Kirsten Bakis, Lives of the Monster Dogs ***

Start with a riff on Frankenstein, with a nineteenth century mad scientist creating creatures who escape and ponder the meaning of their existence. Add Animal Farm-style social commentary, with a race of enhanced animals rising against their oppressors. Finish with a soupçon of satire about celebrity culture. Whip it into a frenzy that ends with a decadent three-week party, madness, and explosions.

Part One of Lives of the Monster Dogs sets up the bizarre scenario nicely with a touch of gothic atmosphere despite its 21st century urban setting. Part Two focuses on the monster dog revolution and hints at racial commentary. Part Three goes off the rails and fails to follow up on the promise of the first two parts. The book sets itself up as an allegory but doesn't have anything new to say.

Patrick O'Brian, The Yellow Admiral ***

The end is nigh. The Yellow Admiral is number 18 of the 20½ volume Aubrey-Maturin series. Naval officers are beginning to lament the lack of advancement opportunities associated with the imminent end of the Napoleonic Wars.

The story starts ashore with a Tolstoyan discussion of land-use policies in nineteenth-century England. Jack Aubrey prevents the inclosure of the commons near his estate. Unfortunately this success leads to complications when the admiral for Jack's next assignment is the uncle of his opponent in that dispute.

The Yellow Admiral illustrates O'Brian's talent for relevant but oblique titles. Aubrey spends the entire book concerned about being "yellowed" -- promoted to admiral without a squadron to command -- but his concern is an undercurrent that doesn't directly relate to the plot. The book also illustrates that the publisher W.W. Norton is not worried about spoilers. The summary on the back cover says "Aubrey receives an urgent dispatch ordering him to Gibraltar: Napoleon has escaped from Elba." This event happens more than halfway down the very last page!

Reihan Salam, Melting Pot or Civil War? ***

Reihan Salam was the conservative voice at Slate for a while, and I always found his pieces to be insightful and well-reasoned. Melting Pot or Civil War? is about immigration reform, a subject about which I would very much like to hear insightful and well-reasoned proposals; it's the source of wild rhetoric from right and left even though both sides agree we need reform.

Salam comes at the question of immigration from a unique angle. In his view, low-skill immigrants who come to the United States for work are typically better off than they would be in their home countries even if we pay them poverty-level wages. So you could make the moral argument that we should let in as many immigrants as our job market can support. However, our moral commitment is different to the children of those immigrants. They are American citizens who should not be forever stuck in low-wage ghettos. In the current environment, though, children of poor immigrants are exceedingly unlikely to rise very far. We need to limit low-skill immigration not because immigrants are stealing native workers' jobs (they mostly aren't) but because we can't adequately provide their children with the American dream.

I applaud the moral seriousness with which Salam takes the plight of immigrants and his acknowledgement that much of the rhetoric about immigration is not based in fact. His "what about the children?" argument is thoughtful, but ultimately a red herring I think. I would have liked more evidence for the claim that 21st century immigration is qualitatively different from early 20th century immigration.

The book wasn't as tightly presented as Salam's journalistic pieces. Several of its most interesting tidbits are not well integrated into the final argument. Thankfully, though, the tone doesn't fall to the level of its sensationalistic title.