Manny has
2163 books
(76 selected)
—
compare books
|
stats
| # | cover | title | author | isbn | isbn13 | asin | num pages | avg rating | num ratings | date pub | date pub (ed.) | rating | my rating | review | notes | recommender | comments | votes | read count | date started | date read |
date
|
date purchased | owned | purchase location | condition | format | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1105520714
| 9781105520716
| 3.96
| 27
| Mar 12, 2012
| Mar 12, 2012
|
Praise for What Pooh Might Have Said To Dante: "...would make a great present for somebody who's never heard of GoodReads before, like maybe a caveman...more Praise for What Pooh Might Have Said To Dante: "...would make a great present for somebody who's never heard of GoodReads before, like maybe a caveman recently unfrozen from an ancient glacier" - BirdBrian "Having observed both Counsel extremely closely, I am compelled to find that the market value of Mr Rayner's efforts is precisely Nil" - Ian G "... something rather amateurish that looked like it had been done in somebody's back room" - notgettingenough "Manny doesn't like Harry Potter and sometimes I get mad at him and threaten to throw him into the ocean" - Mariel "Felkeltem, ál-tudományos, falloszentrista, szexista szemetet" - Sakkfeminizmus "Not bad for an over-aged hairball" - Marvin "To be completely honest -- meh." - David L "... a waste of time... you can read all that stuff for free online" - Paul B "The future is an endless oneupmanship to see who can write the wittiest, most popular 200-word capsule review on fuck-all. This is Manny’s fault." - MJ "... call it Rue Vomitorium" - David C "... good if you read it in the original failboatese" - Vote Whore "... almost... funny" - Traveller "Will you enjoy this? In a word, no, unless you are a masochist" - Sean D "Never in my life I seen a more desperate attempt to get votes" - Alfonso "... advertising..." - Esteban "If I'd been drinking I think it could have made me seasick" - Tabitha "The thing about Manny... he almost never throws feces at random strangers." - Kat "... explicit ... the author has failed ..." - Scribble "... rattling a virtual tip jar at every opportunity ..." - Jason P "Manny, you sure are fascinated with Stephenie Meyer" - Rowena M "GoodReads in-jokes ... off-putting ..." - Cecily "... enough..." - Alan B __________________________________ Over the last couple of years, several kind people have asked whether I'd considered publishing a collection of my best reviews. I always replied that I appreciated the suggestion, but it didn't seem like a sensible thing to do. But, a few weeks ago, I started wondering whether I shouldn't give it a shot after all. If Goodreads unexpectedly folded up - these things happen - it would be so annoying to lose my writing. Self-publishing has become cheap and easy. And I've got a fair amount of experience with type-setting. How much work could it be to implement a few scripts to turn HTML into LaTeX and then upload a PDF file to Lulu? Well, it's never quite as straightforward as you think, but here is the result. For the benefit of other people who may feel tempted to do the same thing, let me give you the key lessons I've learned from this little adventure: 1. Sign up an editor and some readers. No author can be objective about their own work; they need keen external eyes to tell them both what's good and what's bad about it. It was fortunate for me that notgettingenough, who has long-term experience with publishing, took an early interest in the project and was willing to act as editor. She ruthlessly corrected several of my dumber ideas, forced me to think about issues I'd happily have ignored, and made sure that the book was produced to professional standards. My advisory committee - BirdBrian, Mariel and Ian - read through the manuscript and gave me encouragement and helpful suggestions. They convinced me that it was worth continuing and taking the time required to make it look good. Thank you, guys! You have all been so thoughtful and patient, and I greatly appreciate it! 2. Think carefully about which reviews to include. Not groaned over my initial selection, which probably took an hour to do and had no structure whatsoever. She encouraged me to group the reviews by style and type of book, after which I saw that some things were grossly overrepresented. Even if bashing Twilight is the Goodreads national sport, I didn't need this many examples of the genre. And much as I love writing about Flaubert, Proust, Wittgenstein and Kasparov, it's likely that the average reader will not share my enthusiasms to the same degree. 3. Acquire at least a smattering of knowledge regarding copyright. As I now understand it, most quoted text that might appear in a Goodreads review should be covered by the rules on Fair Use. I found the following passage from this page helpful: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that copyrighted images are generally not easy to include: the problem is that you'll be using the whole image, rather than just an illustrative part of it. Martha, my talented cover artist, had put together the following very attractive cover: ![]() But, alas, the Estate of E.H. Shepherd thought this was an "inappropriate" use of Pooh Bear's image and politely but firmly refused to grant me permission. I didn't even get that far with Penguin (Jemima Puddle-Duck) or Gallimard (the Little Prince), who still haven't given me any clear answers. Not, in her capacity as excutive editor, made the sensible but painful decision to go for a simpler solution. So there have been a few rough moments, but all in all I found this an interesting and rewarding experience. And now, I hardly need add, I'm curious to see if anyone is going to buy it! It's available from this Lulu page.(less) | Notes are private!
| People
|
5
| not set
| Feb 2012
|
Mar 12, 2012
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0192840509
| 9780192840509
| 4.01
| 45,824
| -560
| Apr 01, 2003
|
I was looking for a Christmas present for my nephew the other day when I noticed an edition of Aesop's Fables in Blackwells. I had a copy myself when...more
I was looking for a Christmas present for my nephew the other day when I noticed an edition of Aesop's Fables in Blackwells. I had a copy myself when I was a kid, and it was one of my favourite books. I can't guess how many times I read it. Thinking about it now, it surprises me to realise how fresh and up-to-date it still feels. Most of the stuff from that period is starting to slip away; most people don't read the Bible any more, or Homer, or Euripides, or Seneca. Obviously, they're still acknowledged as timeless classics, but an effort is required. Our culture has moved on, not necessarily in a good way. But Aesop's Fables doesn't require effort. It could have been composed yesterday. I can easily see him as a Goodreads contributor, posting a story every now and then and picking up plenty of votes. He'd fit right in and be one of the most popular people on the site. At age eight, I got nearly all the stories, but there were a couple that puzzled me. If you happen to be a precocious kid, I'd be curious to know what you make of the following, which I only figured out much later: The Woman and the Wine-Jar(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
20
| not set
| Jan 1966
|
Dec 23, 2010
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
1564784010
| 9781564784018
| 4.30
| 773
| Sep 1997
| 2005
|
The Russian journalist Svetlana Alexievich spent three years interviewing people who had been involved in Chernobyl: villagers from the surrounding ar...more
The Russian journalist Svetlana Alexievich spent three years interviewing people who had been involved in Chernobyl: villagers from the surrounding area, "liquidators" (members of the cleanup squad), widows and children, nuclear scientists, politicians, even people who, incredibly, had moved to Chernobyl after the accident. She presents their words almost without comment. Sometimes she adds a [Laughs]; sometimes [Stops]; sometimes [Starts crying]; sometimes [Breaks down completely]. I am not sure I have ever read anything quite as horrifying. It is like a very well written post-apocalyptic novel in many voices, and it's all true. Here are some extracts. From the translator's preface: The literature on the subject is pretty unanimous in its opinion that the Soviet system had taken a poorly designed reactor and then staffed it with a group of incompetents. It then proceeded, as the interviews in this book show, to lie about the disaster in the most criminal way. In the crucial first ten days, when the reactor was burning and releasing a steady stream of highly radioactive material into the surrounding area, the authorities repeatedly claimed that the situation was under control.From the Historical Notes: During the Second World War, one out of every four Belarussians was killed; today, one out of five Belarussians lives on contaminated land. This amounts to 2.1 million people, of whom 700,000 are children.From a liquidator's account: We had good jokes too. Here's one. An American robot is on the roof of the reactor for five minutes, then it breaks down. The Japanese robot is on the roof for five minutes, then it breaks down. The Russian robot's been up on the roof for two hours! Then someone shouts over the loudspeaker: "Private Ivanov! Two hours more, and you can take a cigarette break!"From a nuclear physicist's account: There's a moment in Ales Adamovich's book, when he's talking to Andrei Sakharov. "Do you know," says Sakharov, the father of the hydrogen bomb, "how pleasantly the air smells of ozone after a nuclear explosion?"From a politician's account: I was First Secretary of the Regional Committee of the Party. I said absolutely not. "What will people think if I take my daughter with her baby out of here? Their children have to stay." Those people who tried to leave, to save their own skins, I'd call them into the regional committee. "Are you a Communist or not?" It was a test for people. If I'm a criminal, then why was I killing my own grandchild?" [Goes on for some time but it is impossible to understand what he is saying]From a teacher's account: Our family tried not to economize, we bought the most expensive salami, hoping it would be made of good meat. Then we found that it was the expensive salami that they mixed the contaminated meat into, thinking, well, since it was expensive fewer people would buy it.From a widow's account: When we buried him, I covered his face with two handkerchiefs. If someone asked me to, I lifted them up. One woman fainted. And she used to be in love with him, I was jealous of her once. "Let me look at him one last time." "All right."From a father's account: My daughter was six years old. I'm putting her to bed, and she whispers in my ear: "Daddy, I want to live, I'm still little." And I had thought she didn't understand anything.From the author's afterword: These people had already seen what for everyone else is still unseen. I felt like I was recording the future. (less) | Notes are private!
