Tag Archives: writing

The Man Who Saw Everything, a Booker Prize long-listed novel by Deborah Levy

Leave a reply

Blurb quotes on the Kindle edition and a few reviews I’ve found online say this novel is about history, totalitarianism, the nature of love.  A time-bending sort of post-modernist Zelig meets the Hallmark Channel.  Which is not what I found in the reading of it; not at all.

I do get the time-bending comment: with sections introduced by chapters titled London, September 1988, East Berlin, September 1988 and London, June 2016  but passages within each of those wherein protagonist Saul Adler seems not to know which time period he is in.  That effect is subtle though, until, in what we are given to believe is 1988, Saul says he noticed “a small, flat, rectangular object” lying in the road and, a few moments later, that “The object was speaking.  There was definitely a voice inside it…”  As confirmed later, we readers recognize that object as a cell phone; but not of any type that would have existed in 1988.

A few chapters later, while speaking with his lover Walter in Berlin and still in 1988, Saul foretells him of the fall of the Soviet Union, toppling of Berlin’s wall and collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowhere does Levy explain this prophecy as result of magic, time travel, or anything else.  The incident is just dryly related, and the reader left to puzzle.  Other anomalies follow, at first few and far between but then more frequent until, by the final chapters, Saul has clearly come unmoored from the present and is adrift among all the times he’s lived, and all their places and events.

One possible wink from the author: Jennifer’s highly regarded and financially successful art photography is described as being all about damage, distortion and breaking images into random parts and pieces – just as memory disrupts and rearranges our recall of the past.

Throughout, even as Saul’s language suggests he is narrating events in the present tense there seem to be jumps and skips between paragraphs, incidents, even lines. Descriptive passages tend toward the skeletal: rather than fulsome observations connected to a situation, we get tiny scraps of setting, one odd bit here, another unrelated and seemingly insignificant bit there.  Much the way old memories may consist only of whichever odd details lodged most deeply in the archive, rather than the organized observations one would consider worth noting while inside the situation.

Eventually, Saul is hospitalized and terminally ill (though no one ever identifies a specific malady) and we hear those around him patronizing, papering over his misidentification of doctors as characters from his past.  At which point it seems certain that Saul is suffering from dementia.  Which realization, considering those odd anomalies earlier on, led me to conclude with somewhat less certainty that the entire novel from start to finish consists of his dementia-altered memories. Initially these track somewhat closely with real events and linear time but later, as his illness progresses, the recollections become peppered with progressively more holes, more starts, stops and doubling back until, in the last, he jumbles every time and place and person together. ‘Seeing everything,’ as the title suggests, but all at once,. This  climaxes as Saul recalls/imagines himself crossing Abbey Road in a scene which has been recounted several times over the novel’s course, varying each time but always ending in an mid-road collision. In this final instance, Saul makes it all the way across the road and reaches out to take the outstretched hand of Luna, another lover from his youth who went missing in Berlin back in 1989 and never resurfaced.  Never, that is, until this last ‘crossing over’ moment of Saul’s addled (hence the surname Adler?) memory/imagining.

I have no direct knowledge what was the author’s intent; it’s quite possible that I’m misreading things altogether. I readily admit dryness and nonlinearity of this Booker Prize long-list honoree are not my native terrain; it may all be above my comprehension.  For this reader, though, the political or sociological commentary which others seem to find here feel peripheral, more context than theme.  What I do strongly connect to is the intensely personal portrait of a mind going to pieces due to some form of progressive age-related dementia.

If one is up for that, The Man Who Saw Everything has much to offer. 

P.S. – speaking of going to pieces, the new novel E Unum Pluribus, is currently available online, in six free installments.

Packed with intrigue and fueled by politics, economics and murder (as well as gender, class, language and even the origins of faith), E Unum Pluribus imagines how the USA’s current ‘culture wars’ may bring about its end, and the chaos of smaller sovereignties which might rise from ro replace it. 

Anyone can read this novel totally for free simply by navigating to the home page of this website and selecting E Unum Pluribus from the top menu, or via this link: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

Getting to Binary

1 Reply

(The novel, E Unum Pluribus, is narrated by Jack Shirley, an office intern whose gender behavior doesn’t always fit the expectations common in contemporary Amero-European culture.  Anticipating that Jack’s character may arouse comment, this is one in a series of posts sharing the author’s thoughts around those expectations.)

The previous post on this website* – If Gender Ain’t Sex, What is it? – made the case that every individual human presents a unique array of gender cues in varying degrees, that those cues do not result directly from the specific anatomical features which are considered to determine the sex of each human, and that it is very common – and entirely ‘normal’ – that some individuals’ expression of some gender cues falls within a range casually regarded as indicating ‘the opposite sex.’

Why, then, do so many institutions and practices (at least in the English-speaking world) continue to observe the convention that every human belongs to one or the other of only two human genders, fixed at birth and mutually exclusive? 

One (generous) reason: framing any issue as a binary choice between opposites simplifies the viewer’s life, reduces a possibly baffling array of choices and generally avoids the work of treating unique instances differently to suit their differences. 

