Three Books I’m Insufferable About

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

So the last two or three years there are three books that I have gotten into and recommend to others. A lot. Honestly probably too much. So I figured why not write it up to get it out of my system and be insufferable in an organized, planned manner.

Anyway, here in 2026 a lot of us are asking “what happened?” and “what do we do?” about the age we live in. Things feel fractured, things feel broken, but also somehow we keep doing the thing that seems to make things worse. The three books – that my regular readers and friends may have heard of too much – that might give you an idea of how we got where we are and where we might go.

I recommend reading them, in this order, and keeping them. I’ve given copies as gifts, which says a lot about the books, and an equal amount about myself

The Unaccountability Machine by Dan Davies

Ever read a book that explains things and that you relate to? This book was both for me. It mostly asks why big business and our economies seem so insane and how we got there – and does so by a huge tour of cybernetics, business theories, and other things I’m interested in. It is, to paraphrase the author, a murder mystery that spends most of the time asking about the origins of the weapon.

It’s also incredibly compelling.

So the upshot of the book – to spoil – is that a lot of modern business policy (and thus financial and political policy) is focused growth and high stock prices (or related) to the extent of madness. “Number go up” may be an internet meme, but it accurately describes a lot of our economy. We’ve built huge amounts of theory and philosophy and policy to justify it as opposed to ask “hey, should our entire lives be about more than stock price?”

Davies notes it wasn’t a lot like this, and in fact business theory and management ideas didn’t used to be like that. We had ages of business cybernetics and modeling processes, of management as a way to make life better, of the idea of business obligation to community. This is not to idealize things decades in the past, but to note it was different and it was broad. The work of Stafford Beers figures prominently in this work, both in what things were, could be – and how they went wrong.

Ultimately we ended up with the idea that stock price is everything, and organizations and people went out of their way not to think about anything more. You get rich, sure, but you also get to stop thinking about it and deal with the suffering that follows. That trickles into politics and everything else, and madness gets institutionalized.

We exist in the madness of singular focus on a number and a cash count. But that’s just part of the larger dysfunction. For that, let’s get to the next book.

Hyperpolitics by Anton Jäger

This is one of those books that feels disturbingly obvious while leading one to ask “why didn’t see see this” even more than The Unaccountability Machine. Jäger asks why everything is political but nothing gets done or gets better, and he presents a simple model that explains that. It’s also done in a very short book that is refreshing in its focus and clarity. It’s really like two thick zines put together.

Jäger proposes a simple model, that our political culture can be placed on a four-part grid. One scale is Politicization, if people are or are not politically engaged and interested The other is Institutionalization, do people participate in enduring organizations or not. This grid allows you to lay out the politics of the last 120 years or so, then become extremely depressed.

We used to have Mass Politics, both Politicized and Institutionalized, where unions, churches, clubs, etc. were both engaging and worked on things. Somewhere after the 70’s we ended up with Post-politics, where people disengaged from politics and institutions while a more disconnected political elite solidified. People got frustrated, leading to “burn it down” Antipolitics somewhere in the 2000s, politicized times but without larger institutionalization and results. Finally we end up in our age of Hyperpolitics after 2010, which also heavy Politicization without the Institutionalization to solve things and engage people – an age of digital outbursts and performance but with little results.

Having been politically aware since the 80s if not earlier, Jäger’s model hit hard. I’d become politically aware around the time Post-politics manifested, and his timeline of the 80s onward was one I lived, and I saw a great deal of my experience in a new light. I had enough historical awareness to understand his ideas of the earlier Mass Politics period and why it mattered. Finally I understood why I felt like we lived in an age of supercharged tantrums – because that’s where we were.

(This also explained why I was so thrilled to run into people who were politically and socially engaged to improve things – it was too rare.)

It’s a book worth reading. It also ties to the issues of The Unaccountability Machine, of how we got distant and disconnected – the Post-political age – because the madness of “number go up” required disconnection. Jäger also makes some speculation on how to improve things, but I wish there was more.

Politics Without Politicians by Hélène Landemore

This book brings a lot of the above together – and in a surprisingly positive way. Landemore is a big advocate for citizenship and democracy – and for “sortition,” where people participate in government via basically lottery or draft. Imagine being informed your number came up and you’re a Senator or a City Council Member for six months.

Landemore’s ideas come from a mix of past democratic governments or semi-democratic practices, from Athens through use of juries to decide issues throughout various cultures. Landemore more than recognizes such past governments were not as inclusive or open-minded as us, but to her that’s just a reminder to think even more democratically. She is for citizen participation en masse, and avoiding creating new forms of aristocracy.

This may seem distant and ideal, but she explores many ways and modern efforts to create citizen referenda, draft-based leadership, and more. She proposes how societies based on heavy citizen participation may work. She also talks about the psychology of such efforts and why people seem to enjoy it when they try it.

A thing that stands out in her work, again and again, is a focus on what it would be like to have politics be more present along with citizenship and engagement. Being suddenly asked to join thirty random people to develop a sewer proposal is going to lead you to have to get along with twenty-nine other human beings. Having to work with people to do real things brings reality into focus and means you deal with people as people.

We may not have sortition like she wants, but we can get off our buts, get engaged, and work with people. All different kinds of people. It’s also a refreshing vision without overblown, posturing political campaigns and everyone trying to act like an internet Influencer.

