[RD] Which 'Great Works' are low-hanging fruit?

[Narz]

Anything by Kurt Vonnegut. His works are just a wonderful survey of the tragedy and the comedy of human existence. I also like to daydream that some day someone will take up actually writing the collected works of Kilgore Trout. If you aren't familiar with Vonnegut Kilgore Trout is a fictitious sci-fi writer who is a recurring character in his novels. Vonnegut floats premises for several works which sound incredible, but alas were never actually written.

Yeah Vonnegut is excellent, even most of his short stories are pretty good

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oedipus the King
The Odyssey
Hamlet
The Prince, as has been mentioned
Dante's Inferno

As one of the punishments on this season's Big Brother, one of the houseguests is required to read Hamlet (presumably aloud). This will be in numerous sessions to be determined by BB, until she's finished.

The houseguest whined in the Diary Room that she hadn't read it before and knew nothing about it.

In the meantime, I'm sitting here giggling and reciting the "To be or not to be" soliloquy to Maddy (my cat), as that's a part of the play I memorized years ago.

Poor houseguest... she just might get a tiny bit educated this summer.

Of Mice and Men is super easy to read, you can consume it in like an hour and a half. Siddhartha by Hesse is similarly a nice easy read.

I have a bit of conversation about Of Mice and Men, without ever having read a word of it. Sometimes all you need is to talk about something associated with the book, rather than the book itself.

In my case, back in the '90s, some people in the neighboring provincial riding got upset at all the swearing in that book, and asked their MLA to have it banned. He refused, so they asked my MLA. He agreed to bring it up in the Legislature, presenting their petition to have this book banned from the libraries and schools.

The result? Soon you couldn't find a copy of that book anywhere in the whole county - not in the libraries, not in the bookstores, not in the second-hand bookstores.

The reason? The waitlist at the public libraries was months long, and the bookstores all sold out. An awful lot of people decided they wanted to read the book, just to see what all the fuss was about.

When they did find out, the collective reaction was and finally at the MLA and the Conservative busybodies in two ridings for wasting everyone's time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would prefer a little more detail than that. Specifically, what important things are in them.

It took three posts to reveal that this was another Mouthwash hogwash thread. Claims to be looking for books that "teach you important things you wouldn’t learn by reading the one-page summary," then gets snotty when he isn't given a one line summary so he can skip the work he claims to want to do. How many times does this drill have to play out before people realize that a "question" from Mouthwash is just bait?

 

[Peuri]

And I'm also looking to get into Wittgenstein, but I doubt I'm competent to read his original work.

Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction by A.C. Greyling is a good introduction.

His main work in his early stage Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is incomprihensible, and he later rescinded his view, so maybe skip that. His later main work Philosophical Investigations is very accessible in it's very aphoristic form.

 

[Hygro]

It took three posts to reveal that this was another Mouthwash hogwash thread. Claims to be looking for books that "teach you important things you wouldn’t learn by reading the one-page summary," then gets snotty when he isn't given a one line summary so he can skip the work he claims to want to do. How many times does this drill have to play out before people realize that a "question" from Mouthwash is just bait?

We all have our vices.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The problem with The Art of War is also that it's somehow considered as the quintessential work on ancient Chinese warfare in The West, while in China it's just one of many such books.
I'd recommend The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China. You don't need to read all of them as there is some overlap, but you should definitely read Taigong's Six Secret Teachings. It's obscure enough to make you look really smart and I found it pretty entertaining because it's bascally a guide for a vassal state to overthrow its overlord and also covers diplomacy. It includes shady tricks like sending expensive gifts and publicly praising your rival's most capable bureaucrats and generals. Even if you can't flip them, it will call their loyalty into question, undermine their position and can lead a rival ruler to replace them with incompetent sycophants.

While we're on China, The Analects will give you some insight into the culture, let you quote Confucius at people, and the book is pretty short since it's just a collection of short quotes. You'll also be able to become the "well, actually" guy on Confucianism and educate people on how the later implementation of Confucianism goes against the actual source material in the same way Christian rulers (mis)interpreted the Bible for their own ends.

And for the culture war, The Weatlh of Nations is always useful. Conservatives and Libertarians love to namedrop it and conveniently ignore the parts that call for a mixed economy and public services because Smith believed that some common goods like education are too important to be left to profit-seeking enterprises.

 

[Hygro]

The Wealth of Nations is a 1,100 page slog what kind of low hanging fruit are you smoking?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Hmm, I read it years ago and didn't find it particularly long or difficult to read at the time.

 

[Patine]

"The Sneeches and Other Stories," by Dr. Seuss.
Amazingly relevant and timely to a lot of political and social issues and problems in the world today. Especially the title story and "the Zaxx."

