Bad books: Some initial thoughts

I’m not sure if there is a reason, but lately many have asked me I read any bad books; and if I do, why I don’t write about them. These are both good questions and I spent some time thinking about them over summer.

The simple answer is that I do read (especially start to read) a lot of what I call bad books. The second question is more difficult to answer as it almost implies that books I write about are “good” and those that I don’t write about are “bad”. This is not true in my case. Anyone who has read my book reflections knows that I do not review books in the traditional sense, e.g. I would never dream of using a ranking systems as there are so many different aspects that make a book worth reading. What I try to do is to use books to discuss subjects I find interesting and important.

First I would like to clarify that many of the books I read and write about are ”bad” in a way that I’ve seen others define bad books, i.e. they belong to one or more of the following categories:

1. I don’t agree with them
2. They are simplistic books with just one idea (often by a journalist) that is basically an op-ed extended to a book and often also incoherent.
3. The grammar/language is poor

The first category I don’t consider bad in any way at all, on the contrary. In the current society when social media and the web support simple group thinking by creating echo chambers that reinforces people’s existing beliefs we need to challenge ourselves. Books might be one of the best antidotes to cyberbalkanization.

I think all books that argue for something in a good way and/or tell an interesting story are good books. I tend to appreciate books that I disagree with more than books I agree with, as long as they address important issues. Books that argue for things I don’t agree with, or argue for things I agree with in ways that I disagree with, helps me to revise my knowledge and opinions if I find good arguments. I also think it is important to read books where you don’t agree with the author as you often realise once you have read the book that you are closer than you though initially.

On a more fundamental level I think a healthy society should have a lot of different voices, including those that argue for really unsympathetic, or even dangerous, things. It can not be said often enough; the freedom of speech is only really important when it comes to protecting very provocative voices, and that includes those you most disagree with.

The second category is more problematic as one part of me feels frustrated with the “sound-bite” focused society we have today. I also feel bad for giving more attention to people who write books to get attention rather than actually writing about something they care about and think is important to share.

In the best of worlds I would not spend anytime with these books and instead only focus on books written by people that really have deep knowledge and help expand our knowledge, but as these “sound-bite” books influence decision makers and the general discussion in society I often write comments about these books. Perhaps I should begin to indicate when I think it is enough to only read a summary of the book (as they lack substance) so that it is clear that my comments is meant as a comment on just that (often very simple) idea? I came across a “review” that I think capture many of these books very well (see below under the *).

The last category I find totally irrelevant in most cases. A knowledgeable person arguing in a convincing and passionate way, or telling an engaging story, is often the most important thing for me when I read a book. Still in fiction it can be disturbing with sloppy writing, especially in the cases where I suspect that it is a bad transition to e-books that is behind the spelling errors. The fact that my own grammar and spelling is really bad and that I myself like to focus on content rather than style might contribute to the fact that I tend to be generous in this area.

When it comes to books I consider bad most of them fall into one or more of four categories.

1. Basic premise illusion
2. Issue lure
3. Momentum exploitations
4. Incoherent word- and sentence stapling

Please note that the specific examples given below are not the worst books in each category. In most cases they just happen to be books I read recently so I still remember them. As the overall criteria for a bad book is its irrelevance I tend to forget bad books quite fast.

1. Basic premise illusion These are books that set up a narrative in an interesting way, but then doing nothing interesting with that premise.

Example: The Fold by Peter Clines The book is presented as if it is a riddle related to gateways to other worlds and the main character is presented as very smart, so I guess I was fooled into thinking that there would be a story that described an interesting solution to an interesting problem (folding of time-space). Unfortunately it was nothing interesting in the book at all and the writing was poor also. These books are like looking at a bad scary movie when the only thing you do is frustrated that everyone in the book is stupid. So in the end this is just a plain boring book and a book where I feel my time was wasted.

2. Issue lure This is perhaps the category with most bad books for me. It is similar to 1. but broader. Here only the title/story needs to be about a fascinating subject. My expectations when reading such a book is based on the hope that I will be inspired in some way as I find the subject so interesting. I have almost no expectation in terms of story/style etc. as long as I can get something out, it can be an idea, a fact I was unaware or, links to further reading, etc.. It is hard to have lower expectations than this as most authors usually have at least one or two ideas that can be used.