| 1
| not set
| Mar 19, 2011
|
Jun 09, 2010
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
0747510199
| 9780747510192
| 3.76
| 3,772
| 1991
| Sep 19, 1991
|
His wife has left Wilderness Tips lying on the coffee table, and he picks it up. Over the last twenty years, several women have told him to read it. H...more
His wife has left Wilderness Tips lying on the coffee table, and he picks it up. Over the last twenty years, several women have told him to read it. He doesn't like to be pushed into things. Now, though, his curiosity has got the better of him. The first few pages do make him a little uneasy. The scene where the boys are spying on the waitresses' beach party through their binoculars. He also feels like a voyeur. But that soon disappears. He isn't overhearing her private conversations: Margaret is talking directly to him. After a while, he identifies the tune that's started playing in his head. He goes over to the CD shelf, and looks around until he finds the Roches. He skips forward to "The Married Men". One in Louisiana, one who travels aroundHe can hear Margaret's ironic, teasing, sexy voice, as they lie in bed together and she tells him another story. "It's something that happened to a friend," she says, and he wonders if it actually happened to her, or if she made it up. He doesn't care. It's enough just to listen to her. One of them's got a little boy, other one he's got twoHe's in the middle of "The Bog Man" when he realises that his wife's come in and is looking at him curiously. He has to suppress a guilty start. "Did you learn anything useful?" she asks. He doesn't quite know what to make of her inflection. What was that French expression she likes? "Mi-figue, mi-raisin," she says. Damn! She's reading his mind again. He wonders what else she discovered there. "It's okay, honey," she adds softly, as she comes over and sits next to him. "I'm so glad you finally read it," and for some reason he finds that he has tears in his eyes, and she does too. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| May 13, 2010
| May 15, 2010
|
Apr 11, 2010
| |||||||||||||||||
1592403956
| 9781592403950
| 3.76
| 1,354
| Oct 30, 2008
| Oct 30, 2008
|
A fantastic book! I have not come across anyone, not even Steven Pinker, who does such a good job of showing you how exciting linguistics can be. His...more
A fantastic book! I have not come across anyone, not even Steven Pinker, who does such a good job of showing you how exciting linguistics can be. His bold and unconventional history of the English language was full of ideas I'd never seen before, but which made excellent sense. And, before I get into the review proper, a contrite apology to Jordan. She gave it to me six months ago as a birthday present, and somehow I didn't open it until last week. Well, Jordan, thank you, and I'll try to be more alert next time! So, the book. I'm a linguist of sorts myself, though a rather different kind to McWhorter: his work has centered around the things that happen to grammar when different languages come into contact with each other, while I use grammar as a way to construct speech-enabled software. But, as you'll see a bit later, the fact that we both give a central place to grammar means that our research directions have more to do with each other than you might first think. In Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue, McWhorter looks at the history of the English language from his unusual viewpoint. The language has clearly changed a lot since it came into existence; why did it evolve the way it did? McWhorter's answer is that the big changes happened when speakers of different languages started mingling together. He focuses on three changes of this kind. The rest of this review is in my book What Pooh Might Have Said to Dante and Other Futile Speculations (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jan 25, 2010
| Jan 28, 2010
|
Jan 25, 2010
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
0307237699
| 9780307237699
| 3.68
| 53,217
| Oct 17, 2006
| Oct 17, 2006
|
I've now finished this book, which I've been reviewing a chapter at a time. Before starting, I was concerned that it might lower my opinion of him. Ma...more
I've now finished this book, which I've been reviewing a chapter at a time. Before starting, I was concerned that it might lower my opinion of him. Many people have been rather dismissive, and perhaps that's why I didn't read it earlier. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. It's well thought out and convincing, and I respect him more. The one major criticism I have is that it's stylistically unimpressive; you can see that it would have benefited from another revision pass. He is however so insanely busy that I'm grateful he had time to write it at all. There certainly aren't many politicians at his level doing this kind of thing. And, with that introduction, the main review... **************************************************** I was given this book as a Christmas present by my 19 year old son. Kind of symbolic, I guess. I am about the same age as Obama, and over the last couple of years have become a huge supporter. I managed to be in the US around the election last November, and was delighted to find that it was legal for me to contribute to his campaign in terms of doing unpaid work. I helped organize a calling party in Sunnyvale (I was in charge of catering), and even got to make a couple of hundred phone calls to swing voters in Ohio. I have never been told to fuck off so many times in one afternoon, it was a fantastic experience. A few people were even nice to me! The most memorable one being the 87 year old great-grandmother with the broken hip, who said she was going to vote Obama together with two of her granddaughters, so that was three votes we could count on. Obama is all about reestablishing trust in the political process - it's the very first thing he says in this book. I am writing this early in the second week of his presidency, and so far I can't fault him. He's doing everything he said he would do, as quickly as it can be done. Closing Gitmo, ending rendition and use of torture, funding third-world aid that includes contraception and abortion, sending a high-level representative to the Middle East, allowing states to set tougher emissions targets. Please, please continue with that. --- Now a couple of chapters in. The style is not brilliant, but I think he is saying interesting and important things. So far, the central message has been that the US badly needs to make the political debate less polarized - people have to start trying to see similarities as well as differences, view their counterparts on the other side of the political divide as mistaken rather than evil, and above all listen. It comes across as very level-headed and positive, and he has good examples to support his argument, showing how both left- and right-wing people would find themselves more in agreement if they applied their principles consistently. I was rather struck by the fact that, when he says that he doesn't think George W. Bush is a bad person, this comes across as a controversial claim. He seems to want to believe it. I can't quite make up my mind as to whether he really does, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I should try it too. It's definitely an interesting spiritual exercise. --- Chapter 3, on the Constitution. I thought it was also pretty good. Obama knows this stuff in great depth - he's taught classes on constitutional law, and he has also, of course, had hands-on experience of the legislative process. He makes a strong, balanced case for the validity of the Constitution, taking plenty of time to look at the counter-arguments. In particular, he examines the ways in which the Constitution was used first to maintain slavery, and then to impede the progress of civil rights reforms. I find it impressive that he still believes in it. His basic argument is that it's a very carefully thought-out, flexible framework, which allows enough free play that it doesn't lock the US into one course, but rather allows Congress to adapt to changing circumstances, while still implementing the basic goals of the Founding Fathers. It was interesting to compare Obama's analysis with Charlie Savage's book Takeover, which I read a few months ago. Savage's goal is to give an overall picture of the well-orchestrated attack that the Bush/Cheney administration mounted on the Constitution, which depended on narrow and highly debatable readings of a few key passages in the Federalist Papers, together with the establishment of precedents aimed at justifying a radical expansion of the Executive's powers. If you want to criticize Obama's take on the Constitution, remember that that's the current alternative. I know which one I feel more comfortable with. --- Chapter 4, "Politics". The question this chapter addresses is, approximately: why are so many politicians cynical, lying phonies? I thought Obama did a good job of answering it. I would paraphrase his reply as follows. First, losing an election really hurts. If you win, you are an important person, and everyone treats you with great respect. If you lose, you are nobody. Second, the difference between winning and losing depends very largely on having enough money to buy TV advertising. It's all about name recognition and getting your message across. Third, by far the easiest way to raise money is to get tight with the special interest groups. They offer you an attractive deal: promise to do what they want, and they will quickly fix your financing. It's not easy to negotiate with them. Once you've signed, you're either in their pocket, or you cynically renege on your promises. Either way, you're compromised. Even worse, since money is all-important, and special interest groups and rich donors are way you get it, soon you're spending most of your time with them. So you rarely get to meet the people you're supposed to be representing. He illustrates all these points simply and clearly with things taken from his own personal experience. He doesn't give himself credit for being particularly tough; he thinks he got a lot of lucky breaks, and says what they were. He's refreshingly low on bullshit. I am really quite surprised at what a good book this has so far turned out to be! --- Chapter 5, "Opportunity". It's the economy, stupid. I don't understand why some people who reviewed this book complain that Obama says nothing about how he would address the problems the US is facing. At times, I almost thought he went into too much detail. He picks out three big things that he wants to focus on, in order to keep the US competitive in the global marketplace: education, research, and energy self-sufficiency. I'll concentrate on research, since I know about that from personal experience, but a word first on energy: thank goodness, Obama is not, like most politicians, innumerate. He notes in a couple of sentences that the US uses 25% of the world's energy, but has only 3% of the world's fossil fuel resources, so further oil and gas exploration is not going to help much. Contrast his sensible, adult discussion of the issues with Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill!" - one of the most moronic political sound-bites I've seen in recent years. It was unpleasant to see how many people bought this nonsense. But going back to research, Obama points out that the US implicitly assumes that it will maintain a global superiority in science and technology, yet has been steadily cutting investment in basic research. In the 70s, more than a quarter of all research proposals were funded; now it's dropped to 10% or less. As he says, this means that scientists need to spend a large proportion of their time chasing the money that's still there, leaving them correspondingly fewer hours to do actual work. Another, less obvious, effect is that research