 

[Hehehe]

most people who read them misunderstand them to some extent.

All the more reason to read them then, and get it right, no? Also, aren't you that hipster-history guy? ("Ugh, the Art of War is too mainstream!!!")

In less inhibited moments, I sometimes say that Sunzi was a trash can.

Many of the things that one can learn from modern strategy texts are also in the thirteen-chapter text attributed to Sunzi, Master Sun's Military Methods. Many of them are tried and true tenets of military philosophy not obvious to every observer, like the overwhelming importance of a relentless pursuit. Other things are common sense (although most observers would generally say that strategy is a fundamentally common sense topic): flexibility is a good thing, actionable intelligence is a good thing, morale is important, don't fight battles you don't have to, don't let yourself get boxed in, make sure you have supplies, etc. Others are essentially matters of definition; the author of the thirteen chapters, for example, spends a great deal of time proving that force multipliers exist. With all that said, I don't think that many people would say that the thirteen chapters completely lack value and that the reader will learn nothing about warfare if she reads it.

Many of the things that one finds in the text are specific to the classical Chinese idiom and are not that useful for the modern student of warfare. Other times, the author contradicts himself, making a universal statement of truth in one sentence and specifically denying it in a later chapter. Now, this is not necessarily wrong. Warfare is in most particulars a situation in which the commander balances a large number of competing risks. It is not wrong to point out that certain kinds of ground are disadvantageous to fight on, and then to also point out that accepting the risk of fighting on bad ground in order to take advantage of some enemy vulnerability is often a good idea. The author of the thirteen chapters' language is overly prescriptive in many places, but that's an artifact of the genre and possibly also of the translation. Sometimes, the author combines good advice with bad, especially in his description of the demeanor of a commander.

The author is also straight-up wrong about some things that are not merely a matter of historical context. Most egregiously, the author fosters a belief in what is possible in war that is not realistic: that a commander can orchestrate victory beforehand, and that battle is merely a bit of dramatic irony, playing out what has already been decided. Like virtually every author in the world before the publication of Vom Kriege, the author of the thirteen chapters badly understates the extent of fog, friction, and chance in warfare. Instead, the author's understanding of warfare is highly schematic: there are nine contingencies, five traits dangerous in a commander, five phases of battle, and so on. Many of the author's ideas about warfare seem to rely on an obliging enemy, one who can be easily understood and duped into doing exactly what you want him to do. This may be a useful thing for a literary general interested in royal patronage to project - the image of an infallible master with all the tricks who can make opponents look like fools - but it is an actively counterproductive way to view warfare.

Some readers who are well versed in the study of warfare have insisted that they can read all sorts of higher-order concepts in the Military Methods. For example, there has been at least one person to argue to me to my face about the meaning of the following passage:

This person steadfastly believes that the quoted text is in fact an example of operational art, a concept that did not even exist until the twentieth century. Reading this into the text here is deeply anachronistic and also betrays a misunderstanding of the concept of "operational art", which is a bit more complicated than trying to make sure one is adequately prepared for battle. Note again here that Sunzi's words imply that it is even possible to ensure that victory in battle is "unerring" (4.13), when in reality most soldiers now fully understand that battle is the most chaotic and most risky aspect of human endeavor. Battle is, fundamentally, a lottery, and too many things can go wrong for even the greatest commander of all time to guarantee victory. Adequate preparation and planning are undeniably valuable things, but the means that the author of the Military Methods attempts to use to get them across are suboptimal. Here, overly prescriptive language leads not to a minor contradiction but something that is actively dangerous.

You might think that readers are generally smart enough to know what is good about the Military Methods and what is bad. You would be wrong. Even soldiers succumb to the notion that there is such a thing as a way to guarantee victory.

With all that said, there is nothing wrong with a good strong active read of Master Sun's Military Methods. The text is extraordinarily short; the thirteen chapters ought to take you about twenty minutes to read and annotate.

The thing I don't like about the text is not the text itself. The text was a product of its time and has limitations like any other attempt to discuss warfare in any depth. The thing I don't like about the text is actually people's propensity to act as though it holds all the keys to warfare, that people who read it are automatically geniuses and people who do not read it, or who ignore its precepts, are imbeciles. The level of unthinking hero-worship one finds with the Military Methods is kind of astounding. It's much worse than the Clausewitz-worshipping Wehraboos, who for all their slavish obedience to the old master at least avoid being egregiously, disastrously wrong about any aspect of warfare. Avoid the hero worship, and you'll be all right.