Many business books fall into this category. They tend to have a message about the need to be innovative/original/etc to be successful and use famous people to give advise to the masses (usually telling the reader that their book is relevant for everyone on the planet). Once you open them up they seem more like a desperate plea to be invited to conferences and show how many famous people you know. A funny side consequence is that the books create loops where the same group of people celebrate each others books, calling them “a must read”, etc. The latest example of a book where I struggled to find any new or interesting thinking was Originals by Adam Grant.

Example: Zoo by James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge This is a book that tells the reader that it is not only about a global pandemic, it is a book about our relation to other animals and how they are react to our treatment of them. After reading the book my only question was if it was a computer that have written the story based on a simple algorithm that only included the most common clichés. It just felt like an insult to any thinking person and provided not one interesting thought related to global pandemics or our relation to other animals.

3. Momentum exploitation This is a different category as is very much self-inflicted, but is also used by some authors/publishing houses. For anyone with a tendency to be a “collector” who likes to follow a story/author the “momentum exploitation” is something to be particularly aware of. Although I suffer more in the areas of music (when I like a record I tend to listen to other things by the composer, the musicians involved, conductor, etc.) as there are more people to follow than for a book (as there is usually just one author per story). Still there are a few books where the passion has been lost and it feels like the author just write to get money, or just can’t move on. The worst kind is usually an author that writes something good, then tries a few other things without much success and they goes back (in desperation) to the original success to write a follow-up. Lately a new category has emerged when the “market” use a story developed by one person by bringing in a new person to write about it. Momentum exploitation has nothing to do with fan fiction, something I enjoy as a phenomenon even if I no longer read much of it.

Example: Det som inte dödar oss (“The Girl in the Spider’s Web” in English), by David Lagercrantz In the case of Lagercrantz and the GITSW it just feels parasitic and unnecessary. I read the book as I found Stig Larsson’s books fascinating. The fact that it was professionally done just made the situation worse, a skilful parasite feels more unpleasant than an incompetent. It left me feeling soiled by a con artist behind the scene. I want to stress that it is not Lagercrantz that I think is the parasite, but the people behind how asked him to write it, those with the strategy to make more money.

4. Incoherent word and sentence stapling This is a category where I tend to stop reading after a chapter as I think they lack any intellectual coherence. As I tend to delete these books directly (as I have enough difficulties keeping track of all the interesting books/reports I want to read/keep) I don’t remember many examples. I currently work on security policy issue in Europe right and remembered an old article that discussed the role of Germany in a way that made me wonder how it could be published in a well established newspaper.

I want to stress that it is not the message as such, but the fact that it is hard to find any logic or coherence in the text.

I looked up the latest article by the same person to see if the article about Germany was a mistake, but this article, about Wikileaks, was if anything even more incoherent and confused. It is the kind of text where I fail to see what argument that the person is making

The two examples are just to illustrate a category and the rest of his articles might be brilliant, but after suffering though two articles that I read multiple times I can’t take the risk…

For those who like some context for the articles please see: > The emails published

> A little information about John Brennans hacked emailsResponse to the need to rethink

> German pacifism

As I was about to post this text I started to read a book “Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the world” and it might be a good candidate for this category also (not just “issue lure”). The theme is interesting and important. The person who wrote the book seem very nice and I think I agree with him on many things, but the book is such a patchwork of sentences and feels more like a “I scratch your back and you scratch mine and let’s forget all important issues”.

I think it is because it is not a book where you are supposed to learn anything specific, it is a “self-help” book where I think you need to be a little bit desperate to enjoy. What the book it trying to say (I think) is that everyone can be more creative. I really like this message and think it is true, but unfortunately it does not make the book any less incoherent. Examples are given that does not make sense if you think about it, there are no references provided for most parts and there are so many general and vague statements that I was beginning to suspect that the book was inspired by Deepak Chopra (who is famous for writing texts that make no sense, perhaps with the exception for Chopra’s bank account).

There are also two categories that I include in books that I don’t write about, but that I don’t think are bad.