focuses on a few "safe" directions, with speculative high-risk/high-gain ideas becoming almost impossible to fund; unfortunately, history shows that the risky ideas are the ones that really make a difference. Lee Smolin gives an excellent analysis of the problem in The Trouble with Physics. I am one of many researchers who has given up, and moved elsewhere. I spent a lot of this decade working in the US, and most of the previous one working for a US company. I'm now in Switzerland, continuing to develop stuff that was largely paid for by the US taxpayer - if you're curious, you can read all about it in our 2006 book, Putting Linguistics into Speech Recognition. The flow of knowledge always used to be in the opposite direction. It feels kind of weird. Obama says in this book that he wants to double investment in research. I wonder whether he is still going to have a chance of doing that, given the economic climate, but it's nice to see that he thinks it's important. --- Chapter 6, "Faith". Something of a tightrope act, but it goes with the territory. I thought he acquitted himself well, and was never in serious danger of falling off. As in other chapters, he concentrates on trying to help all sides find common ground in this very difficult area. He clearly has great sympathy both with Christian and with secular thinkers, and is upfront about his connections with the Muslim world. On the one hand, he explains why separation of church and state is so important for the US, and quietly but firmly distances himself from creationism. On the other, he explains why, despite being raised as a non-believer, he is now a Christian. He goes to some lengths to explain what kind of Christian he is: he is much more inspired by the Sermon on the Mount than by Genesis or Leviticus. One could say he's a Christian in the boring, old-fashioned sense of trying to follow the teachings of Christ. At times, I have wondered whether he is just pretending to be Christian out of political expediency. After reading this chapter, I'm inclined to think I was wrong there. If you're a black American, you do have some pretty good reasons for being Christian. Obama isn't aggressive about it, but he reminds you that the Christian churches were a major force in driving through civil rights reforms; it probably wouldn't have happened without them. He wants to push through some major reforms of his own, and I hope that his faith will help him in the same way that it helped Martin Luther King. --- Chapter 7, "Race". Another potential tightrope act, but here I thought Obama was extremely confident, in fact completely in control. Well, he has of course been thinking about these issues all his life, and they must have been one of the major reasons for him entering politics. I would say he had two main topics. First, he wanted black Americans to try and steer a balanced course between two ways of thinking. On the one hand, it would be ridiculous not to agree that huge progress has been made over the last few decades. He has sensible arguments here, but his mere existence is of course the best one. On the other hand, there is a huge amount of work left to do. The situation for most blacks and Latinos is still terrible. The brings him to the second main topic. The black subculture in the inner cities is out of control. The US has to do something about it, as a major priority: it's not in anyone's interests to have a de facto third world country within America's borders. There is a vicious circle of neglect, abuse, bad parenting, crime and unemployability that has to be broken into. Obama suggests that the best point to attack might be to focus on better education for black teenage girls, setting up incentives that will make it more attractive for them to finish school, and less attractive to get pregnant and start living on welfare. He does a good job of angling the language so that it can appeal to both left and right - this is something that everyone needs to buy into. As he says, the right are upset that welfare has set up a self-perpetuating system where people don't have strong enough reasons to want to break out. That kind of status quo isn't to anyone's advantage. --- Chapter 8, "The World Beyond our Borders". A very sensible look at the problems surrounding US foreign policy. He starts off with Indonesia, which he knows a lot about; he lived there for several years as a boy, and his mother continued to work there for a long time afterwards. As he says, the last 50 years of Indonesian history are a good way to see both the positive and the negative sides of the way the US treats the rest of the world. The US helped Indonesia gain freedom from the Dutch; after that, it supported an appalling dictatorship because it viewed it as an ally against Communism. More recently, the US has used economic power to force Indonesia to move its economic model towards free-market norms. This has angered many people, and made it easier for Islamic fundamentalists to make their voices heard. He then backs off to give some broader historical perspective. The key problem, as he sees it, is that US foreign policy has been inconsistent, veering wildly between extremes. Sometimes, it is overly aggressive about trying to push its agenda, and upsets everyone. At other times, it withdraws into an isolationist stance, and then you get a different set of problems. World War II might well not have happened if the US had woken up earlier and recognized how dangerous Nazi Germany was. His ideal is a compromise between these two positions. The US needs to engage actively with the rest of the world, but do so within a legal framework which it voluntarily submits to. The one effective way to spread democracy is to lead by example, and show that laws apply to everyone. Otherwise, the US opens itself up to the reasonable criticism that "democracy" is only another word for US interests. He thinks that the best example of this kind of policy was the Truman presidency after WW II, where the US was very effective in uniting the Western world against Communism. Now that the Cold War is over, the US needs to rethink its role. He considers that Gulf War I was a success, as was the war in Afghanistan, which most of the world saw as legitimate self-defense. Iraq, on the other hand, was a ghastly mistake. He goes into some detail about exactly why he opposed it, and his judgment does indeed appear to have been spot on. He believes that one of the major issues facing the US at the moment is the threat of rogue countries or terrorist groups getting hold of nuclear weapons. He wants to fight that in several ways. The most important are, first, winning over hearts and minds by showing that the US is really a friend of the third world rather than an enemy, and, second, building up effective international alliances based on mutual trust. --- Chapter 9, "The Family". He finishes with the most personal chapter of the book, and tells you a fair amount about his own family. He comes across as a nice guy, and I'm convinced he has a very good marriage. Why? Because he's not afraid to admit that he and Michelle fight a good deal, and when they do he seems to try hard to see her side of the story, and do something about it. He's an excellent listener. Another thing that comes across is that he really likes women. Not as sexual objects (though he's by no means indifferent to female charm), but as people. If Clinton was the first black president, then Obama is the first feminist president. It's not accidental; he was raised by his mother and grandmother, and he lives with his wife and his two daughters, whom he plainly adores. He's been surrounded by women all his life, and he's learned to understand what's important to them. The chapter's not all personal: he also has stuff to say about policy issues which concern the family. Once again, what I am most impressed with is how damn sensible he is. He could easily have got bogged down on things like rape or gay marriage, which, though important, are not the most central issues. What he is fact most interested in is reducing the teen pregnancy rate, and providing better daycare for working mothers. I just can't fault him on this. I lived 10 years in Sweden, and good, affordable daycare makes such a difference to women that it's almost beyond belief. **************************************************** And now, Mr Obama: as I said, I loved your book. Please follow through on the program you describe here, and literally billions of people will thank you. But you already know that. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Feb 04, 2009
|
Jan 27, 2009
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
0451114329
| 9780451114327
| 3.72
| 702
| 1957
| Mar 02, 1982
|
This is the best geek wish-fulfillment fantasy I know, and I've also heard that it's Richard Dawkins's favorite science fiction novel. Make of that wh...more
This is the best geek wish-fulfillment fantasy I know, and I've also heard that it's Richard Dawkins's favorite science fiction novel. Make of that what you will. It's The Future, as imagined in the late 50s, and by the time I read it the book was already feeling a bit dated. But, oddly enough, that only adds to its charm. Scientists discover a huge cloud of gas, heading directly for the solar system. When it arrives, it will blot out the Sun for months, creating the greatest natural catastrophe since the meteorite impact that killed the dinosaurs. Hoyle, as one would expect, gets all the details right; this is his home territory. I love the bit where they write a program to calculate the Cloud's position based on the gravitational effect it has on the orbits of the outer planets. Apparently, in this version of The Future, they haven't even invented Assembler yet, much less FORTRAN. As the Cloud gets closer, all sorts of interesting and unexpected things happen. I'm afraid I can't say any more without dropping major spoilers, but it's both imaginative and scientifically plausible. This is a classy disaster novel. The disaster scenario is great, but the reason geeks love it so much is the main character. Kingsley is an absurdly idealized version of the author; brilliant astrophysicist, all-round polymath (he has great taste in classical music and reads Herodotus on the train), irresistible to women. If your partner is a geek with cultural pretensions and he hasn't come across The Black Cloud, get him a copy for his birthday. Then look him in the eyes and tell him you bought it because Kingsley reminded you so much of him. Trust me, this will pay off bigtime. _________________________________________ Kragh's Cosmology and Controversy throws interesting light on this book. One reason Dawkins might have for liking it is that Hoyle was even more rabidly anti-religious than he is. And Hoyle sneaks in some propaganda for his favorite theory here too. (view spoiler)[The super-intelligent Cloud, in response to a question about how the first Cloud-creature came about, says in oracular fashion that there never was a "first" Cloud. The scientists, apparently Steady-Staters to a man, look at each other and nod knowingly: that's one in the eye for the Big Bang people! (hide spoiler)](less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1970
|
Jan 10, 2009
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0156027593
| 9780156027595
| 4.24
| 3,358
| 1967
| Dec 16, 2002
|
One of the most brilliant pieces of translation I've ever come across. You can hardly believe that all these wonderful jokes and word-games weren't or...more