It would be quite possible, for example, to frame all discussion of daily timing purely in terms of the dark time and the light time.  I’ll meet you in the light, or I’ll meet you when its dark.  I woke up in the light or, or if it was earlier, I woke up in the dark. Perfectly true, but not very useful.  Even without resorting to clocks and timekeeping, it would be a whole lot more useful to refine things a little by adding words like sunrise, sunset, dawn and dusk. Still, there would be instances where dark and light are not as consistent as all that.  A moonless night is clearly part of the dark time, but I’ve been out at 3 AM under a full moon and once my eyes adjusted, it was definitely more light than dark.  A great opportunity, in fact, for performing some ‘daytime’ activities before the sun gets too hot.

Speaking of a hot sun, how about the rainbow world of color?  Despite the ability of the human eye to distinguish between at least a million colors, artists and designers sometimes simplify them all and speak of just the ‘warm’ colors and the ‘cool’ ones.  Thousands of shades of red, yellow, orange and such are ‘warm,’ blues and greens and all the rest are ‘cool.’  No need to mess with scores of pesky names like carmine, maroon, egplant, ultramarine, cobalt, cadmium, peach, chartreuse and American Flag blue. So much more efficient, so much potential wasted.

Or age: one could define all persons up to and including some arbitrary age as ‘young’ (I’d pick 74, but you might choose another number…) and everyone over that as ‘old.’  Simple, convenient, with no gradations, no ‘sort of,’ but not very useful or true, given how differently individuals age and perform.  Intelligence?  Anyone with an IQ of 134 or higher is a ‘genius,’ anyone with a lower score is ‘dumb.’  Politics?  “Anyone to the ‘left’ of me is a communist, anyone not to the left of me is right” – in both senses…

The point is: you can turn any observable phenomenon into a binary by ignoring or defining-away all the things that make it more complex.  Any such simplification though, reduces options, misses possible benefits of more complete understanding and works against the inherent variability (freedom) of whatever or whoever is being binaried. Except in the very few cases where such brutal efficiency is truly required (separating the many species of wild mushrooms into ‘deadly’ and ‘non-deadly’ ones, for example), it leads mostly to WFA (waste, fraud and abuse).

Which is the case with our traditional binary gender system. Its survival depends upon us all ignoring the many differences between individual men and between individual women as well as the many characteristics which some or all men have in common with some or all women (and vice versa) in return for the simplicity of treating every person as a member of one or the other blunt and arbitrary category. Aside from the mental labor of constantly deciding what to see and what to pretend not to see, this process causes confusion and pain and reduces the achievement potential of all those individuals who do not closely conform to other persons’ ideas of what is ‘normal’ for a man or a woman. 

Another (and less-generous) reason:

As the examples in the third paragraph above suggest, whenever humans posit a binary distinction, it eventually results in one binary being considered the default; superior, preferable or, in any of a thousand other ways, the better of the two.

Day is preferable to night, to the extent that most of us choose to sleep through much of the latter.  Being young is widely preferred over being old, intelligence over its lack, and being right about anything is way better than being wrong (once one defines away the possibility of both sides being partly correct and partly mistaken). As to the human genders, libraries have been written and voices driven hoarse pointing out the many ways in which gender stereotypes and practices premiate ‘men’s’ activities and achievements over those of ‘women.’

Separate but equal is no more attainable an outcome in human gender than it ever was (or is) in relations between those considered to be of different races.

So…what’s your solution?

It is not at all difficult to imagine a language which recognizes the complexity of human gender.  A person born with a penis but who exhibits sufficient characteristics considered suitable for a woman might choose to be called a ‘male woman.’  A person born with a vagina but who exhibits characteristics considered to be inconsistent with womanhood might choose to be called a ‘feman.’  An intellectual who expends little energy on personal appearance, the search for a romantic partner or popular spectator sport culture in order to focus on their own scientific interests (think the character Sheldon, on TV’s the Big Bang Theory, for example, or the character of Amy from the same show), might self-identify first as a ‘geek’ or ‘nerd’ and let others worry about the man or woman part.  I’ve heard individuals of either gonadotype refer to themselves as ‘queer’ in apparent rejection of gender-box-ification.

Easy as that may seem, such typing is too often imposed by others in order to ridicule or discriminate against gender offenders. It also runs the risk of multiplying genders endlessly or encouraging ‘identity group’ politics, a no-no in today’s culture-war environment.  Better to allow any such alternative gender identities to grow slowly and organically from the desires of their members and so facilitate pride in their alternative identification. Much as the use of ‘gay’ grew from that community’s coalescence, or as I’ve read some non-hetero female writers use ‘fem’ and ‘butch’ in non-derisive reference to particular members of their community.

Another approach – encouraging users of the English language to utilize non-gendered pronouns (E, em, eir, or similar) whenever an individual’s gender preference is not definitively known – can be a big step toward acknowledging and freeing up the infinite variety of human nature and gender expression – a good start on getting away from the binary.