1. Fast food Occasionally I read books that are like watching soap opera on TV. These are books when reading feels as if you following a simple formula and where you just turn pages without really using your brain. In well-written cases it almost feels like surfing/sliding down a slippery slope. You just turn pages without resistance and it almost feels as if you are picking up speed so it is hard to get off. One of the best examples is probably The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I think the small nuggets of “educational reflections” help the flow where the story has a very simple structure. Even if I don’t write about these books I think these are important as they encourage more reading in a time when many companies encourage ever shorter attention spans and where we live in a culture when some people actually think that 140 characters is enough for meaningful conversations about important issues. Any book that encourage readers to concentrate for more than 5 minutes is an important contribution.

2. Form without function This is a difficult category. I think these books often walk a thin line for me. If I’m in the right mood I like them and appreciate the way the author plays with language. If I’m in the wrong mode I only feel that they have a form but without function. As if the author had a structure for an interesting book, but could not find any content for it. Don DeLillo’s Zero K falls in this category. It is beautifully written, and it was possible for me to appreciate this for a few chapters, but eventually it just feelt like a meaningless show if writer skills. As if a skillful artist made a number of beautiful but sterile circles and squares (no criticism against Kandinsky intended, even if I don’t consider them among his best). Zero K is a good example of form without function. The books is not hard to read as the language and ways he set up the different scenes are fantastic, but the tension between the skill and the lack of content also builds up a tension within me that I find interesting.

Perhaps the contrast to White Noise and Cosmopolis, two books I very much enjoyed by Don DeLillo, contributes to the tension as these books in a very interesting way allow form and function/narrative strengthen each other. As with “fast food” I don’t see these as bad books. First of all I think these books often push the limits and it is a matter of taste and context if you like them or not. But I also think craftsmanship is always worth supporting and if 100 Zero K are needed to deliver one White Noise/Cosmopolis it is more than worth it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* “Take one concept from economics. Apply the didactic tools of business books - the laundry list of dos and don'ts, the capitalized letters, the end-of-chapter summaries. Transpose the whole to the field of politics, while making it relevant to people's everyday concerns. Provide a tsunami of facts and figures to illustrate each chapter. Pepper it with scholarly references. Make sure you quote important people with whom you had casual conversations - the attractiveness comes not from what they say, but from who they are. Provide the garbs of academic scholarship: a long bibliography, an index, footnotes. Impress the crowd with a statistical appendix. Et voila ! Such formulaic books may not make history or change the way we think about important topics such as power, but they will be the talk of the town during the few weeks that follow their launch by a media campaign.” This brilliant review, that I think could be copied and pasted with just a few modifications on very many of the self-help/ business book bestsellers, is written by Etienne Rolland-Piegue on Amazon.com for the book The End of Power by Moises Naim.

A Science/Ethics-matrix for risks in the 21st century, or the problem with “optimism”, and the need for a risk perspective

Over the last few years the discussion about “optimism” and “pessimism” in relation to important issues, especially global challenges has become increasingly destructive. Old school mass media might be one of the biggest problems, as they tend to report a strange and dangerous polarization between groups/individuals who are “optimistic” and those who are “pessimistic” regarding different challenges. Especially journalists and pundits scared of the need for transformative change, and without scientific education, tend to talk about the need “to be optimistic” about current global challenges, like climate change and global pandemics. [Example] This simplified and artificial polarization is even more extreme when it comes to emerging technologies such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology.

The main reason that optimism, or pessimism for that matter, is not a good concept to use when it comes to important issues is that it’s about being irrational. The definition of optimism from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary: “a feeling or belief that good things will happen in the future : a feeling or belief that what you hope for will happen” [Italics added].

There is obviously nothing wrong with feelings, and ultimately we need transparent value judgments in our discussions about global challenges. However, we need to be very careful with feelings and beliefs when it comes to complex global challenges. What we need is to separate

• A. Facts and transparent assumptions regarding methodologies for establish impacts, probabilities and uncertainties
• B. Ethical assumptions for what impacts we find acceptable, not-acceptable, desirable, not-desirable, etc.

Most of today’s major challenges are difficult to understand and solutions might be counterintuitive, so feelings and beliefs can not be trusted to guide us towards strategic solutions. Even less we should confuse our own values with scientific facts.