One of the most brilliant pieces of translation I've ever come across. You can hardly believe that all these wonderful jokes and word-games weren't originally composed in English. I wish I knew some Polish, so that I could compare with the original. The most impressive sequences, which have been widely quoted, come from the story where one of the inventors builds a machine that can write a poem to any specification, no matter how bizarre. "A poem about love, treachery, indomitable courage, on the subject of a haircut, and every word to start with the letter S!" says his friend. And within a few seconds, the machine has produced: Seduced, shaggy Samson snored. She scissored short. Sorely shorn, Soon shackled slave, Samson sighed, Silently scheming, Sightlessly seeking Some savage, spectacular suicide. The love poem where all the metaphors come from the language of mathematics is nearly as good. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1985
|
Jan 08, 2009
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0954452933
| 9780954452933
| 4.34
| 247
| Dec 01, 2008
| Feb 20, 2009
|
Note: if you want to read this book for free, there are now excellent HTML and PDF versions at http://www.withouthotair.com/ The print version is very...more
Note: if you want to read this book for free, there are now excellent HTML and PDF versions at http://www.withouthotair.com/ The print version is very well produced, however, and I didn't at all regret the £20 I paid for it. _________________________________ Jessica posted a great review of Six Degrees a couple of days ago, with a memorable opening sentence: Reading this book was like meeting someone, falling madly in love, and finding out she's got a terminal illness, all in the space of twenty minutes.I agree. Global warming is extremely scary. But by way of introduction to MacKay's book, let me try another analogy. Suppose you'd inherited a sizable sum of money when you were 21. You got a couple of jobs, but you didn't take them seriously, because hey, you didn't need to. Now all your credit cards are maxed out, you don't dare open your mail any more, and you're really, really wishing that you'd had the sense not to go to the loan shark. You tell a friend about your troubles. Well, you say, I guess I need to get a job again and start paying off my debts. So your friend says, what kind of job? You give him a few ideas you'd been kicking around. Maybe you could finish that accountancy course, or maybe you could go to China and teach English as a foreign language, or maybe you could play poker on the Internet. You know some Chinese, and you're quite a good poker player. Your friend asks how much you owe, and how soon you need the money. But you're so scared by your situation that you don't actually know, and you don't know either how long it takes to become sufficiently qualified to get a job as an accountant, or how to become a teacher in China, or how much money you could make playing poker, or, indeed, anything. In short, you're completely panicked. Well, your friend says kindly, let's start by figuring some of that out. Then you might be able to make a sensible decision. Which brings us to Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air. The author is a physics professor here in Cambridge, and is tired of discussions about energy policies that don't include numbers, just emotive terms. Instead of arguing for a specific solution ("No nukes"/"Don't hurt the economy"/"Green energy"/etc), his point is much broader. No matter what policy you are advocating, you have to demonstrate that it balances the books, in terms of producing as much energy as you plan to consume. This is so obviously right that I am just amazed he is regarded by some people as controversial. McKay works out several concrete energy budgets for the UK, based on different starting assumptions. Doubtlessly critics will be able to attack specific points, say that the arguments don't apply to their own countries, and so on. That doesn't matter, and I'm sure McKay welcomes these responses. What he wants to do is get people thinking about energy policies in a responsible, quantitative way. I've read an online summary of the book, which seems extremely practical and well thought out. Today, I saw it on sale in Heffers, and bought a copy. I'm planning to start it tomorrow. By next week, I will hopefully have a better idea of what our options are in this terrible situation we've somehow got into. I'll post an update when I've done that. _________________________________ I've just finished Sustainable Energy. I started with high expectations, and it exceeded them. This is, simply, a book that any numerate person who cares about the future of the planet should read without delay. MacKay cuts through the bullshit and posturing, and delivers clear, responsible, unbiased information, beautifully and economically presented. He is even-handed about exposing lies and misconceptions, irrespective of where they are coming from, and the list of people who give him a thumbs-up is impressive. You have luminaries of the Green movement, but also former CEOs of large oil companies. He's providing a public service here, and they all recognize it. The book is focused on one key question: can we stop using fossil fuels, and move over to an energy economy where we get our power from sustainable sources, and consume no more than we produce? MacKay doesn't spend very long arguing that this is necessary. There is already a mountain of readily available evidence which points in this direction; if you still don't believe it, it's because you've decided that nothing is ever going to change your mind. So he takes that for granted, and starts looking at the details. The material is divided into two main parts, together with a long technical appendix which contains the mathematical formulas and the detailed calculations. In the first part, he looks at the components of a possible energy budget for the whole of Britain. He takes Britain, because it's his country, and he knows the details best here; at the end of the book, he sketches out similar calculations for Europe, North America, and the whole world. The principles carry over easily enough. So, Britain's energy budget. As with any budget, you start with incomings and outgoings. He alternates "green" chapters (incomings: wind, hydro, waves, biofuels, solar, nuclear etc) and "red" chapters (outgoings: cars, heating, electric power, manufacturing etc). Everything is reduced to a single set of units, KWh per person per day, so that it's easy to compare like with like. MacKay is very good at making figures intuitively meaningful; I particularly liked the fact that 1 KWh is approximately the energy that a single human servant could deliver in one day. It is scary that a typical moderately affluent Brit consumes about 40 KWh per day. In other words, we each have 40 virtual servants working for us; no wonder we're living beyond our means. The "red" stack is built up assuming roughly our current energy consumption; the "green" stack is a best-case scenario, the most possible energy we could ever get out of each energy technology. At the end of Part I, things have become clearer. First, we see that sustainable energy resources need to be country-sized. If we want to get serious energy from wind - enough to make a useful contribution - we need to cover a large part of the country in wind farms. If we're thinking about solar power, a large part of the country is covered in solar power stations. If it's waves, then most of the Atlantic coastline is wave farms. And so on. The only exception to this is nuclear. Nuclear power stations can be quite small. Because he is reducing everything to the same units, you can immediately compare the efficiency of different technologies; so, for example, you can see that biofuels produce less than a quarter of the energy per unit area of land that wind power does. The "red" and "green" stacks only balance if we are prepared either to cover Britain in wind farms and similar, use a lot of nuclear power, or get sustainable energy from elsewhere. MacKay goes though the possibilities for "elsewhere", and only one of them makes sense: solar power in deserts. There is a lot of sunlight in deserts, and quite good technology for turning it into electricity. You're still talking about tens of thousands of square kilometers of desert, but that's reasonably small compared to the Sahara. So, solar power in deserts is potentially a very important resource. Now that we know the rules of the game, Part II is about concrete planning. How can we reduce our outgoings, and what are our options for mixing different kinds of energy sources? Two things that would make a big difference to outgoings are moving quickly to electric cars (far more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines), and decreasing heat loss from houses. MacKay has trialled many energy saving ideas on his own house, and presents comprehensive figures; nice to see someone who practices what he preaches. The figures on these items are straightforward and convincing. There are chapters discussing important practical questions about the different energy generation technologies. I found the discussion of wind power particularly interesting. Critics of wind power tend to say that, since it's intermittent, it wouldn't really be useful. Wind power enthusiasts say that, when you average wind over the whole country, it evens out. In fact, neither position is correct, though the first one is closer to the truth. Even averaged over a whole country (MacKay shows a graph), wind power output is wildly variable. On the other hand, power demand is also very variable. There are already implemented solutions that are used every day to cope with demand surges, like the one that happens when half the country switches on their TVs at the same time to watch a big football game. I didn't know, but there is apparently an installation in Wales, with two large lakes on different levels, which acts as a gigantic storage battery. When there is surplus electricity, it's used to pump water from the low lake to the high one. When extra electricity is required quickly, the sluices from the high lake are opened, and it powers a set of turbines. You could build more of these if you needed them. The chapter on nuclear power is also very good. As MacKay says, nuclear is dangerous, but it's not infinitely dangerous. Other kinds of energy are dangerous too. He tries to quantify the risk from nuclear to the best of his ability, in terms of the number of deaths you could reasonably expect per unit of generated energy; then he compares with other forms of energy. It's by no means clear that nuclear is, in fact, so dangerous. He also debunks the claim that we couldn't build nuclear power stations quickly enough. MacKay presents the figures dispassionately, and adds, in a typical aside, that you shouldn't conclude that he's pro-nuclear; he's pro-arithmetic. The book, I should mention, is often surprisingly funny. At the end of Part II, MacKay puts it all together, and constructs some energy budgets that actually balance. He tries to cater for different points of view. So, there's one budget which is driven by economic considerations, and that ends up being mostly nuclear; there's one which focuses on having no nukes, which requires a lot of solar power from the Sahara; there's one where the main theme is self-sufficiency, which means a lot of wind farms; and so on. The budgets make sobering reading. I found them, however, much more positive than negative. It does still appear quite possible to implement these solutions. The bad news is that no mainstream politicians are really trying. They are getting away with soundbites and token gestures; I was particularly annoyed to learn that the wind turbine which David Cameron (leader of the Conservative Party) installed on his roof probably required more energy to produce than it will ever generate. These politicians are relying on an electorate who will accept their phony numbers on trust. Don't do that. Read MacKay's book, and start asking tough questions until our elected representatives produce plans that add up. _________________________________ Yesterday, I bought