P. S. – E Unum Pluribus is a speculative fiction exploring one way in which our current ‘culture wars’ may bring an end to the U. S. A., and what might come in its wake. With a thrilling plot driven by politics and economics (as well as gender, class, language and even the origins of faith) the novel is currently being serialized online and anyone can read it, at no cost, by navigating to home page of this website and selecting E Unum Pluribus from the top menu, or via this link: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

Please feel free to share this post as widely as you like

If you like what you read here at robinandrew.net, please subscribe. It’s Free!

Opening Image: author photograph of Torso of Standing Buddha, AD 618-906, Tang Dynasty, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, UK

*Previous post: https://robinandrew.net/2026/08/28/if-gender-aint-sex-what-is-it/

If Gender Ain’t Sex, What is it?

1 Reply

(The novel, E Unum Pluribus, is narrated by Jack Shirley, an office intern whose gender behavior doesn’t always fit the expectations common in contemporary Amero-European culture.  Anticipating that Jack’s character may arouse comment, this is one in a series of posts to share the author’s thoughts around those expectations. Caution: this one gets a bit long…)

A previous post* suggested, given that the vast majority of social interactions do not afford us the opportunity to know what reproductive cells any individual’s organs produce (the recent Presidential definition of ‘sex’), nor whether they have a penis or a vagina (the more common and time-tested way of differentiating the sexes) nor (in deference to current anti-trans sentiments) what their genitals may have looked like at the time of their birth (a particularly difficult standard to meet, in any normal social situation!), it is very rare that we actually and definitively know the sex of any person we may meet.

That post went on to comment that the common practice of calling some persons men and some women (as opposed to male and female) is really based not on sex but on gender, the wide range of visual, audible, or other cues that we presume to be consistent with the sex we cannot actually identify. 

Herewith, a (very) abbreviated list of some of the cues which are available in social contexts and so may be incorporated as we make our presumptions of sex (starting, for no critical reason, from top and running towards bottom):

Length of the hair on one’s head – and its style of cut, neatness/carelessness

Whether that hair is obviously bleached or colored

Whether it interferes with range of vision, or is artificially held in position (clips, spray…)

Pattern of visible hair loss (if any; though this can be obscured by corrective measures)

Earrings (none, one or two or more; fixed in place or changeable; size, shape, color, material…)

Size and shape of head

Ditto, of face

Ditto, of eyes

Ditto, of eyebrows and whether they appear to have been plucked, waxed or otherwise altered

Ditto, of nose

Ditto, of lips, and their color (whether natural, or artificial)

Wearing of cosmetics/make-up – how much, how ‘natural,’ dramatic – or plausibly deniable.

Presence, extent and appearance of body hair on face, legs, chest, arms, armpits, nostrils, ears, groin…and whether that is flaunted, hidden, styled, removed or simply never spoken about

Presence of tattoos – size, location, extent, content – as well as piercings or other body modifications

Noticeability of laryngeal prominence (‘Adam’s Apple’)

Pitch, tone, softness etc. of voice, not to mention word choice, emotional content of speech…

Width of shoulders (relative to chest, hips etc.)

Thickness of arms (is the person ‘pumped,’ ‘skinny,’ ‘flabby,’ or ‘undeveloped’…)

Size and/or slenderness of hands and fingers, visible veins on back of hands

How carefully fingernails are trimmed, filed and cleaned (or not!) and to what curvature

Presence of paint or polish on said fingernails

Convexity of the chest (flat, not flat, prominent; in near-infinite variations and degrees)

Color, fabric, pattern of whatever clothes cover the upper body (shirt, blouse, tunic, crop, tank…)

Size and location of fasteners on such clothes

Tailoring of such clothes (sleeve length and cuff style, collar style, cut full or fitted, cut short to expose midriff, or tailored long to cover hips; tucked or untucked….)

Types, amount, styles and weightiness of jewelry

Slenderness of waist, relative to other body parts

Location of waist (high, thanks to long legs and a short torso, or low due to short legs and long torso) though this is often disguised or manipulated high- or low-waisted clothes

Prominence, or not, of ‘belly’

Location and proportions of belly or abdominal bulk

Width of hips/butt relative to waist and shoulders.

Shape and ‘fullness’ of derriere (butt)

Wearing clothes that cover each leg separately (pants) or together (skirt, dress, robe, gown, toga, sarong, thobe, kilt, gho, dhoti, kimono, boubou, djellaba, shalwar kameez, etc.).

Whether footwear is traditionally functional, or whimsically decorative and ‘impractical’

Height of shoe heels (cowboy boots being an exception to the usual  interpretation of this)

Paint or polish on toe nails

And, abandoning the head-to-toe geography, a few more generalized gender distinguishers:

Dressed in clothes that look practical/durable/rugged, or obviously decorative (‘frivolous’)

Wearing an ‘outfit’ (meaning multiple items of the same fabric and color, or items carefully and obviously selected to create a nameable ‘look’)

(Other than a man’s business suit, which is very carefully regimented and strategized and certainly intended to convey a certain ‘look’ and image, but would never be called ‘an outfit’ by the sort of men who habitually don it)

Posture (shoulders or hips forward? head high or neck bent? spine straight or curved?)