The classical definition of an optimist and a pessimist, “the optimist is said to see the glass as half full and the pessimist sees the glass as half empty”, is exactly the kind of discussion we do not need. Two people looking at something and saying different things is seldom very helpful unless we know if this is due to the fact that they actually look at different things, or just have different ethical values. We need to discuss facts (what the level of liquid is in the glass is), separate from ethics (What consequences we think are desirable and why?).

Today those talking about the need for being optimistic in relation to global risks often do one, or both, of two things:

1. Cherry picking Cherry picks different facts (usually fact where little disagreement exists) and then makes a big fuss about it. It can be facts like the global average temperatures, ice on the Antarctic, the emission reductions that different commitments will result in, etc. Often this approach to “facts” is similar to how other groups though history that did not want to see action approaches science (the most famous case is the pro-smoking lobby).The idea behind this approach is to create a culture where the public and decision makers think that there is so much disagreement that it is better to wait with any measures until more research has been conducted. Cherry picking certain studies that show that “deforestation is not happening”, “climate change is not real/serious”, etc. has nothing to do with being optimistic or not, it is about being scientifically illiterate. The need for action, or no action, should never be based on individual studies.A major problem here, again, is mainstream media as they struggle to report on the overall scientific agreement and the fact that uncertainty is part of all scientific findings. Instead they tend to report on individual studies, often the most spectacular, resulting in a situation where those who think action is needed try to find new extreme studies supporting their position. This opens up the door for fossil fuel companies, and others afraid of change, to cherry pick individual studies, or even parts of studies, and cover them as if there is a huge disagreement among scientists.
2. The best of all possible worlds Start with the, not very controversial, general assumption that the world is better for humans today than ever before in most important aspects. Then, based on this assumption, say that no significant changes are needed as things are going well. Often adding something like “there has always been those who said that things earlier where very problematic, but they where wrong and things are better today”. This argument is just plain stupid. Some of those who complained helped draw attention to many major challenges, from the role of slavery in society to the unrestricted use of chemicals in society. If anything those who “complain” are optimistic as they see the same progress as everyone else, but they believe it is possible to have an even better society.

The reason that so many hide behind the term “optimism” might be that they do not have any scientific backing for their claims, or does not understand how science works. Most likely is however that they understand how media, politics and most companies works, and how simple messages can be used to challenge transformative solutions.

Much of the challenge with how “optimism” is used could be addressed if we agreed to approach global risks in a more structured way. Two things are of particular importance that tend to be forgotten when people frame the discussion in terms of optimism and pessimism.

1. A clarification of the probabilities and uncertainties assumed for different impacts E.g. for climate change we need to clarify if there is an agreement among those discussing the issue regarding the probability for different degrees of warming based on different emission levels, the uncertainty in the different steps and the impacts associated with this warming. For pandemics we need to clarify if there is an agreement regarding the probability for different outbreaks, the uncertainty in the different steps and impacts of different kind of outbreaks.

Compared with simple issues, like how much liquid there is in a glass, complex issues such as global catastrophic risks, does not have one clear answer. E.g. the possible impacts of such challenges are best described as a probability distributions that depends of a number of factors where different level of uncertainty exist. E.g. for a certain amount of emissions there are different probabilities for different levels of warming with different levels of impacts. For all these there are also uncertainties in each step.

To be transparent about the assumptions relating to probabilities and uncertainties for different impacts would help clarify if there is a disagreement about the science behind the challenge (e.g. do we agree about the probability of different impacts for different emissions levels or what uncertainty there is?) or if the disagreement is due to different ethical assumptions.

2. A clarification ethical assumptions and what risk that is seen as acceptable For all global risks it is important to clarify what kind of impacts that we are willing to accept at what probability and with what level of uncertainty. Further, what measures we see as acceptable to address different impacts. These are ethical questions and depend on many different things, such as how you balance your own welfare in relation to future generations welfare and what probabilities you think are acceptable to have for different negative impact on future generations.

Today the fundamental ethical aspects are seldom discussed in relation to global challenges. Most international processes just assume some level of danger that is unacceptable, e.g. 1.5 C° or 2 C° warming for climate change, without any real discussion about what is acceptable or not according to what ethical assumptions. In many cases there is not even a proper process for establishing acceptable/unacceptable risks, e.g. nuclear war and asteroid impacts. What we find unacceptable impacts – at certain probabilities and with different uncertainties – is not something that science can define, it is an ethical judgment. As a global community facing threats of unprecedented magnitudes there is an urgent need for a discussion about what ethical values that should guide our strategies for global challenges.