a copy of the Star (Britain's second-trashiest daily newspaper) to read on the train. As usual, it was very entertaining. Among other things, I hadn't heard that Jordan had threatened to shave her head, that Marge Simpson would be appearing nude in Playboy, or that Liverpudlian women had the biggest boobs in England. But my prize went to the following entry on the letters page: He just bores me stiffThis highlights a problem that MacKay mentions several times: how can we make green politics more engaging at an emotional level? I thought this was one area where his analysis wasn't quite up to the level I'd come to expect in the book. One suggestion he mentioned a couple of times was for sexy celebrities to start a trend for wearing warm sweaters; that would let us all set our thermostats a few degrees lower, and significantly lower the country's energy requirements. But I have real trouble seeing his idea work in practice. I find it much easier to imagine a campaign along the general lines of "My house is so well insulated that I can walk around dressed like this!" Now there's something that might interest the Star. _________________________________ This book definitely helps you make sense of the news. Last weekend, I recall telling a friend that I'd like to see public debate in Britain about our energy policy. If we didn't, it was clear from MacKay's energy budgets that we'd soon get a massive expansion in nuclear power. Maybe it's what we need, but it would be nice at least to consider the alternatives. This morning, the splash in the Guardian starts like this: Families face nuclear tax on power bills _________________________________ This book helps you make sense of the news (part 2). Another story in the Guardian. Here's how it starts: Ed Miliband to unveil plans to fast-track new nuclear power stations (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Sep 21, 2009
|
Jan 03, 2009
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
092992326X
| 9780929923260
| 4.33
| 3
| unknown
| Aug 15, 1990
|
This wonderful though almost unknown book, which I have read so many times that my copy is falling to pieces, consists of a series of about 90 cartoon...more
This wonderful though almost unknown book, which I have read so many times that my copy is falling to pieces, consists of a series of about 90 cartoons, one per page, illustrating all the things men do that women can't stand. I honestly can't recall a single woman I've shown it to who hasn't appreciated it. Most of them immediately read it cover to cover, nodding every couple of pages as they recognize another thing their partner does. "Oh yes, he does that... and that... and that... Not THAT though. I think. No, wait, he did it once." If the partner is present, he is well advised to stand alongside and plead for mercy before things get unpleasant. Of course, you have to see the pictures to get the full effect, but maybe giving a description or two will persuade you to go out and buy it. Caption: "They Flirt With Waitresses". This is the first one. HE is leering at the rather tacky-looking waitress, and saying "Dessert? Honey, just looking at you is dessert enough for me!" WAITRESS is smiling appreciatively and saying "Well, ain't you the charmer!" SHE is looking desperately away, rolling her eyes heavenwards and trying to throw up. Or, here's another one. Caption: "They Always Want Sex". SHE, wearing a plaid skirt and sensible blouse, has clearly been interrupted while brushing her teeth (she still has the toothbrush sticking out of her mouth). She is being chased around the bed by HIM, tongue hanging out and wearing nothing except a manic grin. This is immediately followed on the next page by "They Never Want Sex": SHE, wearing her sexiest negligee with a rose held between her teeth, is standing by the edge of the bed and looking suggestively at HIM, very geeky with glasses and book, who is peering up at her and saying defensively "Aw... didn't we do it last month?". So as you can see, it's actually a little more even-handed than it might first appear. Other favorites include "They Love Having You See Pictures Of Their Ex-Girlfriends"; "They Don't Know How To Pay Compliments"; "They Care More About Their Cars Than They Do About You"; and (for some reason I often get this one quoted to me, can't understand why) "They Only Hear The Things They Want To Hear". There are only 83 shopping days left before Christmas, and I honestly can't believe you don't know anyone who would appreciate this as a present. You probably know at least five such people. ____________________________________ Rose, thank you for getting me to post some pictures! Originals at http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3... On the cover of the book: Caption: They care more about their cars than they do about you. As she lies comatose on the ground, eyes rolled up in their sockets and tongue hanging out, HE's saying "Oh my God, you didn't scratch it, did you!?!" And here are three more: ![]() Caption: They forget the "little things". HE says: "Surprise, Sarah darling. I've remembered all your favourites: your favourite meal, your favourite wine, your favourite dessert, even your favourite flowers. I haven't forgotten a thing!" And SHE, for some reason less than ecstatic, replies: "My name is Rose." ![]() Caption: They hear only what they want to hear. SHE says: "You may be good-looking, Dave, but you're also conceited, insensitive, rude, sneaky, fatuous, emotionally retarded, inflexible, obstinate, and deceitful." HE says: "Good-looking, huh? Say, how would you rate me on a score of one to ten?" ![]() Caption: They love to have you see pictures of their former girlfriends. The dedication on the PHOTO is: "To my darling Jed, the greatest, and I mean it. XXX. Sonya" HE says: "Oh, gee, how embarrassing, I forgot to take down that old thing!" SHE is apparently lost for words. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1983
|
Dec 19, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0465036732
| 9780465036738
| 3.84
| 744
| 1999
| May 03, 2001
|
[Original review, November 2008] This book blew me away... I hadn't been paying attention, and had missed a scientific revolution that had happened rig...more [Original review, November 2008] This book blew me away... I hadn't been paying attention, and had missed a scientific revolution that had happened right under my nose! To cut to the chase: either someone created the Universe expressly to make it suitable for living beings, or there are lots of universes, and we just happen to be in one of the rare ones that support life. Right now, there don't seem to be many other serious alternatives. If you have trouble believing this, get Rees's excellent book. It will change the way you think about things. ________________________________________________ [Postscript, December 2008] I was just looking at Trevor's review, and thought I would update my own. Here are a couple more thoughts. First, much as I hate saying it, the creationists have a stronger position now than they've had for the last 300 years. There's something really odd about the way the physical constants are so finely tuned. Some of them need to be correct to multiple decimal places. Of course, when I say "creationists", I don't mean people who claim the world was made 10,000 years ago. I mean the faction who agree that most of science is correct, but want some Creator to have started the whole thing off. I don't see that it's a real counter-argument that God wouldn't have anything to do for the next 13 billion years. Maybe time passes very differently for Him. Maybe He isn't really at all interested in what we're up to, and is only omnipotent and omniscient in a narrow technical sense. Suppose, as an extreme example, that our whole universe was a simulation that some student had set up as a term project in the university's quantum computer. We see 13 billion years, but from His point of view He is running us over the weekend. He's an ordinary 19 year old, He's only doing it to pass Cosmology 101, and He even copied the critical parameter settings from a friend as some students do. I don't actually see why it's inconsistent with the observed data! There could be a short story in this. I'm sorry if religious people find the above horribly blasphemous. All I'm saying is: one explanation of the facts is that the universe was created, but we can deduce nothing at all from that about the nature of the Creator. ________________________________________________ [Postscript, August 2012] I have read a good deal more cosmology since I first came across Just Six Numbers in 2006, and thought I would re-read it to see what difference this had made. I'm pleased to say that the book still comes across a fine piece of work, and if you want to get a quick introduction to cosmology I strongly recommend it. The writing is excellent. It was published in 1999. Rees made some predictions about what might happen over the next ten years. I was interested to see how they had worked out: Prediction 1. Mainly thanks to the upcoming WMAP satellite, we would have much better values for Ω, Λ and Q (roughly, the extent to which space is curved, the strength of Dark Energy, and the graininess of the universe). Ω would probably turn out to be 1 (flat space), and Q would be about 10^-5. This definitely came out as he said it would. If anything, we understand the large-scale structure of the universe better than we expected. Prediction 2. We would know what "dark matter" is made of. Alas, we still don't. I am not even sure if we are significantly closer to finding out. Prediction 3. We would have a solid "Theory of Everything" which unified the four forces of nature, and which would probably be based on superstring theory. This has also failed to happen - though we have at least confirmed that the Higgs particle exists, which makes his scenarios for the very early universe a little less speculative. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 2006
|
Dec 16, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0671628313
| 9780671628314
| 4.10
| 58
| 1980
| Oct 15, 1986
|
This book is worth getting just for the essay "Planet Without Laughter" - the best, most even-handed, and funniest account of mysticism that I have ev...more