Gait (long or short strides, quick or leisurely, bowlegged, pigeon-toed, bounding, ‘mincing,’ marching…)

How one sits or crosses one’s legs – a man-spread vs. an aspirin between the knees look

Default facial expression – open and welcoming, serious, wary, challenging, belligerent…

Engaged in an activity or occupation commonly thought of as manly or feminine, serious or frivolous, rowdy or refined, graceful or violent, ‘productive’ or ‘women’s work.’

Smelling sweetly of perfume/cologne

Or, less sweetly, of sweat, waste, food or beverage, poor hygiene or simple lack of the economic means to avoid odors

Exposing the flesh of one’s legs, arms, shoulders or more in any but an athletic situation (acceptable and even encouraged for females even in very formal settings, but highly unacceptable for males in those very same settings)

So? (you may well ask).

Clearly, that list can go on almost without end, but the above examples seem sufficient to illustrate that, as much as we regularly employ such cues to classify individuals as ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ and also, very importantly, to critique individuals for not behaving ‘like a man’ or ‘like a woman,’ none of these cues are actually direct consequences of the form (or function) of a person’s reproductive organs. 

And, given the number of such cues, it is virtually impossible that any two individuals will exhibit exactly the same variation on every cue (except perhaps, identical twins dressing identically and acting identically as a prank; an exception which actually helps illustrate the validity of the rule in every other case).  Even uniformed personnel and incarcerated persons – or performers in a chorus line – who are required to dress uniformly and follow uniform rules for hair, jewelry, cosmetics, etc., are readily distinguished from one another by various gender cues.

Oh, and:

Many of these cues are exhibited and/or interpreted differently by individuals of different racial or ethnic heritage

Many of these cues are exhibited and/or interpreted differently by persons from different cultures, locales, native languages and even political leanings

Many of these cues are, or have been, interpreted differently by persons of different generations, or historical periods

Those statements are true despite the relatively slow pace of natural biological evolution giving assurance that the form and function of male and female sexual organs do not differ significantly from one heritage, culture or time period to another, so those differences of expression and interpretation cannot be dictated by what we say governs one’s sex.  Though expressions of gender cues may very well be chosen in conscious or subconscious effort to appear as one sex or the other; such choices would be entirely unnecessary if one’s actual sex was as apparent and binary as we are conditioned to presume.

Further, for each such cue, there exists a wide range of variance among males, and also a wide range of variance among females and one can readily identify persons who otherwise appear to be men, but whose expression of a particular cue falls within the range of variance exhibited by females for same. Conversely, one could readily identify persons who otherwise appear to be women, but whose expression of a particular cue falls within the range of variance exhibited by males.

For those reasons and more, identifying any number of ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ cues given out by any individual can, at best, influence one’s perception of the likelihood that that individual is male or female but none of these cues, by themselves or in combination, are actually reliable proof of any individual’s biological sex

To the extent any publicly available cues reveal anything at all about an individual, it is their gender, not their sex and given the number of possible cues and the variations in how each individual exhibits or interprets each of those cues over time, the reality is that there are not two genders – one exclusively manly and the other exclusively womanly and each fixed at birth and separate from the other – but as many genders as there are individuals.

(If not more, since one’s expressions of many such cues naturally varies from day to day and over a lifetime!)

Thus, ‘non-binary’ is far more than a woke label for some newly-invented identity group of persons who intentionally violate gender norms.

In the most basic sense, ‘non-binary’ is what all humans are.  It is part and parcel of being an individual.  Every one of us embodies, consciously or not, our own unique blend of gender cues and characteristics.  Acknowledging that, and allowing for it in our language, laws, polices and behaviors towards one another is a prerequisite to allowing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all.

It’s time to slay the gender binary!

*Previous post: Humans Got Gender!  7/27/2026, https://nobodysays2025.substack.com/publish/post/203904286

Image: author photograph of a statue of St. George, The Dragon Slayer, taken in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, France.

P. S. – E Unum Pluribus is a speculative fiction exploring one way in which our current ‘culture wars’ may bring an end to the U. S. A., and what might come in its wake. With a thrilling plot driven by politics and economics (as well as gender, class, language and even the origins of faith) the novel is currently being serialized online and anyone can read it, at no cost, by navigating to home page of this website E Unum Pluribus from the top menu, or via this link: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

e ain’t Woke – (You can’t diversify, equitize or inclusive-ize what you don’t first label).

Leave a reply

Between a recent post emphasizing the distinction between a person’s ‘sex’ and that same person’s ‘gender’*, the earlier post entitled ‘e is an Enabler’**, and a few passages in the novel E Unum Pluribus, (currently being serialized online, for free***) it’s possible some readers might dismiss this site as just one more hotebed of Identity Politics; the tyranny of a woke liberal elite telling everyone else what to do and say and even think…

First off, labelling every person all the time as either a man/boy or a woman/girl and insisting that those labels are eternal, unchangeable and mutually exclusive – as our current Chief Executive attempted to due shortly after assuming office for the second time –  has got to be the most profound and ubiquitous instance of Identity Politics in history! 