In order to clarify different approaches to global challenges the scientific and the ethical aspects could be presented together in a graph like the “science/ethics-matrix for different impacts” below.

In this different groups and individuals could plot themselves. Then it will be possible to see if the disagreements are due to scientific disagreement, or ethical judgments. If someone argues that there is no need for action to reduce emissions, the graph can help clarify if it is due to disagreement regarding the science, or due to different ethical values. E.g. do we agree about with what probability different impacts will happen due to different degrees of warming and what probability that different degrees of warming will happen due to different levels of emissions, or do we have different perspective on the value of existing and future lives and thereby different levels of risk tolerances? The first is a scientific argument; the second is an ethical argument.

Science/ethics-matrix for different impacts

Science-ethics-matrix

With a “science/ethics-matrix for different impacts” it would be easier to have a constructive discussion about both existing challenges such as climate change, pandemics, asteroids and nuclear war as well as emerging issues such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology and AI.

The Vegetarian, by Han Kang

For anyone interested in Korean culture this is a must read. Unfortunately I have to say that I was disappointed, but with a book from Korea, with the title “the vegetarian” and a Man Booker Prize, my bar was very high when I started reading.

I would say that the first part of the book (the book is written in three parts) and the last pages of the last part are very good. Particularly in the first part interesting ideas are explored in interesting ways. The way we see the world from her husband’s perspective, while also getting glimpses from what might be described as the main character, is done brilliantly. Here we are invited to follow a “normal” perspective as it collides with someone looking at the world in a different way. The way the two perspectives are contrasted is done in a very captivating way.

The economic story telling from the perspective of the “vegetarian” is really impressive. Deep emotions are captured in dreamlike sequences, that are to a large extent dreams, in a way that I think will see other authors mimic.

It is almost as if a brilliant idea, the first part, was too radical for the editor. In order for it to be published they had to add parts that would interest more traditional target groups. For me this feels like an possible explanation for the contrast in quality.

In the last two parts the book turns into more of a traditional story in the way it approaches conventions, while also losing almost all interesting links to vegetarianism. It feels as a students attempt to approach the conservative parts of Korean society in a style that captures the simple parts of fin de siècle literature in Europe. The focus is on family values, sex and insanity in ways that has been done many times before, and often better.

Perhaps the best way to describe the book is through this quote:

“As she rolls up her trousers to keep them out of the wet, she notices the flaxleaf fleabane which has broken through the asphalt here and there. She adjusts her heavy bag, trying to ease her shoulders, puts up the umbrella and starts walking towards the hospital.”

I think the book should have stayed with the flaxleaf fleabane and explored it and the asphalt, instead of just rushing to new places all the time.

If you are interested in Korea/Asia and how a modern society can look like you should definitely read it. If you are interested in reflections related to vegetarianism (or any other ideas) this is probably not for you.

I’m very happy to see a Korean book translated, so I’m happy I bought it and hope my small contribution will support further translations.

Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World, by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler

This book is almost a must read. It has such a great approach and such poor, but interesting, execution. If you are interested in how companies can make an important contribution to society you will not find very much here. If you want to read a lot of big words about important trends and the need to think global this is the perfect book. It is hard not to get really frustrated with this book as it is so close to something very meaningful, while instead it is the kind of “Silicon-Valley-Self-Celebrating-Arm-Waiving-TED-ism” (should be a good acronym there somewhere for a TED-talk…) that the world has too much of already.

I should stress that I judge this book harder than many other books, as most books lack the ambition and global focus that this book has. When you read something that you know could have been a groundbreaking book, that could have set the standard for a new generation of business literature, it feels frustrating that they could not let go of the simplicity that we already have so much of.

The basic idea is interesting. Instead of approaching smart solutions as something that you do on the margin the focus should be on how companies, with relevant solutions, can grow really fast and have a global impact. Unfortunately the book does not have any filter to determine if the global impact is positive, relevant and long-term sustainable. So the book does not really talk about what is needed, what kind of companies need to grow, how companies can deliver sustainable impact/wealth or provide any really interesting cases.

