The Christmas Train ( a re-read)

David Baldacci. The Christmas Train (2002)  I re-read this book (previously reviewed) because we had watched the Hallmark Movies adaptation. The book is both better and worse than the movie. Better in its depiction of railroading (albeit with a healthy dose of AMTRAK public relations stuff tossed in), and its handling of the storm-caused entrapment of the train.
     Worse in its characterisation. Actors can fill in the gaps in a thin script, and hint at depths that in writing must be done with throwaway lines and trifling details. There is none of that here. Tom Langdon is 2D. Everyone else is 1.5D, even Eleanor Carter, his long lost and ever after pined for love. Like Dickens, Baldacci uses defining quirks to set up his characters, but unlike Dickens, he doesn’t give us the incidental details that make these characters real enough to serve the illusion.
     The writing is often indifferently general and abstract. Baldacci is one of those writers who believes that Latinate words (like “inclemency” for “storm”) elevate the style. And he is incapable of riffing on cliches to make them not only fresh but apt.
     I kept on reading mostly because I wanted to see how the movie and book compared. The movie omits a few incidents, and cranks up the sentimentality (easily done with visuals, after all). The book could have been much better with more ruthless editing. Baldacci’s story is a typical love-romance, and the tropes of the genre must be respected. But a lot of the time it reads more like a travelogue than a novel. His attempts at ironic witticism fall flat.
     The plot hinges on Tom’s understanding that his past life was a refusal to accept reality, and Eleanor’s willingness to take him back. That requires more complex and subtle dialogue than Baldacci gave himself room for. The acknowledgements suggest that the book was “project” proposed to him, perhaps by AMTRAK. It doesn’t feel like a story he felt compelled to tell.
     Schlock, barely OK as a beach or airplane read. *

Neanderthals are humans

More evidence  that Neanderthals were people like us. Doesn't look like  much, eh? It's a piece of string.

It takes a lot of insight to make string. You have to understand that twisting fibres together makes a stronger product. You have to see that string is useful for tying stuff. You have to have stuff that needs tying. And so on. Quite an achievement!

Now I know why I save string.

What most people think but don't want to say

The Guardian is saying it out loud: Trump has destroyed the USA's international reputation. One of several blunt quotes:

"Erratic behaviour, tolerated in the past, is now seen as downright dangerous. It’s long been plain, at least to many in Europe, that Trump could not be trusted. Now he is seen as a threat. It is not just about failed leadership. It’s about openly hostile, reckless actions."

Before Trump was elected, I pointed to uncomfortable parallels between him and several well-known (mostly dead) dictators. Comments claimed I was being disrespectful. Fact is, I was saying less than I thought at the time.

Mother Nature: A thought.

Mother Nature doesn't care about shareholder value.

Photo of an iris

An iris from a few years ago. We are looking forward to this year's blooms.

Small defeats: Govier's short stories

     Katherine Govier. The Immaculate Conception Photography Gallery (1994) The title story tells how professional photographer Sandro slides into doctoring photos, and eventually repents after a period of adding or removing people from group photos. A small defeat, but characteristic of the fates of Govier’s characters. It seems to me to be a Canadian characteristic, for Munro, Atwood, Garner, Mitchell etc all tell similar stories. Yet these defeats as often as not strengthen the characters. They have found their proper place in the scheme of things, and accepting that is a kind of victory.
     I enjoyed reading the book, but not enough to read it without interruptions. Worth a look if you find a copy. The title refers to Sandro’s shop, which he has named after the nearby church. **½

Econ 101: Why wage subsidies won’t bankrupt the country

A comment in response to the Financial Post’s worry about how much the wage subsidy program will cost. It was announced by Prime Minister Trudeau on 2020 03 30.

Since this is a wage subsidy program, most of the money will be used to pay for shelter, utilities, food, and transportation. Most of these dollars will generate sales tax revenue for  the Province (8% in Ontario) and/or the Federal government (5%) when spent.

But a dollar spent will be spent again. The consensus is that a dollar will be spent between five and seven times before all or part of it returns to the original spender. That means about 65 to 70% of the money will return to the governments.

In short, the wage subsidy will largely pay for itself. The question, “How much will the program cost?” misses the point.

Footnote: The Canadian government will provide wage subsidies of 75% on the first $59,400 of a person's wages. This will be available to all employers whose business has been impacted by covid-19. The Prime Minister also urged businesses to pay the additional 25%, and warned that any business trying to game the system will be dealt with. Many workers will eventually pay income tax on all or part of the wage subsidy.

Update 2020 03 31: My arithmetic is off, since food isn't taxed. So I estimate the payback in taxes at about 40 to 70%. However I haven't factored in the payback, financial and otherwise, of keeping the suppliers of food and transportation etc in business.