Across uncountable generations, geography and cultures, such gender identification has served as excuse to apportion rights differently to the genders (almost always to the detriment of women…), to justify unequal treatment (ditto), to write laws (wives classified as the property of husbands, women unable to inherit and restricted in travel, dress, voting, etc.) to justify unequal prosecution, judgement and sentencing for affronts against a man versus the same affront committed on a woman, and on and on.  On that basis alone, anyone who professes to believe in stamping out ‘diversity,’ ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’ (DEI) because they result in unequal treatment on the basis of identity should be totally on board with using non-gendered language for all official purposes.

That last phrase, ‘official purposes,’ highlights another important point: nothing written here suggests or advocates that people stop using gendered pronouns entirely.  There are plenty of instances where ‘he’, ‘she,’ ‘him,’ her’ and all their derivatives are useful and convenient because the desired gender identity of a subject person is a known fact or has been made abundantly clear by the subject’s voluntary choices and acts.

True as that is, though, it is also true that there are instances where the gender self-identity of a subject is not readily determinable except by an observer applying their own stereotypes, prejudices or preconceptions. For those instances, the use of non-gendered pronouns (e, em eir and so on, or something similar) is a simple and effective way to avoid the ‘woke’-ness of sorting individuals into identity groups and treating them differently as consequence. 

Even as English-language speakers continue to use gendered language in many or even most instances, there is real freedom and justice to be gained by using non-gendered language when drafting laws and policies whose intent/content do not truly depend upon a person’s gender expression (which is very nearly all laws and policies, really).  And also, to use such non-gendered language whenever one does not yet know the gender self-image of a person or where a person has made clear that e does not choose to conform to the ‘gender’ stereotypes of others. This small addition to our quiver of words is actually a worthy way to avoid and reduce Identity Politics.

Using ‘e’ ain’t woke, it’s a path to more effective communication, an enabler of individual freedom and simply one tiny increment in the ongoing and perpetual evolution of perhaps the most useful tool we’ve inherited from generations before us: the English language.

*Humans Got Gender, https://robinandrew.net/2026/06/28/humans-got-gender/

**’e’ is an Enabler, https://robinandrew.net/2026/03/01/e-is-an-enabler/

*** E Unum Pluribus is speculative fiction, and a warning that states’ rights, religious nationalism and intentionally divisive political tactics may soon bring about the end of what George Washington termed the American nation’s “Great Experiment.”  Shining its light on what we stand to lose if we do not come together, what could rise in its place and what it would take to begin repairing the damage, this cry of alarm is currently being serialized online and is available to anyone, for free by navigating to the homepage of robinandrew.net and selecting E Unum Pluribus frmthe home page’s top menu, or via the following link:

Feel free to share this post as widely as you wish and, if youlike what you read here, please subscribe to robinandrew.net – it’s totally free!

‘Farewell to the Troops’?  Don’t bet on it!

Leave a reply

Heather Cox Richardson used her newsletter on this year’s Flag Day to remind us all just how tenuous was the Continental Army’s 1783 victory over the larger and more established British forces. Her comments on General George Washington’s leadership bring up another momentous and improbable triumph which was crucial to our nation’s founding: Washington’s choice a few months later to voluntarily resign his leadership of the army and with it the near-certain opportunity to have reigned as autocrat over the territories he had done so much to free from Kingly rule. 

By that act of humility and principle, he granted the newly-ex colonies critical time to mature into what the USA has been – imperfectly but earnestly – until very recently: a nation of the people, governed for the people by the people’s chosen representatives.

Many watching today fear we shall not see such a transition to representative rule when the current administration’s tenure ends in January 2029.  A man who has deceptively denied the results of one election and appeared to encourage his followers attempt to overthrow its result, who seems to regularly ignore the rule of law and aggrandizes his own birthday through a grotesquerie of brutality, defacing a landmark of which he is at most temporary steward, is unlikely to accept even the clearest electoral defeat with graciousness, humility or respect for tradition, law and Constitution. 

Such a man cannot be trusted to follow in the footsteps of one like General – later, President – George Washington. 

E Unum Pluribus is a speculative fiction exploring one way in which a President’s determination to hold onto power might play out and just how extensive the resulting damage might be.  The novel was written and is offered as a cautionary tale, while there is still time to avoid anything like the events it imagines. 

To those ends, E Unum Pluribus is currently being serialized online and anyone can read it, at no cost, by navigating to the home page of this website and selecting E Unum Pluribus from the page’s top menu, or via this link: https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

The Beardless Warriors, by Richard Matheson

Leave a reply

Didn’t recognize the author by name when I saw this paperback on the ‘Free’ shelf, only later learned he was the author of ‘I Am Legend,’ ‘The Incredible Shrinking Man,’ and ‘What Dreams May Come;’ all successful popular novels also turned into movies.  No, what drew me in was that Matheson had been among the many eighteen-year-old reinforcement troops sent to join U. S. infantry units as they moved into German territory in December of 1945 – which puts him in spitting distance and time of my father, who was also eighteen when he reported for duty, was trained, shipped over and served in combat until being seriously injured on April 11,1945, less than a month before the end of fighting in Europe.  Matheson took fifteen years to get this ‘memoir in the form of a novel’ (my characterization) written and published, so nearly as many years as those reinforcements were granted before being committed to the battlefield, and the time was well spent.  Despite my having previously read several other battlefield memoir/history/fictions, this one elevated by an order of magnitude my attempts to imagine what that experience must have felt like. 

