Book review: Dune: House Harkonnen

Book 2 in the “House” trilogy, Dune: House Harkonnen by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson picks up about 12 years after the end of Book 1: House Atreides. It needs to be reiterated that House Harkonnen is not really about the Harkonnens, but can be more accurately described as “Episode II” in the Dune prequel series (akin to Star Wars Episode II). For a reader, it is not advisable to pick up House Harkonnen without first having read House Atreides.

The similarities between Books 1 and 2 are numerous. The new characters introduced to the Dune Universe in House Atreides appear in House Harkonnen, and relationships and plot lines that started in House Atreides are further explored and developed in House Harkonnen. Probably the most benefit from that progression is the fact that Duke Leto and Duncan Idaho are no longer children or adolescents in House Harkonnen. The storylines focusing on these two characters seem more believable now that these characters have matured.

One of the difficulties in this type of prequel novel is the fact that the authors have to retrofit the story into the events that will come in the start of the original Dune novel. Some of the explanations, motivations, and plot twists can be a bit of a stretch (or a reach of the imagination), but for the most part the authors do a good job of this.

The enjoyment of House Harkonnen can easily be surmised by the enjoyment obtained from House Atreides. If you enjoyed House Atreides, then House Harkonnen is just as good. If you were let down by the fact that House Atreides was not as good as Dune, then you will be just as disappointed with House Harkonnen. For myself, I found that I enjoyed House Harkonnen. By no means is the book a classic in the sense the original Dune novel is, but if you accept that and want to experience the stories that lead up to the events in Dune, then House Harkonnen is worth the read.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

June 28, 2009 8:12 pm. Book Reviews. Leave a comment.

Music review: Era Vulgaris by Queens of the Stone Age

Queens of the Stone Age is one of those bands that I like idea of the band more than their actual music. They continue to receive critical acclaim but I enjoy each album they release less and less. Era Vulgaris is the low point in their catalog. Rated R was the first Queens of the Stone Age album I heard and it was different, intriguing, and created enough of a consistent mood to want to listen to it after 8 years. After listening to Era Vulgaris recently, I don’t feel the need to listen to it again. The songs are all nondescript and unmemorable, with the only exception being “Make It Wit Chu” which has a pop feel to it. The rest of the album feels like a patchwork of outtakes from the band’s previous albums.

Rating: 2 out of 10.

June 25, 2009 8:33 pm. Music. Leave a comment.

Hoping the stock market will come back response

Big Money Tony made a comment to my post titled “Hoping the stock market will come back” which I felt deserved a full post as a response:

BMT, I have two points to make regarding your comment:

First is that you seem to think that the only investment choices available are stocks, real estate, and savings accounts. If you look outside of “traditional investment vehicles” as you put it, you’ll find a wealth of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) available to the average investor that allow people like you and me to take advantage of both the long and short side of a range of investments simply by buying shares of the ETF through a brokerage account. For example, you could invest in commodities such as gold and oil by purchasing shares of GLD and USO, respectively. If you think that the long term treasury bond market bubble is about to burst, you could buy shares of TBT, whose price is meant to track “twice the inverse of the … U.S. Treasury index” which means that it goes up when bond prices go down. (Full disclosure: while I am not a broker or investment advisor, I do own shares in the above mentioned ETFs).

The second point relates to the bigger picture of “the thing I can not get over is that if you eliminate stock market climbing as wealth building, there is not much left to build wealth on.” This takes me back to my original point about waiting for the market to come back: you and I are not going to get rich off of our investments. It became the American dream in the late 1990s to be able to live off your investments, and I don’t doubt that some people are fortunate enough to do so, but it just isn’t realistic for the vast majority of us. Your statement of “what’s left is lottery or plain hard work in a small business” is correct. There is no get rich quick investment out there.

My investment focus has shifted from “wealth building” to wealth preservation. I see wealth building through investing as no longer being realistic and am more concerned with simply preserving what I currently have. While it may seem easy to preserve wealth simply by putting your money in a savings account, I don’t see it as being that easy. The U.S. dollar is NOT a store of value, as its value is continually being eroded by central bank quantitative easing and spiraling national debt. Which is why the purpose of investing your money in assets (whether they be stocks, real estate, or gold) is simply to preserve wealth rather than to build wealth.

June 18, 2009 9:03 pm. Economics. 2 comments.

Hockey

I have to admit that despite in the past having expressed a lack of enthusiasm about the NHL, I found this year’s hockey playoffs the most interesting in a decade. I was never a huge hockey fan, but throughout the 1990s, I followed hockey consistently, and would usually make time to watch big games. But my interest faded around the turn of the century and then the strike/lockout of 2004/2005 really ended any interest I had in hockey. That lack of interest lasted four years, until this post-season. I think I watched more hockey in the past two months then I have the last six years. The matchups of Crosby vs. Ovechkin and then the Penguins run culminating in a game 7 victory in the finals made for compelling viewing. Will I be watching regular season hockey this October? No. But if the young stars of the sport continue to create good post-season matchups, I’ll be watching next spring.

June 14, 2009 8:27 am. Sports. 2 comments.

Hoping the stock market will “come back”

I posted the following as a comment on Big Money Tony’s blog as a response to his hope that the stock market will “come back”:

I’ve come to realize that what we saw from 1997 through 2000 will never happen again in our lifetime. Look at Japan: the Nikkei finished 1989 around 37,000. It’s below 10,000 now. That’s almost 20 years later and it’s down 72%. OK, so you and I don’t invest in Japanese stocks, but how about tech stocks? The Nasdaq topped 5,000 in the beginning of 2000. It’s below 1,900 right now. That’s down 62% in nine and a half years. I’m tired of hearing that stocks are a long term investment. How long does long term have to be? I citied two examples of broad indexes with terrible returns over the past 9 and 20 years. People have been waiting for those markets to “come back” for years and years.

I’m now convinced that the only way these markets will return to their previous lofty values is not through the appreciation of the aggregate growth and value of the companies that make up the market, but rather through a depreciation of the currencies that we measure the worth of these companies. Think about it this way: if there are currently 10 trillion dollars in existence and Microsoft sells for $22 a share, what would a share of Microsoft stock sell for if the money supply doubled to 20 trillion dollars? If all other factors were equal, Microsoft would sell for $44 a share. Has Microsoft captured more market share or been more productive or efficient? In my example, they have not but yet the price of the stock would still go up.

The above scenario is exactly what the powers that be in the government and the federal reserve hope will happen, that simply through money supply growth we will all perceive that we will be richer through higher asset prices (such as stocks and housing prices) when in fact they are just creating inflation which is paid by all of us in the form of a hidden tax.

June 10, 2009 7:02 pm. Economics. 2 comments.

Spam e-mails

Is anyone actually still making money by sending out spam e-mails? I can understand how in the year 1999 someone could have bought a product or service from an unsolicited e-mail. But these days I can’t imagine that spamming is still a lucrative way to generate business. Spam filters in e-mail applications and a better educated public lead me to believe that spam would not be effective anymore. But based on the number of messages that get sent straight to my junk mail folder, that belief seems not be true.

June 7, 2009 2:03 pm. Technology. 2 comments.