opposites and yet bizarrely connected: Freakonomics & Savage Girl

I don't usually combine two reviews in one blog, but I'm doing it this week and I think some explanation is due: I was recommended the book Savage Girl by Alex Shakar by one of my former student teachers. I just... could... not... do it. I tried. I even tried more than twice. Finally, I listened to my gut and gave up and I'll explain why later. After finishing the second book, Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, I realized that the two were connected in some weird, fate-twisting sort of way. The two books followed trends no one anticipated other than these trendspotters-- some being fictional characters in Savage Girl and the others were very real, live and had written Freakonomics.

It always strikes me as amusing when I realize that even books I detested still manage to mold and shape my view of the world, so even though I am sometimes exposed to images I'd like to remove (I prefer the image of Dumbledore pulling single thoughts out to view and discard), I'm stuck with them, for better or worse. Thus, I sometimes consciously choose to avoid certain movies & books with violent content (I like to argue that I have enough disturbing thoughts of my own that I don't need new negative images-- but I'm always open to new positive images).

With this said, Savage Girl hurt my soul and I had to stop the insanity. First off, when I first started Savage Girl, I hadn't expected to read an absurdity and in all fairness, I hate absurdity in writing. Don't waste my time. (Ahem, Kafka.) I already know life is absurd and the only thing I hate more in writing is an author who uses obscure vocabulary a lot. I love words, so I consider it abuse when I find myself saying, "wtf is that? I've never seen that word before" on every page. It's just annoying. I don't think I'm a master of vocabulary, but come on, I teach English and have a Master's and I'M saying THIS about the book? What does that mean for everyone else who reads it? Who in the hell IS enjoying it if I'm not willing to give it a try?

What's the story about in a nutshell? An aspiring trendspotter is learning the ropes from her pretentious trendspotting colleagues in a open-air work area. They're sitting on a dolphin sculpture and a volcano erupts in the urban center's background. Yes, there really is a volcano. I thought it was a metaphor at first, but my student teacher confirmed, "yes, it really is there and no, it's not a metaphor". This newbie trendspotter flashes back to conversations with her mentally disturbed sister and then she proposes to her colleagues that a new trend is a homeless girl who creates art in public places. The homeless girl looks essentially like a Neanderthal and the fellow trendspotter decides this girl-- the savage girl-- is something to be embraced and marketed. At this point I stopped reading. Why? The language was just not worth it. I didn't find the story compelling enough to continue. I'd spent over 20 pages and I was just annoyed on every page, so I finally let my logic get the better of me and decided to invest my time in something I did want to read...

I was at a loss at first because of the bitter taste in my mouth from Savage Girl, so I began to frantically look over my book shelves for something, anything, to cleanse my palate. Between my husband and I, we have at least 1000 books at home covering the range of Shakespeare to zombies (not counting the books I've bought and since taken to school to share with my students-- which is probably another 600+). I picked up a few different books and then remembered a conversation I'd had with a student earlier in the day about there not being a retirement plan for drug dealers... and I found my husband's copy of Freakonomics (sent to us by our good friend Sean). I wanted to be able to back up my argument about drug dealing with some text to solidify my argument (my husband Mark & my mother had told me about this particular chapter in the book). I'd had enough about hearing about the book secondhand, so again, I gave in to peer pressure.

I finished the book earlier today and then began to read the "extended edition" supplemental articles. Don't bother. After reading one and a half of these articles I realized they were just a regurgitation of the book and basically were just articles to praise Levitt's genius and his style. I did appreciate the bit of insight into Levitt's personal life, but then it seemed that the supplementals were just a way for Dubner to put his fingerprint on the process and to lend a bit of credibility to Levitt's methodology. Maybe I was being naive, but I didn't feel that these supplemental changed my opinion about Levitt's writings, but I could see where these articles might have been a nice introduction into Levitt's work. However, with these article following the main work I felt like I'd been served a nice steak and then been served a steak salad afterward (which I ditched because I was already full, thank you.)... it just felt unnecessary after the fact and it felt like cheap afterthought.

Ok, with all of the negative out of the way, Freakonomics (the steak portion that is), was fabulous. It was totally eclectic and recognized this-- which I appreciate. However, there was a common theme: facts to support strange happenings. This is where I was struck with the realization that the trendspotters written about as if they were futuristic, were actually alive and well in Freakonomics. Steven Levitt and his minions ARE those trendspotters. I say minions, because he does have what can best be described as a bit of a geeky, cult-following, who would be more than willing (based on descriptions within the supplementals and within his explanations) to help him come by more head-scratching data.

Within this installation of Freakonomics he proves that there IS incentive for teachers to cheat on standardized testing (which many educators keep citing as one reason why merit based pay involving testing is a TERRIBLE idea) and that sumo wrestlers had been cheating as well so that they could make bank. The next chapter told the history of the KKK and their downfall (which I thought was brilliant) and then he connected this group with real estate tactics. Third up was the chapter I was seeking out: drug dealers and why they live with their mommas. The next big topic was the U.S. crime drop of the 1990s (and since then) how it had to do with the Roe v. Wade's effects. On the flip side of the spectrum, in Romania, an abortion ban actually resulted in the children from this ban overthrowing the leader who instituted the ban (Ceausescu), resulting in some ridiculous irony. The book then finished up with parenting issues and how little (or much) parents affect their children's lives and prospect.

I particularly enjoyed how Levitt used a spiral method of teaching about his topics. He'd teach a bit, seemingly go off-track, and then he'd tie the topics back together. He also used a lot of non-fictional foreshadowing, which I can appreciate. I always like it when someone give me a heads-up about the direction the data will be going, but then that person lets the data prove itself so that I'm not posed for a fight by the time the conclusion comes because the data was all neatly laid out and already anticipated the areas of concern. Levitt also lets readers know where there may have been anticipated weaknesses in the argument and this allows the reader to feel more comfortable because this vulnerability builds the sense of trust between the author and the reader. I knew I was hooked when I asked my husband if it was ok to write in the book. Would I recommend this? Yes, to all parties except someone who might like Savage Girl. (Ok, I would even recommend it to this person in order to try to convert him or her.) I also found myself thinking that Freakonomics might even lend well for teaching because of the controversy about each of the topics. I think there could be some great class discussions and paper topics to come out of the randomness and methodology Levitt presented.