From the first sentence, Matheson tells his story almost breathlessly, plunging the reader directly into the experiences of one Everett Hackermeyer, a motherless child and nearly fatherless too, with little to live for and few tools to do so.  We see the confusion and futility of war from his perspective and feel the importance of his developing relationship with a much older (all of thirty-eight years-old!) Sergeant, a no-nonsense nuts and bolts leader who has learned and accepted the hard truth that no matter how well he performs, many men will die under his command.  As is often prominent in memoirs of Vietnam, we see how senseless the orders from on high appear to those who must follow them – war, for an infantryman, is not geopolitical or strategic, it is only struggle. At times it seems the only thing that changes from day to day is the rolling succession of squad members, as one after another are injured or killed, replaced (though not in the same numbers at this late stage) and their replacements in turn are inducted and ground up by the coincidence and accident of chaotic violence.

The novel’s action covers only a couple of weeks, all centered on moving a few short miles to take seemingly one unimportant town, which could have made for monotony, but Matheson is a champ at finding new and creative words to describe similar battle scenes and the dull and dyspeptic interludes between them.  Hackermeyer’s evolving knowledge and emotions also give each skirmish the specificity to feel new. Approaching novel’s end the author gives us a skirmish only slightly more significant than the preceding ones, but with personal incidents that make it satisfyingly climactic, even as the reader understands that the hell these men have been living will go on and on until the day that awful war ends, even if they are lucky enough to live to see it.

It has been said that the experience of being in combat cannot be communicated to those who have not lived it, and I don’t doubt that that is true. The Bearded Warriors though, makes more progress in that direction than anything else I’ve encountered, helping me to understand (now that it is years too late) what my father must have experienced and how it probably transformed the bright-eyed young man he had been into the tightly controlled and deeply insulated veteran I knew as I was growing up.

Surviving battle is not the same thing as coming through unscathed.

This novel is a definite keeper and deserves to be read by anyone who claims that fighting for even the most just cause is a path to glory.

P. S. – As America’s leaders seek drama and ‘glory’ in wars of their own creation, the thrilling speculative fiction E Unum Pluribus explores one way in which their winner-take-all governance may bring about the end of the USA – and how very much we stand to lose if we allow that. The novel is currently being serialized online and anyone can read it, for free, starting at https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/01/e-unum-pluribus/

(Those who are wary of unfamiliar links can access it just by going to robinandrew.net and clicking on E Unum Pluribus in the menu at top of the home page.) 

The Winter Soldier, Daniel Mason

Leave a reply

A masterful work that rewards the stout-hearted reader.  Set in the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the First World War, the narrative vividly evokes the cold, hunger, pain and desolation of a nearly-forgotten military aid station serving the Russian front.  Despite having trained in the academics of medicine, Lucius Krzelewski, son of Polish aristocrat industrialists relocated to Vienna after their nation was absorbed into the Empire, is totally unprepared to help the maimed, sick, starved and addled soldiers for whom he is suddenly responsible.  Only the patience and wisdom of the station’s one nurse, Sister Margarete, allows him to fake it till he can make it.  All the while, the front lines advance and retreat, supplies are unpredictable and violence can erupt at any moment. 

Thrown together under such circumstances, it seems ordained by the god of literature that Lucius and Margarete will become attracted to one another, though it is only after a tragic episode involving Horvath, a patient suffering extreme mental distress for which Lucius feels he is close to achieving a breakthrough, that they are drawn to act on their attraction. And, in true romantic fashion, are soon separated, leading Lucius to spend the next several years trying to reunite with Margarete among the chaos first of war, then its aftermath. 

As the novel’s end approaches, it seems Mason is steering Lucius toward a joyous reunion with his loved one but then, in literally the last three pages, he flips the table and crafts an ending which replaces conventional confection with a much superior concoction of wisdom, insight and generosity.

(Spoiler alert:  Lucius himself christens the patient Horvath a “winter soldier,” but later, as his own troubling memories and nightmares – what we today might label PTSD – plague him and isolate him from the comfortable society to which he has returned, it seems he could as well be the titular character.  By story’s end though, one wonders if Margarete is not the true ‘winter soldier,’ the one who has campaigned longest, hardest, most courageously and most selflessly to ameliorate the damage war can do.  In fact, one can even frame this as a feminist novel; all those boastful arrogant males waging war for to salve their egos while, nearly unnoticed, women care endlessly for children, husbands, fathers, rulers, nations.  When we learn Margarete has birthed a child after the war, we are reminded that through all the deadly deprivation of that wilderness aid station, she was also managing her own monthly cycle – discretely, without modern ‘products,’ complaint, days off or even allowing her discomfort to show.  ‘The weaker sex,’ indeed.)