Landemore is remarkably practical for something that seems idealist and utopian. It’s also a reminder that we can solve problems if we’re engaged with each other.

And there you go, three books that I have insufferably recommended to people, a good order to read them, and why they matter.

There. Now maybe I won’t be telling people to read these all the time.

Oh whom am I kidding. I just did. Again.

Steven Savage

Master of The Love Letter

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

Let’s take a break from my discussions of software and Project Management to talk about the 2026 Masters of the Universe film and why it has artistic legitimacy. There, that’s not what you expected, was it?

So the film had it’s challenges. It had sort of OK reviews. It didn’t seem to quite make the money it needs. It had Jared Leto, which is inadvisable on all occasions. But also I had friends who saw it and quite enjoyed it. What’s my take?

The film is actually quite enjoyable. It’s breezy, it looks good (though some CGI seems to have been added quickly), the cast is absolutely on, it’s very colorful and fun. Honestly it was a popcorn movie without the sense of getting tossed into a huge extended universe, even if some elements hint at such ambition.

What really stood out to me was how it was an absolutely love letter to the original series – one I am ironically familiar with due to cultural impact and remakes as the original came after my time. It looks cartoony. It’s loaded with sincere weirdness. Skeletor is overdramatic, a theater kid with dark occult power. It even has a kind of early 80’s vibe to the music and the credits. There’s no way this could be made without people who cared and did their research.

It’s also filled with plenty of extrapolations and little details. The goofy names of the heroic Masters are not their actually names – they’re what a young Prince Adam nicknamed them (before he got stranded on Earth). Refugee Adam, stuck on earth, grows up to be an HR professional – leveraging his genial and kind nature. There are deep cut highly obscure characters – you may not care about someone called Goat-Man but he looks like a badass Gwar extra.

The movie is first and foremost a love letter to the original – and I think that’s where it has artistic legitimacy.

The movie takes a toy marketing commercial with a plot and brings it to life. It has a feel of someone playing with their action figures, with wild action and silly and fun twists. It doesn’t shy away from any of the strangeness it embraces it. Wrapping the plot around a young Adam, who remembers this fantastical world but seems crazy for telling people about it adds a kind of longing to the whole affair.

Did it need to go to theaters? No. Did it need to be an attempt to launch more films? No. Did it need Jared Leto? No, he’s a creep. I think it could have been done for streaming services and be done with it.

But watching it, feeling that love and affection, feeling that sincerity? There was something artistically worthy here. Even if it’s based on a “toyetic cartoon” there was something there.

I think now I have to consider the “Love Letter” it’s own meta-genre. And I may need to rethinking other shows and films and books.

Steven Savage

The Speed/Efficiency Paradox

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

A little more “Steve rants about software and process” time here as I contemplate issues of efficiency, distraction, and how faster isn’t always better.

It’s easy to argue that faster is good. The more things we do faster the more we can do! The more we get done. However, let us take a warning from real life that a love of speed breaks down, say, on the highway with some of your less inhibited fellow drivers. Speed burns fuel, leads to accidents, leads to citations, disrupts others, and pisses people off.

Speed, like anything has side effects. And am I going to compare idiot drivers to idiot software that takes “Gotta Go Fast” as a motto? Yes I am.

Previously I had critiqued an emphasis on speed as efficient software also adds more work, so somehow we get slower by going faster. But let’s take a look at how speed in our software, our culture, our business process, backfires.

First and foremost I’d note that speed can be wasteful. You have the latest software, the latest graphic card, the latest AI. Great, how much did that cost? How much does it cost to power? How much effort do people have to put in to keep up? Having the latest cool technical stuff or business process might be fast, but is it worth the cost? Assuming speed always pays off is not a great idea.

Secondly, when it comes to that fast software or new workflow, going faster also may mean it’s harder to check on what you’re doing. Sure, you streamlined that billing process, now how about those lawsuits that are coming in because something got missed. Sometimes slow is there to make sure you don’t screw up – and if you’ve been in IT any length of time you know.

Third, so you got that fast new process for disposing of waste or sending out paychecks – until it screws up because it’s so fast. Not only have you done all sorts of financially and ethically dumb things, now you’re getting investigated, regulated, etc. Admittedly, I wish we saw more of this in the world, but still there’s some impact on companies, business, and people. For now.

(Working in medicine and medical tech, which is rightfully regulated and contains people very serious about doing things right, I want more regulation and policy like that.)

Fourth, speed can be disruptive, and not in the fun Silicon Valley disruptor way. Actually, forget that “disruption” thing period because we’ve had a lot disrupted and it turned out to be awful. Going faster does mean you break things, distract people, derail processes, and so on and that has an impact. The love of disruption misses that maybe some things shouldn’t be disrupted and we miss that as speed, as disruption is a virtue above the results.

Fifth and finally, past a point, speed can just piss people off just like that driver racing by you at 95 MPH in a school zone. People need time to process information, input, signals, forms, and what have you. Someone racing around doing things fast even if good can still derail human interaction. Sometimes the point is to talk to people, take time, and be considerate of what happens to them.

(I’ve used this as a Project Manager, where just a checklist and a half hour meeting gets far more done than any kind of software process.)

So no, I’m not a fan of speed for speed’s sake. It has it’s time and it’s place. I’d love to figure out Faster Than Light travel, for instance. But let’s not assume it’s the best thing ever. It can often create more problems than it solves if it solves any problem.

Steven Savage