This book is worth getting just for the essay "Planet Without Laughter" - the best, most even-handed, and funniest account of mysticism that I have ever come across. Smullyan invites you to imagine a world where most people have never had the experience of finding something funny. They've all heard about it as a theoretical concept, and they know that "finding something funny" is often followed by "laughter". And then there's the mysterious concept of "humor". What do all these things mean? Opinions are divided. A few lucky individuals do have a sense of humor. They laugh spontaneously, usually for no apparent reason. Most people, however, just go to a place every Sunday where a "comedian" stands up and tells "jokes". Everyone knows when to laugh, and tries to do so to the best of their ability. But it's an unsatisfying experience, and to be honest feels rather meaningless. Some people think that they can acquire a "sense of humor" by dint of hard practice. They keep reading collections of jokes, hoping that one day they will "get them", and they listen to recordings of people laughing who have a real sense of humor. They hope that if they can just learn to laugh in the right way, they'll have a sense of humor too. Unfortunately, this doesn't tend to work very well. Other people are skeptical about the whole concept. They cross-examine the rare individuals who claim to have a sense of humor. What does humor look like? they ask. Well, it doesn't look like anything. What color is it? It doesn't have a color. They ask more questions like these. If it has no obvious properties, then how could you recognize it? Oh, say the humorists, trust us. If you ever find something funny yourself, you'll just know! And don't keep focusing on such advanced kinds of humor - "black humor" and "gallows humor" and whatnot. You're much more likely to get a laugh out of seeing someone slip on a banana peel and fall flat on his ass. The official comedians don't always like these pronouncements. If you can't be bothered to buy it, I see "Planet" is available online here. Check it out! I don't guarantee a mystical experience, but it may well make you laugh a couple of times... _____________________________________ I do wonder whether Terry Pratchett and/or Neil Gaiman had read "Planet Without Laughter" when they wrote Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch . In particular, check out "Epilogue in Heaven" from the Smullyan. _____________________________________ Another possible connection, which I'm astonished not to have thought of years ago. Smullyan is Marvin Minsky's cousin, and they're known to be close. Minsky was good friends with Robert Heinlein, and it's widely believed that he contributed many ideas to Heinlein's books. Well... Mike, the computer in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress , is terribly interested in the nature of humour. In fact, humour research is what he really wants to do - he just helps run the Lunar Revolution as a favour to his human friends, so they'll discuss jokes with him in return. I can't help wondering if this idea started with Smullyan, and then ended up in Heinlein's book after having gone through Minsky... (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1983
|
Dec 15, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0671448315
| 9780671448318
| 3.18
| 65
| 1982
| Apr 01, 1982
|
Left versus right. In versus out. U versus Non-U. Yang versus Yin. None of these are remotely as important as the fundamental opposition between Real...more
Left versus right. In versus out. U versus Non-U. Yang versus Yin. None of these are remotely as important as the fundamental opposition between Real Man and Quiche-Eater, as revealed in Professor Feirstein's seminal work. In case you're in any doubt as to which is which, I've just drawn up the following table, based on a careful study of the principles described in this marvelous book. Enjoy! Real men Ian Fleming, From Russia With Love Winston Churchill, The Second World War J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring George Orwell, 1984 Dante Aligheri, La Divina Commedia Jackie Collins, Hollywood Wives Jan Kjærstad, Forføraren Frank Herbert, Dune E. Nesbit, The Enchanted Castle Albert Camus, L'Homme Revolté Søren Kierkegaard, A Seducer's Diary Iain M. Banks, Consider Phlebas Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations John Ajvide Lindkvist, Låt Den Rätte Komma In Voltaire, Candide Ursula Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea Robert J. Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games Richard Feynman, QED William Shakespeare, The Sonnets Marguerite Duras, L'Amant Quiche eaters Sebastian Faulks, Devil May Care Bill Clinton, My Life Stephen Donaldson, Lord Foul's Bane Arthur Koestler, Darkness At Noon John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress Virginia Andrews, Flowers in the Attic Lars Saabye Christensen, Halvbroren Brian Herbert, The Butlerian Jihad Enid Blyton, Five on a Treasure Island Jean-Paul Sartre, L'Être et le Néant Eric Weber, How To Pick Up Girls E.E. Doc Smith, Galactic Patrol Jacques Derrida, De La Grammatologie Stephenie Meyer, Twilight Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Garry Kasparov, Child of Change Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land Erica Jong, Fear of Flying(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1983
|
Dec 14, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0739467352
| 9780739467350
| 3.98
| 93,586
| Jan 01, 1997
| 2005
|
I liked this book, and it taught me a bunch of things I hadn't known before I read it. Jared Diamond has clearly had a more interesting life than most...more
I liked this book, and it taught me a bunch of things I hadn't known before I read it. Jared Diamond has clearly had a more interesting life than most of us, and spent significant amounts of time in a wide variety of different kinds of society, all over the world. He says he got the basic idea from a conversation he had back in the 70s with a friend in New Guinea. His friend, who later became a leader in the independence movement, wanted to talk about "cargo" (manufactured goods, technology). "Why is it," he asked, "that you Europeans have so much more cargo than we do?" Diamond thought he had come up with a good question, and wrote the book in an attempt to answer it. The core of Diamond's explanation is that Europeans were essentially lucky in two respects. First, we have unusually many easily domesticable plant and animal species. Second, since Europe is oriented East-West rather than North-South, a species which is domesticated in one part of Europe has a good chance of thriving in another, so there are many opportunities to swap farming technology between different areas. It helps that there is an easily navigable river system, and also that there are no impassible deserts or mountain ranges. These conditions are not reproduced in most other parts of the world; Diamond has a range of interesting tables, showing how few useful domesticable species there are elsewhere. Because we got efficient farming earlier than most other people, we also got cities and advanced technology earlier, and everything else followed from that initial lead we established. One objection you could make is that it wasn't luck, but rather that Europeans were more enterprising than people in other areas about finding good species to domesticate. Diamond's answer to this is fairly convincing. Having lived extensively with pre-industrial people, he says that we city-dwellers just don't understand how well they know their flora and fauna, and how active their interest in them is. I guess a New Guinea tribesman would, conversely, be surprised at how quickly word gets around on the Internet when a cool new website appears. Basically, what he's saying is that pre-industrial people tried everything that could be tried, and when they didn't find anything good, it's because it wasn't there. Systematic studies by modern scientists do seem to support this conclusion. Another criticism some readers have leveled at Diamond is that he makes history completely deterministic - once the geography was fixed, everything that happened after that was inevitable. I don't actually think that's fair. Diamond is open about the fact that his theories make one embarrassingly incorrect prediction: if it was all about being first to domesticate plant and animal species and set up efficient farming, then China should be the world's preeminent civilization. Even though he makes some attempt to explain why this isn't so, there does right now seem to be a fair case for saying that it's not only geography. Luckily, George W. Bush has been working hard to try and smooth things out. If the Western world can just arrange two or three more leaders like him, all of Diamond's data will hopefully come out the way it's supposed to, and the last few hundred years of Western history can be written off as a statistical blip. Way to go, Dubya! ________________________________________________ I was surprised this morning to discover that Darwin, in On the Origin of Species, expressed an opinion diametrically opposite to the one Diamond argues for: If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that given to the plants in countries anciently civilised.Does Diamond mention this? Unfortunately, I don't have a copy to hand. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Mar 2007
|
Dec 10, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0349108773
| 9780349108773
| 4.35
| 23,453
| unknown
| 1998
|
I've finally reached the end of this amazing book. It's not an easy read, but after a while you discover that there are good reasons why it has to be...more
I've finally reached the end of this amazing book. It's not an easy read, but after a while you discover that there are good reasons why it has to be the way it is. The review is the mini-blog I kept while I was reading it. It sort of contains spoilers: I don't give away very much about the plot, but I do spend a lot of time speculating about what the overall point of the book is. So if that kind of thing bothers you, you probably shouldn't read on. Read Infinite Jest instead, then come back and see if you agree with me :) The rest of this review is in my book What Pooh Might Have Said to Dante and Other Futile Speculations (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 24, 2009
|
Dec 10, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0553381342
| 9780553381344
| 3.72
| 29,122
| 1987
| Oct 30, 2001
|
A terrific book! I remember reading a review where someone called him "a day-glo Dickens". I am not personally a big Dickens fan, but presumably the p...more
A terrific book! I remember reading a review where someone called him "a day-glo Dickens". I am not personally a big Dickens fan, but presumably the person who wrote this was, and I agree with his sentiment. Wolfe takes apart late 80's US society in the same way Dickens did with British society a hundred years earlier... all the characters are larger-than-life parodies, but that's the charm of it. Both the narrative and the dialogue are hysterically funny. Or at least I thought so - I can see from the other reviews that there are different opinions about the book. Let me give you some examples of passages I enjoyed. Appalling egomaniac Sherman McCoy (horribly miscast as Tom Hanks in the movie) spends his life trading bonds, an occupation that has suddenly become very hot. His son likes the He Man series, and Sherman goes around thinking of himself as a "Master of the Universe". He drives to the airport to pick up his equally dreadful mistress, who's in a foul mood. What happened? he wonders. She tells him about the snotty English scriptwriter who sat next to her on the flight. He's on his way to Hollywood to work on a movie treatment of Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus. Will Mr. Marlowe be helping you? wonders the mistress. "I shouldn't think so," says the snotty scriptwriter, "He's been dead for 400 years." The mistress is indignant - she was hurt by the "I shouldn't think so". Are you supposed to know who Christopher Marlowe was? Sherman thinks about it, but the only thing he can remember about Christopher Marlowe is that you're supposed to know who he was. The mistress is married to a much older, extremely wealthy man. Her motives for marrying him are transparently obvious. Another character is speculating about how she picked him. "You know, I bet she studied the actuarial tables," he says disgustedly. "I bet she actually went and studied the fucking actuarial tables." Well... it's that kind of humor. Don't read it if you expect the author to be nice to anyone, or show them an inch of mercy. He won't. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1989
|
Dec 09, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0140424385
| 9780140424386
| 3.44
| 81,943
| 1372
| Feb 04, 2003
|
A classic that has worn well... the psychology, in particular with regard to women, seems remarkably modern! It's funny, and not just in one style eit...more