EDIT: clarified one point

I don't even now what to reply to this, except a paragraph-long "DUUUUUHHHHHHH". It's like you're going out of your way to make up some bizarre interpretations to debunk. Reading the gist of this, presumably you've spent a good amount of time arguing with hardcore AoW-enthusiasts? Why bring that baggage here?

 

[Dachs]

Dachs, you are too harsh on Sun Tse. It is not a manual on how to win any war. Think about the intended reader.
As a primer for a 16 yr old emperor embarking on his first war, his book is full of good, albeit hard to implement, advice

Read what I posted more carefully.

I don't even now what to reply to this, except a paragraph-long "DUUUUUHHHHHHH". It's like you're going out of your way to make up some bizarre interpretations to debunk. Reading the gist of this, presumably you've spent a good amount of time arguing with hardcore AoW-enthusiasts? Why bring that baggage here?

Why should you reply to it at all, when it doesn't quote your post, wasn't directed at you, doesn't insinuate that your book recommendation is wrong, and doesn't argue against anything you've said? Mouthwash asked for an explanation of something that he was familiar with, and I explained it.

The comments on risk, uncertainty, fog, friction, and projecting an unrealistic image of a commander at war are all legitimate criticisms of the Sunzi interpretations of actual published modern military writers, not randos on the Internet. (Arguing with people who are in security studies is not a very productive way to spend one's time, anyway.) I'm not bringing the baggage of previous Internet arguments here, I'm bringing the baggage of genuine idiots like Basil Liddell Hart whose books still appear in print in the brick-and-mortar stores. I feel like the tradition of modern security-studies writing is relevant to the context of Sunzi.

And obviously the belief that there is some sort of infallible schema for victory is one that has never gone away for certain soldiers and commentators; you can find it in their public comments practically as far back as we have reliable public comments.

None of this led me to say that the recommendation is wrong!

I disagreed that the texts would be "high-yield" in the sense that the blogger quoted in the OP seemed to be talking about. I also think that the best way to learn about strategy and warfare is generally to read a modern text on the subject rather than work through an older one, a belief of mine that applies to virtually every field. But it's a short text, there's a lot of good-or-at-least-not-wrong things in it, it's easily available, and it fits the standard for cultural relevance that the OP seemed to want. Bits of the thirteen chapters are everywhere, especially if you play strategy games where the devs think it's the height of demonstrated literacy to put Sunzi quotations on loading screens, or if you read the sort of history book where the author uses theme quotations for her chapters. If you interact with public intellectuals, knowing about the Military Methods is useful. It is in the canon.

 

[Farm Boy]

I know you said Great Works, which implies standing for an age or whatnot, but:

it's about dipping my toe into their ideological current.

If you want a couple easy ones that are more contemporary hallmarks of their current, you could go with 56-year-old Stranger in a Strange Land, or 20-year-old Gates of Fire.

 

[Hygro]

Assuming Sun Tzu was not strawmanning, much of the book is reacting to what is perhaps completely other ways of approaching warfare. Much of the book is extolling rational calculation based on material things rather than say drinking the blood of your enemies to gain their powers (not in the book) or consulting fortune tellers (in the book) for whatever that's for (which Wallenstein apparently did without drawback).

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

For the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a short but important title. Easier to read than Popper. Description in the link.

The Art of War is more about thinking than commanding in the field.

If you use enough metaphor, then a statement can mean anything.

 

[Hehehe]

Why should you reply to it at all, when it doesn't quote your post, wasn't directed at you, doesn't insinuate that your book recommendation is wrong, and doesn't argue against anything you've said? Mouthwash asked for an explanation of something that he was familiar with, and I explained it.

I was simply noting how some of the criticisms were outright bizarre. "It won't help you win every battle". Duhhhhhh. It's like criticizing a book called "Programming 101" by saying "welp reading this short 50 page introduction didn't make me a superhacker coding demigod!!!"

 

[Hygro]

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli got a lot more interesting to me when I took them as literally as I could. Don't pretend Machiavelli is being ironic or evil, and remember, when Sun Tzu is talking about knowing the heavens, he's literally referring to the weather.

Hmm, I read it years ago and didn't find it particularly long or difficult to read at the time.

You are a goddamn inspiration.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I haven't read one word of Sun Tzu, but there must be some reason why his name is on one of the Civ Wonders (Sun Tzu's War Academy, if memory serves).

 

[Takhisis]

Sun Tzu's Art of War, actually, at least on Civ3.

 

[Patine]

Sun Tzu's Art of War, actually, at least on Civ3.

It's Sun Tzu's Academy in Civ2, though.

 

[Takhisis]

Really? It feels like a better Wonder than the Art of War.