Throughout, Mason demonstrates an exhaustive knowledge of the period, its medicine (he is a physician himself, but a modern one….), warfare in a far-away corner of northeastern Europe, intricacies of the era’s railway network and more.  At times verging near to distraction, this detail ultimately gives his narrative the authenticity and credentials to hold the reader’s attention while he builds our emotional connection to Lucius and Margarete.

Again, masterful.  This is not a book for every reader, but for those willing to weather its painful realties, ample rewards await.  I’m holding on tightly to my copy of Daniel Mason’s The Winter Soldier.

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction about a very different time and place and another government serving its own interests rather than those of its people.   The novel is currently being serialized digitally at no charge and you can be among the first to read it by navigating to this site’s home page and scrolling down to the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus’ or just select the item of that same name in the top menu.  Any way you get there, it’s totally free!

If you like what you read here at robinandrew.net, feel free to share any posts as widely as possible. And consider subscribing, it’s totally free!

‘e’ is an Enabler

Leave a reply

(aka, Taking our genitalia off the table)

A previous post (‘Novel Words – fictional pronouns for the actual future.’ *) explored the concept of a non-gendered singular pronoun, ‘e’, to supplement our familiar ‘he’ and ‘she.’  Fortuitously, a recent article on the perils of AI suggested another way to frame the case.

With ‘he’ and ‘she’ as our English language’s only widely-accepted singular pronouns (‘they’ carrying the stain of wokeness upon its back in addition to its confusion with the plural and ‘it’ being generally received as an insult whether or not intended as such), alongside the predominant conversational practice of using gender terms (‘man’ and ‘woman’) as if they were synonymous with the bio-sexual (‘male‘ and ‘female’), any inquisitive consideration of gender is pre-emptively shipwrecked on the issue of whether each particular individual carries around a penis or a vagina. 

Thus, perhaps the simplest and most cogent reason to encourage the use of a gender free singular pronoun such as ‘e’: it enables us to discuss gender issues without the need to pin-down (ouch!) anyone’s genitalia. 

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new speculative fiction with its own take on where the current culture wars may be leading our nation, and how even tragic events can spawn new possibilities for the future.    The novel is currently being serialized on this site and you can be among the first to read its opening pages in the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus.’  

E Unum Pluribus

If you like what you read here at robinandrew.net, please share any posts as widely as possible – and consider subscribing: it’s totally free!

* https://robinandrew.net/2026/01/26/novel-words-fictional-pronouns-for-the-actual-future/

** ‘Open Ai is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made. I quit.’ Opinion section, N.Y. Times online edition, 2026-02-11   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/opinion/openai-ads-chatgpt.html

The Mission – The CIA in the 21st Century

Leave a reply

Read this book!

Version 1.0.0

Admirably demonstrating the value of professional journalism, The Mission is factual, detailed, incisive and – despite being a nearly 400-page history of a government agency – thrilling. With more than one hundred participants interviewed, many verifiable sources and its most critical opinions credited to persons who clearly have both the knowledge and the background to deserve being heard, this is an authoritative accounting of a very complex subject. 

Having previously written Legacy of Ashes to chronicle the first 53 years of ‘The Agency,’ as the CIA is colloquially known, Weiner begins the new millennium on a downbeat, depicting an Agency whose capabilities were sadly ignored and unmaintained once the Soviet Union collapsed.  Deprived of the purpose and challenges which had pushed it to excellence (and sometimes overreach…) ever since it sprung from the seeds of WWII espionage to meet the needs of the old War, the CIA in 2000 was not held in great respect either inside the government or among the public. So little respected, we learn, that the shiny new Bush2 administration refused to listen when Director George Tenant presented substantial indications that Al Qaeda had something big planned, soon, and pleaded for authority to eliminate him before it could happen. To his great frustration, and the even greater losses of others, that plea was ignored – in early 2001!

Like a speed bump beneath all the smoke, dust and debris of the 9/11 attacks, political leadership quickly passed over their own failure to comprehend, instantly deciding The Agency was a great tool for what they conceived as their own brainstorm – the War on Terror.  That effort, which had already been one of the Agency’s areas of focus for decades, would become the public reason for much of its activity over the next 25 years. 

Using sourced quotations for section titles such as “We were all making it up as we went along,” “The U.S. didn’t want peace.  We wanted the war on terror,” and “We have to say Iraq has WMD,” Weiner quickly arrives at one of this central themes: a continual conflict between The Agency’s focus on providing the most useful and reliable information it can glean out of hostile environments versus politicians’ desire for sound bites to serve their pre-determined policies (at best) and (not infrequently) their emotional needs.  Unsurprisingly, CIA staffers from that era are harshly critical of the Bush2 administration and Weiner is cogent in describing how intelligence was ignored or actively misused in order to justify a doomed Iraq invasion to which the President and his team appear to have been fully committed from at least November 2001, if not earlier.