Still there is a lot to like about the book and while I’m giving it a hard time I again want to make clear that I really recommend anyone interested in global challenges to read it. Everything from a bold approach where the general idea is to think in the billions (in terms of customers and revenue), transformative instead of incremental and the importance of innovation are included in the book.

The main challenge is that the book represents so much of the problems we have in society today. I’ve gathered my frustration under five headings and I do look forward to a book with a similar approach, but with focus on the major important challenges/ opportunities of our time.

1. No framework for assessing the important from the meaningless and destructive 2. Lack of intellectual coherence and focus 3. Market rather then value 4. American/western perspective 5. Sensationalism rather than substantial facts

1. No framework for assessing the important from the meaningless and destructive This is probably the biggest surprise and flaw with the book. I was not expecting a groundbreaking framework in this book, but it really has no structure at all. If you want to talk about “go big” and “impact in the world” in the 21st century you would expect attention to be spent on poverty, climate change, bio diversity, digital rights, etc. that are the main challenges facing humanity. Even if you do not have a sophisticated framework there are UN targets, list of the greatest challenges of our time, the key issues for major think tanks, etc. Just anything that would help them to identify important issues. Then the book would not include robots doing camel racing (not the most important issue on the planet) or 3-d printed fuel nozzle for airplanes that reduces fuel use by 15 percent (yes 15%, close to irrelevant in a sector that needs to think about virtual meetins and solar planes).

2. Lack of intellectual coherence and focus The fact that the book does not have any significant intellectual coherence and focus might be less surprising, but still very frustrating. Many books today, by the kind of TED-speakers that the author are, seem to be more like a transcript of different brainstorm sessions about different things than a result of a reflected attempt to provide thoughtful ideas to a reader. The levels of knowledge and sources seem to be what turns up on a Google search and newsfeed when you look for the issues discussed. It does not feel as if any real effort or thought has gone into the book.

3. Market rather than value There are a lot of discussions about money/markets in the book, but not a lot of discussion about what values that are delivered, neither what values that drive companies/employees. It is as if we live in a world where only customers exist and no citizens.

4. American/western perspective This is so common in books that I seldom even mention it, but when the title talk about “impact the world” you would expect something about the most important needs around the world and what happens in countries around the world, including China and India. If you include these countries the key global challenges also becomes close to impossible to ignore.

I would even argue that this is more of Silicon Valley perspective than a global perspective.

5. Sensationalism rather than substantial facts I understand the need to simplify key messages to get them through the noise today, but here they have fallen for the seduction of sensationalism. It is hard to find any parts of the book where the authors discuss pros and cons, or difficult issues that needs to be balanced. Still by the end of the day they might have done more good than bad by changing the discussion from incremental and local, to transformative and global.

With these five consideration in mind I think the book will inspire and frustrate anyone who is interested in moving beyond the incremental focus that dominate the current work to address the greatest challenges of our time, while also making it clear that many of those who claim a leadership role when it comes to new thinking have very little substantive to offer.

Still, any book that ends with a chapter “how to take action” has the heart in the right place. Hopefully a new generation can pick up the good parts of this book (ambition, understanding of the potential of technology and networking, as well as a focus on opportunity) and put in a 21st century framework where the focus on the important challenges not the trivial.

Ghostwritten, by David Mitchell

As I really liked Cloud Atlas I wanted to read the first book by Mitchell.

I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. In many ways I think Ghostwritten is a better book than Cloud Atlas, it is raw and direct in a way that a really appreciate. The characters feel more elaborated and in balance with the underlying narrative (not just pieces in a very smart plot). I felt pulled into a whirlwind of ideas that had an underlying idea.

While Cloud Atlas is more beautiful and grander in scale, the shifts between perspectives in Ghostwritten feels more honest, as if they happen in real time and you are just following some random, but still connected stories that evolves in front of you (rather than being engineered in a way where you feel that there was an overall interesting ideas that the author then tries to build a story around). It is as if you are thrown between the characters perspective and get to live their lives for a short while rather than hovering above as an ideal observer.

It is a hard book to describe the book as it moves between so many different perspectives, but if you liked Cloud Atlas and like to follow an epic story trough the perspective of multiple individual levels and many ways to thinking this is a book you should read.