A classic that has worn well... the psychology, in particular with regard to women, seems remarkably modern! It's funny, and not just in one style either. Sometimes he's subverting the popular cliches of the day, sometimes he's slyly campaigning for women's rights, and sometimes he's just having fun telling dirty jokes. I'm having trouble deciding which style I like most - they're all good, and often mixed up together too. I once spent a pleasant bus trip sitting next to a grad student who was doing a dissertation on Chaucer. I asked her why it seemed in some ways so much more sophisticated than Shakespeare. Apparently the difference is that Shakespeare had to be suitable for the masses, but Chaucer was aimed pretty exclusively at court people, who could be given stronger stuff without having their morals corrupted. Or whatever double standard was being employed. It all sounded quite interesting. I read it in the original Middle English... speaking Swedish and French, I found it reasonably easy to understand, most of the words were similar to something I knew. It's really lovely language. __________________________________ To my considerable surprise, I have just learned that the good Geoffrey is still with us! He is very well-preserved considering his advanced age, and has even started a blog. Under "Favorite posts", I particularly recommend "Lynes of Pick-Up", "She's yonge, sexie & rich: interviewe wyth Parys" and "The Cipher of Leonardo". __________________________________ Stalker Week update: read The Merchant's Tale! Or if you can't be bothered, at least answer my Quiz question about it.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Sep 2006
|
Dec 08, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0340589353
| 9780340589359
| 3.68
| 1,670
| 1983
| unknown
|
My favourite extreme-feminist novel. Being male and reading this was somewhat uncomfortable at first, but after a chapter or so I decided that for the...more
My favourite extreme-feminist novel. Being male and reading this was somewhat uncomfortable at first, but after a chapter or so I decided that for the duration of the book I was really a woman - then I could settle down and enjoy it. It's very funny and insightful.(less)
| Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1984
|
Dec 08, 2008
| |||||||||||||||||
1592401287
| 9781592401284
| 3.84
| 57
| Mar 31, 2005
| Mar 31, 2005
|
He mocks the classics. But, somehow, respectfully. No spinning in graves. ___________________________________________ I was struck by the following passag...more He mocks the classics. But, somehow, respectfully. No spinning in graves. ___________________________________________ I was struck by the following passage in Huysmans's A Rebours: Bien souvent, des Esseintes avait médité sur cet inquiétant problème, écrire un roman concentré en quelques phrases qui contiendraient le suc cohobé des centaines de pages toujours employées à établer le milieu, à dessiner les caractères, à entasser à l'appui les observations et les menus faits. Alors les mots choisis seraient tellment impermutables qu'ils suppléeraient à tous les autres : l'adjective posé d'une si définitive façon qu'il ne pourrait être légalement dépossédé de sa place, ouvrirait de telles perspectives que le lecteur pourrait rêver, pendant des semaines entières, sur son sens, tout à la fois précis et multiple, constaterait le présent, reconstruirait le passé, devinerait l'avenir d'âmes des personnages, révélés par les lueurs de cette épithète unique.At the time, clearly just a dream, but modern technology has now caught up with him. Isn't that amazing? (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 2006
|
Dec 08, 2008
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
9150104004
| 9789150104004
| 4.34
| 454
| unknown
| Aug 2004
|
In this brilliant nonsense poem, which easily stands comparison with Lewis Carroll, Mumintroll is on his way home with a can of milk when he enters th...more
In this brilliant nonsense poem, which easily stands comparison with Lewis Carroll, Mumintroll is on his way home with a can of milk when he enters the dangerous-looking woods around nightfall: Från mjölkbutiken, klockan femAs on all the pages, the last line is Vad tror du att det hände sen?, "What do you think happened then?", and a piece of the next page has been cut away so that you can guess. It looks like the chimney of a house... but it's not! You turn over and discover it's Mymlan, who's sitting and weeping (she's a very weepy character) because her little sister, My, has got herself lost. The kind and practical Mumin suggests that they look for her. And their bizarre advantures continue, as they, among other things, get sucked into a Hemul's vacuum cleaner, frighten a Filifjonk out of her wits, and are nearly electrocuted by Hattifnatts. It all rhymes and scans perfectly, in the most charming way. In the end, they find their way back to Mumindalen. But... oh no! The milk's gone sour. Muminmamma isn't bothered, and says they're going to have raspberry cordial instead. I cannot overstate what a wonderful book this is! I must know nearly the whole thing by heart, having read it about a million times. .(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
20
| not set
| Jan 1980
|
Dec 07, 2008
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||||
096291620X
| 9780962916205
| 3.56
| 152
| May 1994
| Feb 01, 1997
|
Getting in Touch With Your Inner Bitch deserves to be better known. The persuasive thesis is that nearly all women suffer from the syndrome she calls...more
Getting in Touch With Your Inner Bitch deserves to be better known. The persuasive thesis is that nearly all women suffer from the syndrome she calls Toxic Niceness. People, often but by no means always men, ask them to do things, and... well... why not? It's nicer to agree, isn't it? Sisters! (I know, I'm not actually female, but when I read this I feel for a moment that I am). Buy Elizabeth Hilts's excellent book, and learn how to escape from this trap! It's easier than you think. Just repeat after her the magic words, "I don't think so". That's all you have to say, next time someone asks you for a favour. As she points out, so much more effective than "No". If you say "no", people can come back with "Are you sure?" But, somehow, you can't say that to "I don't think so". For obvious reasons, I haven't been able to test this myself, but it sounds so plausible. I'd love to know if it actually works. Oh, and check out Christine Lavin's fine track! (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 2004
|
Dec 05, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0156948702
| 9780156948708
| 4.09
| 17,027
| 1922
| Mar 20, 1974
|
You know, one of the greatest poems of the 20th century and that kind of thing. I must know a fair amount of it by heart. Here's a story about "The Wa...more You know, one of the greatest poems of the 20th century and that kind of thing. I must know a fair amount of it by heart. Here's a story about "The Waste Land" that some people may find amusing. Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate in Cambridge, a friend of mine asked me for advice on how to impress female Eng Lit majors. Well, I said, you could do worse than use The Waste Land. Just memorise a few lines, and you'll probably be able to bluff successfully. We did some rehearsals, and eventually agreed on the following script. He would start off by quoting the first few lines: "April is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain." And then he would say, But that's not my favourite bit! and quote the following: "What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, You cannot say, or guess." He tried it out a couple of times, and it worked! Female Eng Lit majors, I apologise for assisting with this deception. It wasn't very nice of me.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
20
| not set
| Jan 1974
|
Dec 05, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0156632772
| 9780156632775
| 3.66
| 2,604
| 1935
| Mar 18, 1964
|
A fabulous verse-drama about the martyrdom of Thomas Becket. Most of the action is in Thomas's head, as he rejects the easy solutions presented by his...more
A fabulous verse-drama about the martyrdom of Thomas Becket. Most of the action is in Thomas's head, as he rejects the easy solutions presented by his Tempters, and decides to stick to the course which inevitably leads to his death. My favorite lines are the following: The last temptation is the greatest treasonIt sounds convincing, but I've never been able to decide if I agree. Given how uncertain people generally are about their motives, isn't what you do the most important thing? For example, when you read about the background to many great works of art, you'll often find that they were composed for the most trivial and ridiculous of reasons; impressing some random woman that the author was keen on, settling scores with a rival, winning a bet, or, most often, just paying an overdue bill. I don't think that makes any difference at all. But Eliot's poetry is so compelling that you only think of this stuff afterwards... while reading it, I just find myself swept along by the verse. It's one of his best pieces, and surprisingly unknown compared to Prufrock and The Waste Land. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 1975
|
Dec 05, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0765315602
| 9780765315601
| 3.70
| 435
| 1966
| May 30, 2006
|
A wonderfully zany SF romp, which you'd be tempted to dismiss as a rip-off of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy if it hadn't been written 15 years earl...more
A wonderfully zany SF romp, which you'd be tempted to dismiss as a rip-off of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy if it hadn't been written 15 years earlier. I see that some reviewers here object to Sheckley's style and dialogue, but to me it seemed clear that he was mostly parodying SF and other genre fiction - I found it very amusing. In this book, you travel the Galaxy by swapping minds with alien beings on other planets. There are many brilliant throwaway ideas, but the clear standout is "panzaism". Sheckley defines this as as the opposite of quixotism - Don Quixote looks at a windmill, and sees a giant. Sancho Panza, on the other hand, looks at a giant, and sees a windmill. So the hero of the book may start a chapter with his mind suddenly occupying the body of a mole-like creature burrowing in pitch darkness miles under the surface of an alien planet; after a few pages, the panzaism has set in, and he just feels that he's a commuter on his way to work. As artists are always reminding us, the world is far more bizarre, dramatic and interesting than we think. I think Sheckley found a great way here to present a real phenomenon, and once you're used to the concept of panzaism you'll notice it everywhere. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 1974
|
Dec 01, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0141018356
| 9780141018355
| 3.92
| 2,422
| Sep 19, 2006
| Feb 28, 2008
|
An interesting and well-written book. Smolin started out wanting to write about the sociology of research funding in the US. He is extremely worried a...more