Even as The Agency is bent to serve debatable ends, Weiner gives us many tales of dedicated agents serving honorably; one standout being that of Tom Sylvester, who led a ten-person team into northern Iraq to prepare the ground for the Bush/Cheney invasion. An Arabic-speaking ex-Naval special forces operator, he took great personal risks to forge links with Kurdish forces, Sufi mystics and others, produced intelligence direct from Saddam’s highest ranks and closest advisors to guide invasion planning.  Sylvester would go on to lead the Agency’s clandestine services two decades later, under very different challenges.

Another eye-opening episode is related in Chapter Ten, ‘A Beautiful Operation.’  Having heard over many years that Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan was known to have shopped nuclear weapons secrets around the world, I’d always been curious how he got away with it. Answer: he didn’t; at least not for long.  Weiner describes how, learning from a 1920’s sting played by the Soviet ‘Cheka’ spy agency against Russians who had fled the USSR, the CIA created their own front companies to do fake business with Khan, eventually penetrating his facilities and dealings sufficiently to have him arrested, tried and convicted. Moreover, where a quick drone strike could have eliminated Khan sooner but allowed his proliferation efforts to continue, their smart and patient approach allowed them to also roll up associates and customers, completely destroying his operation and drastically diminishing the danger of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of people like Muamar Gaddafi, and Osama Bin Laden.  A service to humanity that required the Agency’s characteristic willingness to use dishonest means in order to further admirable ends which, Weiner notes, is a fundamental and unavoidable characteristic of all espionage.  

The successful pursuit and eventual killing of Bin Laden is treated in detail of course, as are the waterboarding scandal and other episodes not so laudable.  As we approach 2016 though, the tone of this history changes considerably, from one of challenges and ambitions to one of dread and despair.  In both his narration and in the quotes he includes from various agency sources, Weiner makes clear just how little Mr. Trump understands or values the proper purposes of The Agency, and how far he and his allies have by now penetrated our nation’s intelligence agencies (and the FBI, as well).  Acting more like double agents than principled overseers, they are now focusing those resources to protect not the nation but their own political and financial interests.  With extensive attrition of experienced and qualified personnel and heavy thumbs laid on those who remain, every page increases the premonition that we are in for some oncoming catastrophe on the scale of 9/11 – or even greater.

The CIA has never been entirely a hero, nor an utter villain, but an institution of fallible human beings who are willing to serve as tool for those who make policy and direct its execution – the President, the Cabinet and, ultimately, the votes who put those officials in office.  Its many characters have included some cads but are mostly honorable patriots, willing to compromise their own safety, morality and maybe even a part of their souls in service of a greater public good – protecting us all from the worst of the world.

At times a tale of ignorance and human weaknesses, at others a triumph of courage and will, The Mission is important information for every American.  Please read it and share it with others!  (If you can’t buy the book, check a copy out from your local library; if you can’t read it all, just start at Chapter Twenty-One, which carries the catchy title ‘Face-eating baboons.’)  Democracy depends on informed voters!

P. S.: E Unum Pluribus is a new novel with its own take on where the pursuit of power for power’s sake may be leading our nation, and how even tragic events can spawn new possibilities for the future. It is currently being serialized digitally at no charge and you can be among the first to read its opening pages via this link:

E Unum Pluribus

If you prefer not to open links from unknown sources, just navigate to this site’s home page and scroll down to the post titled ‘E Unum Pluribus’ or select the item of that same name in the top menu.  Any way you get there, it’s totally free!

A free book? Why?

Leave a reply

As the years 2016 to 2020 unfolded, I found myself preoccupied with a particular aspect of human history: that even the greatest empires, dynasties, governments and nations have each eventually ended and been replaced by…something else.  The ongoing self-segregation of Americans along various lines – urban/rural, elites/masses, investors/workers, digital/analog, etc – suggested our own nation’s end might come sooner than later, and not through some external conquest, virulent plague or invasion of space aliens, but our simple failure to appreciate the myriad benefits of remaining ‘United.’ 

Starting in 2021, those thoughts began to coalesce into a speculative fiction, structured as a tale of murder and conspiracy happening a decade or so in our future in one of many new sovereignties sprung up among the remains of the U. S. of A. The novel toys with other themes as well – of language and gender, identity, guilt and even the origins of faith and belief – but speaks loudest in its depiction of just how much we all stand to lose if we remain divided into factions which each act only for their own needs and interests.  

Writing the book took many months and once it seemed ready, the publishing industry proved impenetrable, even as the politics of disorder and division grew stronger.  By the end of 2025 it had become clear I must find another pathway to the public and so I offered the first installment in a post which can be reached via the following link:

E Unum Pluribus

That and all subsequent installments may also be accessed via the ‘E Unum Pluribus’ buttons in the top menu or the right-side Categories list of this website’s home page.

Maybe the novel will find an audience this way, maybe not, but regardless, if you believe in the message that we Americans must overcome our divisions and preserve the USA as a government of all the people, by all the people and for all the people – or if you simply support authors being heard without reliance upon the gatekeepers of corporate commercial publishing – please share this post and the above link as widely as possible.

Sincerely hoping the world of E Unum Pluribus turns out to have been a naïve exaggeration, and wishing this great nation the good fortune of avoiding it, I thank you,

Robin Andrew