Superfreakonomics

For some, economics is merely a “dismal”, mathematical study of the economy, and there are undoubtedly academics and intellectuals who treat is as such, ruining a fascinating study for college freshman and sophomores everywhere. Levitt and Dubner, however, remind – or reveal to – us that economics is really a study of human psychology and behavior within the context of markets and market behavior (often, in it’s most popular applications, extrapolated to provide insight and forecasts). Although, in one my favorite short anecdote in Superfreakonomics, they suggest market behavior might not be unique to humans.

The authors begin the sequel by assuring readers that they waited until they collected enough data and anecdotes to live up to the first book. The bad news is that they don’t really succeed. The good news is that it’s still a thought provoking and enjoyable read.

There are certainly memorable, fascinating insights, but they are generally less provocative and surprising than the first go around. Often, they rely on provocative subject matter and amusing comparisons rather than provocative findings; the lengthy prostitution segment is a prime example. The terrorist profiling chapter, while genuinely fascinating, was distinguished more by the picayune and quirky comparison they define at the outset to hook the reader then any really shocking conclusions.

The book does seem to be more “solution” centric than it’s predecessor, offering prescriptions for many of the problems defined in the book (though that could just be a poor memory of the first book). But – especially in the case of the deservedly infamous global warming chapter – their confidence in their proposed solutions has an air of hubris and over simplification of non-economic trades.

The global warming chapter, generally panned and even challenged by their central human subject, diminishes the book the most. The cost / benefit  analysis of geoengineering and further manipulating the environment as a potentially cost effective means to address a costly problem is a worthwhile consideration, even if there is – again – an air of hubris to their solutions. But the very worthwhile discussion of geoengineering is mired in thinly veiled climate changed denialism, or at least, dismissal of those who demonstrate serious concern about the subject. They begin by suggesting there was once a big fear of global cooling; except it was never a widely held view or fear. Economist Paul Krugman pointed this (and other errors) out in a review; the authors responded by saying they never really said it was an equal fear. They even rehash the “environmentalism as a religion” nonsense I’ve only heard on right wing talk radio before reading the book.

I’m focusing a lot on the negatives, which is easy to do given the high bar set by the first book, and one chapter that generated the most controversy. I enjoyed Superfreakonomics, and recommend it. Just take the climate change chapter with a grain of salt,  and don’t expect the book to match its predecessor.

The story follows the same general formula Brown used in the other two Robert Langdon stories, The DaVinci Code and Angles & Demons – two favorites. Few authors can put me on the edge of my seat with the written (or spoken) word: certainly Stephen King tops that list, but Brown is not too far behind. Less terrifying, but nearly as riveting. Like its predecessors, the research apparent in the book is immensely impressive. I love the entire idea of Professor Langdon: a charismatic “hero” built on brains; a more authentic, believable Indiana Jones. And like all great fiction, the book sustains a feel of believability, and mixes it within enough smarts to leave the reader thinking.

A few other personal observations / reactions (avoiding spoilers):

• The book has many acts with very distinct textures. They all work, and the transitions are mostly smooth. In many ways, the range of emotions Brown shifts between is impressive.
• The latter acts have a considerably more epic feel that the earlier chapters, which felt a bit more Brown formulaic.
• The pop culture references – notably the iPhone and Twitter – made me smile. In one sense, they ground the book in “our” world and add to the story’s authenticity. On the other hand, they felt a bit forced, I worry they’ll date the book quickly.
• I predicted – or at least hypothesized – two major twists fairly early on (one involving a character’s identity, the other involving the true location of a mystery). The surprises were still “executed” brilliantly, and there were plenty I didn’t see coming.
• If I have any serious critique, it suffers a little from what I’ll coin 24 syndrome. The number of traumas the characters experience in a very short time frame detracts a bit from the believability. As I mentioned, Brown generally transition deftly between acts, but when you step back, the characters bounce back a bit too quickly from their experiences.

Despite my minor critiques, I enjoyed almost every moment of The Lost Symbol, and hope that I don’t have to wait 5 more years for my next Langdon adventure!