An interesting and well-written book. Smolin started out wanting to write about the sociology of research funding in the US. He is extremely worried about the fact that it has become difficult for young researchers to get money to pursue novel ideas, with most funding concentrated on a small number of mainstream projects which are regarded as "safe". In many fields, this has already been taken to the logical extreme, with nearly everything focussed on one single direction. As a researcher (albeit in a completely different discipline), I have had good reason to make similar observations. It is indeed worrying. Smolin's publisher, however, was concerned that a general book on this theme would be too dry, and encouraged Smolin to organise it around a specific topic that he knew well. Smolin agreed, and used string theory. So now you essentially get two books for the price of one: a very interesting, up-to-the-minute, critique of string theory, written by an insider who knows where all the bodies are buried, and a general treatise which takes this as an example of what's going wrong with the way research is organised. Both are very successful. If you are at all interested in these topics, it's a must-read. The part I liked best was the historical section, where Smolin examines the claim string theorists like to make that "it's so beautiful that it simply has to be true". He comes up with some great examples of beautiful theories that actually just happened to be plain wrong. _________________________________________ I just finished rereading this excellent book. There's so much interesting material that it's easy to miss many of the best bits first time around! So here are some of the things that most impressed me on my second visit: The Kaluza-Klein theory It's not well-known (or at least, I had never heard it before), but the idea of using higher dimensions to unify gravity and electromagnetism is far from new. Kaluza, Klein and some other smart people came up with a scheme of this kind about the same time as Einstein invented General Relativity. The theory was very elegant and beautiful. But, unfortunately, the experimental predictions it made turned out to be incorrect, so it was junked. Lack of experimental predictions from string theory The problem is that "string theory" isn't actually a single theory. It's more a research program based on a some extremely complicated mathematics that only a few experts understand. There are many different versions of it, and all of them have multiple adjustable parameters, so it predicts very little. Hence it's extremely hard to disprove it. What happened to string theory when dark energy was discovered One of the very few predictions made by string theory was that the cosmological constant had to be zero or negative. Then, in 1998, astronomers discovered dark energy, which appears to point to a positive cosmological constant (the dark energy force is stretching the Universe apart, rather than pulling it together). Under normal circumstances, one would just have said that this showed string theory wasn't correct. But the string theorists found an even more complicated way to rejig the theory and get a positive constant. The new theory comes in about 10^500 different forms (1 with 500 zeros), so now it really is almost impossible to test it experimentally. The string theorists counter by saying that there is a "Cosmic Landscape", by which they mean there are 10^500 different universes, one for each version of the theory. Then they invoke the "anthropic principle" to explain the appearance of the world we see by arguing that we're observing it, hence we must be in one of the few universes that can support life. As Smolin says, this is not a normal way to do science. Some weird shit that astronomers have been finding String theorists like to say that they're the only game in town. Smolin reminds us that we don't actually have to spend all our time playing in this sterile mathematical wonderland. There is some amazing stuff turning up in real-world observations and crying out to be explained. First, he encourages us to think more about dark energy. As far as we know, it's not like it's in any particular place. It seems to be a property of the whole Universe. Physicists like to take about what happens at different "scales" - the scale of subatomic particles, the scale of molecules, the scale of planets, etc. Different forces are at different scales: for example, quantum effects are really important at the subatomic scale but not important at all at the planetary scale, while gravity is the other way around. So he says, well, let's call R the size of the Universe, about 10 billion light years. Dark energy appears to be operating at the scale of R. Is there anything else? Let's try deriving some other physical quantitities on that scale. In particular, let's look at R/c^2, R divided by the square of the speed of light. That's an acceleration, which works out to about 10^-8 cm/s^2. It's a very small acceleration indeed. Is anything interesting happening with accelerations at this level? And, it turns out, there is! Stars near the outskirts of a galaxy should be accelerating at just about R/c^2. But, in fact, they're moving faster than they're supposed to, while stars near the centre of the galaxy move at the predicted speed. This has been well known for decades, and is generally ascribed to the existence of a "dark matter halo" - invisible mass which only interacts through gravity, and is spread out around the outskirts of the galaxy. Suppose, though, that dark matter and dark energy were different aspects of the same thing? Not only that, but there is some odd data coming from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes. These are now leaving the Solar System but can still be tracked. It turns out that they appear to be slowing down more than they should, with the difference between the observed accelation and the predicted one being around 6 times R/c^2. People have been checking the figures carefully, trying to find normal explanations, and so far nothing has emerged. He also has some very cool stuff about cosmic rays, and how you can in effect use the whole Universe as a particle accelerator to do experiments. But let me move on to my last topic. Seers and craftspeople The last third of the book is about sociology. Why has physics got itself into this mess? Smolin's answer is quite long and complicated, but let me give you one part I particularly liked. He distinguishes between two kinds of periods in science, "revolutions" and "normal science". Revolutions are when things abruptly change; the last big one was at the beginning of the twentieth century. Normal science is what happens in between, where people work out all the consequences of the last revolution. He also distinguishes between two kinds of scientists, whom he calls "seers" and "craftspeople". Craftspeople are very smart, very focussed, very good at math. They were top of their science class all through school. They learn existing techniques quickly and are good at using them. Seers are more unfocussed, mystic, dreamer types. They're often not that great at math, but they can't stop thinking about the fundamental questions. As he says, it's easy to be dismissive of seers until you remember that Einstein was like that. Smolin thinks we've forgotten why we need seers. He says we're trying to organise a scientific revolution using craftspeople, and it's not working. He's an inspiring guy. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Sep 2007
|
Dec 01, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0515011835
| 9780515011838
| 4.14
| 57
| May 1965
| May 1965
|
I gave notgettingenough a copy of Space Lords... ![]() ... and all I got was this lousy T-shirt. Ah, sorry, I mean, thank you, it's lovely! | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 1973
|
Dec 01, 2008
| Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
9515005620
| 9789515005625
| 4.27
| 2,627
| 1946
| 1992
|
A beautiful, ironic parody of the Armageddon-style killer meteorite movie, written before any of them existed. There are so many brilliant little deta...more
A beautiful, ironic parody of the Armageddon-style killer meteorite movie, written before any of them existed. There are so many brilliant little details. I particularly loved the out-of-touch astronomers at the observatory, who have calculated exactly when the comet will strike ("possibly four seconds later," they add scrupulously), but seem completely uninterested by the fact that it will wipe out everyone in Moomin Valley. In case you're worried, though, the Moomin family is more than a match for one little rogue comet, and Moominpappa's wonderfully absurd solution saves the day. The writing in the original Swedish is impeccable; Jansson's unique blend of humor, melancholy and acute observation all comes together perfectly. I think this is her best book, and have read it several times. Suitable for anyone from eight to eighty-eight. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 1981
|
Dec 01, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0451528921
| 9780451528926
| 4.03
| 27,530
| 1897
| Aug 05, 2003
|
One of the all-time great over-the-top romances - everyone knows the story, and it's been adapted a million times. How they could have given it a happ...more One of the all-time great over-the-top romances - everyone knows the story, and it's been adapted a million times. How they could have given it a happy ending in Steve Martin's "Roxanne" is beyond me. The Depardieu movie is the one to see, of course. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jan 2001
|
Dec 01, 2008
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
0441148603
| 3.96
| 373
| 1968
| May 01, 1979
|
This book is similar to the Hitchhiker's Guide series in construction, and nearly as good, but hardly anyone has heard of it. If you're an HHTG fan wh...more
This book is similar to the Hitchhiker's Guide series in construction, and nearly as good, but hardly anyone has heard of it. If you're an HHTG fan who's still in withdrawal following Douglas Adams's untimely departure, consider reading some Sheckley.
Mindswap
and the short story collections are equally brilliant. Dimension of Miracles contains a brilliant and haunting idea which I often think about. (view spoiler)[The hero, Thomas Carmody, has been taken from Earth to receive a Prize in the Galactic Sweepstakes. Unfortunately, there's a catch: the rules of the competition don't provide for a return ticket. He has to find his own way back. It turns out to be harder than he thought. First, there's the comparatively trivial problem of Where, which involves travelling a few tens of thousands of light-years. Once he's located his home planet, he's faced with When, since he also needs to find the right moment in history (he initially lands some time in the late Cretaceous). But the last question, Which, is the hardest one. Of all the many alternate parallel Earths, how can he recognise his own home? And all along, he's being pursued by a fiendish and inexorable enemy, the Predator. After many adventures, Carmody does finally solve Where, When and Which and returns to the world he came from. But he doesn't like it, and leaves again. He is now doomed to a terrifying existence where he will for ever have to flee the Predator through increasingly unlikely Earths. His companion, the Prize, asks him what he thinks he will do with his life. "I will live it," replies Carmody. (hide spoiler)] (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
3
| not set
| Jan 1974
|
Nov 29, 2008
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
0151007152
| 9780151007158
| 4.31
| 1,993
| 2002
| Dec 01, 2002
|
I know many of these well enough to recite them. Some of my favourite quotes: [Jim, who ran away from his nurse and was eaten by a lion:] "Now just imag...more I know many of these well enough to recite them. Some of my favourite quotes: [Jim, who ran away from his nurse and was eaten by a lion:] "Now just imagine how it feels when first your toes and then your heels and then by gradual degrees your insteps, ankles, calves and knees are slowly eaten, bit by bit! No wonder Jim detested it! No wonder that he shouted Hi! The honest keeper heard his cry Though very stout, he almost ran to help the little gentleman!" [Henry King:] "Physicians of the utmost fame Were summoned swiftly but they came and answered as they took their fees There is no cure for this disease Henry will very soon be dead His parents stood beside his bed lamenting his untimely death..." [Charles Augustus Fortescue:] "And as for finding mutton fat unappetising, far from that He often of his own acccord Would stand beside his father's board and beg for, if he would not mind the greasiest morsels he could find"(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
10
| not set
| Jan 1973
|
Nov 29, 2008
| Hardcover
|




































Loading...
