’d like to reply to each one of these in-depth. But, while I would try to do so to illustrate that the entire premise is faulty (in my opinion), that is not a correct reply. I reject the entire premise, not merely the individual points that follow from it.

You see, you are living in a community. And libertarianism fails to recognise that as an entity in its own right. If I want to be part of a community, I have to abide by the rules set forth by the community — whether I agree with them or not. Now I will not gainsay anyone’s right to leave a community. You are allowed to leave, never forced to abide by the community’s rules — but then you’d also have to leave its sphere of influence.

The book has a motivating example for a libertarian view on taxation. Consider Michael Jordan, a famous basketball player from the 90s (did I need to explain that? Am I getting that old? Ouch). Libertarians could argue that the state has as much right to tax his (luxurious) income as the state has to force him to labour (rough paraphrasing of the book), that he deserves what his skills are getting him, that the state has no right to help others because he happens to be good, that he doesn’t owe his teammates (they’re getting compensation themselves), etc.

But the way I see things: if Michael Jordan wants to be part of a community (e.g. an American citizen), then he has to abide by the rules of that community (e.g. taxation). He’s free to argue for a change of the community’s rules (using whatever process the community agreed upon for changing its rules: voting, rule of the strong, etc.). But as long as that isn’t successful, he has to abide by the rules set forth.

He’s free to leave. He can go to Europe, and play for a club here. He’d have to take a paycheck cut, probably… I don’t think European basketball clubs can afford $13 million a year for one player. And that is because the community here does not value basketball players that highly (take up football, Michael! ;-). But if he wants to be there, and reap the benefits of his skills there, fine. But you get to abide by the rules of the community.

And that is where libertarianism fails. The community is an entity, a power structure, and it has powers. You don’t like ’em? Fine, you can move. You don’t want to? Fine, abide by the rules.

I’m curious as to your thoughts on the matter!

Note: I am aware that in some cases this comes dangerously close to support for dictatorship/totalitarian rule. And I abhor totalitarian rule… by anyone who isn’t me ;-)

Having been on a trip, I did manage to squeeze a few reads in. So, I figured to share some of that — and quite probably start ranting about how fantasy series go down the drain after a few books. They do, you know :)
Anyway, on my recently finished list:

• The Summer Tree – Guy Gavriel Kay
  I still cannot believe I didn’t pack the other two parts… it was good, as usual :)
• Wizard Squared – K.E. Mills
  Karen Miller brings us the third instalment of the “Gerald” series. Where the first one was a humorous variant on your every-day fantasy story, the second broke away and was a bit weird… but that one turned out alright in the end. This third instalment, however, doesn’t. Where the first can be said to be a humoristic view on fantasy, and the second may perhaps be said to be sort of a fantasy parody of detective stories (take “sort of” broadly here), the third book is reminiscent of The Sword of Truth series. This means: there is an all-powerful bad guy, and even though the good guys aren’t bad themselves, they have really no hope of defeating them… or do they? Naah, not really. I didn’t like the Sword of Truth series that much, and I don’t like mrs. Miller’s take on it either. The fun seems to have dried up, and willingness to submerge yourself into its worlds is tested (vivaciously) time and again. Too bad, I don’t think I’ll read another instalment. (Rant on fantasy and endless series coming below!)
• Transition – Iain Banks
  Iain Bank’s version of “Amber“. It’s not as good as (the first books of) Amber. Zelazny did this before, and better. ‘Nuff said.
• Duel – Joost Zwagerman
  The bookweek-gift. I finally got round to reading it… and finished it too.
  This book exemplifies why I hardly read Dutch literature. It just doesn’t captivate me as much as English books can. It’s okay, and there’s food for thought in there. But that’s not what I’m looking for in a book. I liked “transition” better, in the end.
• The Brain that Changes Itself – Norman Doidge
  Reread. It’s still interesting. By the way, this is not fiction, but more of a popular science account. (Cheating a bit with including this, finished this a while ago)
• The Emporer’s New Mind – Roger Penrose
  Again a popular science reread for me. Second time around it was more understandable than the first. I’m still worried I’ll need a third time to get to the core, though I find myself disagreeing more and more with him :) (again, cheating).
• De tranen van Kuif den Dolder – Nico Dijkshoorn
  Bought it for the trip Schiphol-Luxembourg (6hrs by train). Bought it because I’ve read some of Nico Dijkshoorn’s columns, and generally, I like them. Even though I may disagree, I appreciate the style and the levity. In this case: good choice, the book was fun enough. (Finished it on the train)

So there’s still a stack, with amazingly enough 3 books dealing with philosophy in there:

• Dus Ik Ben – Stine Jensen & Rob Wijnberg
  Reread. It’s still good :)
• 50 philosophy ideas – Ben Dupré
  Got it for the trainjourney Schiphol-Luxembourg (but got another book too, and managed to finish that one… what was that again… Aah yes, De tranen van Kuif den Dolder, let me add that to the list above). Again a high-level popular science book. It’s fun, though not so deep (isn’t that a funny thing to write about a book on philosophy? ;-)
• Justice: What’s the right thing to do? – Michael J. Sandel
  Apparently based on his “famous” Harvard lecture. So famous, a chap I met from Harvard had never heard of him. The name of the lecture vaguely rang a bell. Anyway, not that far in yet and find myself vehemently disagreeing – so it’s going to be a fun read :)
  Bought it in the UK for the Bertinoro-Swiss part of the trip.
• Snow – Orhan Pamuk
  Recommended by a turkish friend. Apparently this book won a Nobel Prize for literature. Somehow that sounds too heavy for my tastes – I can’t bring myself to begin reading the book just yet.
  Bought it in the UK as well for the Bertinoro-Swiss part of the trip.
• The Alchemist – Paulo Coelho (borrowed)
  Borrowed this from Ragga for my trip, but then was too scared to damage it, so didn’t take it :) Still intend to read it.
• Der Schwarm – Frank Schätzing (borrowed)
  Borrowed via Ragga from Danielle, not got round to it yet (well gosh jolly no, will you look at the books I have recently read? No surprise there, or is there?). Was interested, because I have actually read another book by Frank.

That concludes the reading list and the “done” list. I also promised you a fantasy rant, so here in a nutshell: Any fantasy series with over 5 books will have at least one book that sucks. Supporting circumstantial evidence: Harry Potter (book 5? Please. Or, for that matter, most of book 7). The Wheel of Time series (any book beyond 3 still good?), Amber (2nd series starts with the sixth book – enough warning for you?), The Sword of Truth series (we got the whining after three books, thankyouverymuch mr. Goodkind), etc. etc. Actually, the fantasy books I have read that do make me happy tend to be the ones that actually end (eg. The Fionavar Tapestry, and the Night Angel trilogy).

So there you have it: if you ever start to write fantasy, stick to three books or less (yes, Eddings managed a series of 5 decent books – not deep, but decent. You’re not Eddings.)

I once read a piece called “Condensation of all gaming fiction“. That poked fun at all the overused stereotypes rampant in gaming fiction. Having read one teenage horror/romance story starring a teenage girl in the lead (see previous post) and now halfway through a fantasy book with a teenage girl in the lead, I am beginning to become weary of chicklit.

Some caveat’s:

• Both these books were written by women. I do believe that guys wouldn’t factor in the below observations in the same manner (i.e., equally annoying ;-)
• I am basing this post on a statistically very unsound sample: one teenage “dark romance” book, and one fantasy book. There’s scores of chicklit out there which I do not plan to touch, which may differ. (or maybe not)

Be that as it may, I do believe I have stumbled upon several tricks of the trade in at least a class of chicklit. Here we go:

• Main character: female teenager, feeling as if she is very unskilled compared to those around her.
  Not fitting in well with the group.
• Two guys (at least).
  While blatantly obvious for the necessary romantics, somehow this stays at the level of getting goosebumps from the one guy, and a lot of “hmmmms, maybe him, but he’s cute too…”
  Really, a lesbian lead would probably so much less annoying at times.
• The Rival(tm)
  This is the bitch that hated our lead from the start. Apparently. Halfway through the story we learn that while our lead is feeling totally worthless, the Rival is so angry with her because she is totally freaking awesome.
  Unlike guy books, the rivalry doesn’t turn to Best Friends Forever status, nor to Mortal Enemy status. An uneasy truce is reached, usually backed by some mutual understanding and parents/mentors/teachers/responsible adults telling them to stop behaving like little children and start acting their age.
• Power Explosion:
  The lead turns out to be already a lot more valued than she herself would estimate. People (enemies) are interested in her. Guys too, although not too blatant, because that would detract too much from the outsider feeling we get.

Basically, it’s the coming-of-age story told once again. Difference with the Belgarion (and some other fantasy stories) is that here, the environment is considered by the lead to be normal.Contrast that with the Belgarion, where Garion finds himself in the sudden company of a rattish, thieving, scary guy and a bear-turned-human warrior. To then learn about Mister Wolf being able to move mountains at a whim. Definitely he’s the only sane and normal person in the bunch. Drizzt? Same thing: while his society doesn’t perceive it, he feels he’s the only sane and normal person there. Angsty teenage chicklit: everyone else is normal, I’m the outsider…

While I do believe my emotional range transcends that of a teaspoon, I can’t imagine all girls feel as total outsiders sufficiently for this sort of literature to establish a report with teenage girls. But, apparently, it does.

Anyway, back to my book :) Where I get to read more of “If X noticed EVENT, (s)he didn’t show it”. (That sentence crops up every 15 pages and it is becoming soooooo annoying. Other than that: so far, so good. Do switch your chicklit-filter to medium if the above points would annoy you otherwise though ;-)

Jake alerted me to the fact that David Eddings passed away. Eddings wrote the Belgariad, a series of books which was my first exposure to non-Dutch fantasy, and (if I remember correctly) even wrote the first non-Dutch books I read. Over the years, I have frequently re-read the Belgariad and the Mallorean, every time enjoying it. I have read quite some fantasy books since then, but apart from Guy Gavriel Kay’s “Fionavar Tapestry” I have not come accross works that capture me as much as Eddings did. He wrote more than I have read. I plan to address that oversight in the future.

If you haven’t read fantasy yet, you might like it. As Eddings himself explained in “The Rivan Codex”:

I planted more mythic fishhooks in the first couple of books of the Belgariad than you’ll find in any sporting goods store. I’ve said (too many times, probably) that if you read the first hundred pages of the Belgariad, I gotcha!!

Go ahead, give it a shot. It’s fun!

That is to say: Finished Harry Potter.