anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men(bo...moreanyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men(both little and small) cared for anyone not at all they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same sun moon stars rain
children guessed(but only a few and down they forgot as up they grew autumn winter spring summer) that noone loved him more by more
when by now and tree by leaf she laughed his joy she cried his grief bird by snow and stir by still anyone’s any was all to her
someones married their everyones laughed their cryings and did their dance (sleep wake up and then)they said their nevers they slept their dream stars rain sun moon (and only the snow can begin to explain how children are apt to forget to remember with up so floating many bells down)
one day anyone died i guess (and noone stooped to kiss his face) busy folk buried them side by side little by little and was by was
all by all and deep by deep and more by more they dream their sleep noone and anyone earth by april wish by spirit and if by yes.
Women and men(both dong and ding) summer autumn winter spring reaped their sowing and went their came sun moon stars rain(less)
Manny had liked The Book of Everything so much that he decided he would read it in the original. He ordered a copy.
"But you don't know Dutch," said hi...moreManny had liked The Book of Everything so much that he decided he would read it in the original. He ordered a copy.
"But you don't know Dutch," said his friend.
"I don't care," said Manny.
"It'll be like when we went to to Ireland," said his friend. "Or when we went to Turkey. You bought an Irish grammar and a Turkish grammar, and after we came home you never looked at them again."
"We'll see what happens this time," said Manny.
The book arrived. Manny opened it and started reading. It was very difficult. Sometimes there was a word that looked like Swedish, and sometimes there was a word that looked like German, but mostly it looked like Dutch.
"Shouldn't you be using a dictionary?" asked his friend.
"I don't believe in dictionaries," said Manny. He carried on reading. After a while, he noticed that a lot more of the words were like Swedish or German. You had to squint at them in the right way.
"I'm starting to enjoy it," said Manny. "There's often a sentence or two I can understand."
His friend opened the book. "What does that mean then?" she asked, pointing to the words at the top of the page. She was quite surprised when Manny told her.
Now Manny could sometimes understand whole paragraphs. He wondered why it had seemed so hard at first. It was just a strange mixture of Swedish and German spoken with a Dutch accent. He could hear the author's voice, and it was a beautiful voice.
"You seem to be having fun," said his friend.
"I am," said Manny. "This is a very good book. It makes my head hurt a little, but it's worth it."(less)
I wanted to like this classic book, but I can't do it: too many things are wrong. A shame, because I completely approve of the idea. William James, wr...moreI wanted to like this classic book, but I can't do it: too many things are wrong. A shame, because I completely approve of the idea. William James, writing around the end of the 19th century, sets out to take a cool look at how people experience religious feeling, basing his investigation on state-of-the-art psychological theory. What do we discover, and what do the findings tell us about the nature of religion? For the first two or three chapters, I enjoyed it and thought it was going in a good direction. James is evidently intelligent and well-read, and he's capable of writing excellent prose. Unfortunately, it rapidly started going off the rails in several ways.
First, the style. Yes, James is able to write wonderfully, but a lot of the time he seems to have lost all sense of self-criticism. Above all, he just won't cut anything: the book could comfortably have been shortened to half its length. Looking around, I see many editions which have far fewer pages, so I'm guessing that some editors have done just that. In the original version, which I read, he has endless, repetitious quotations, often stuffed into footnotes which can go on (literally) for two or three pages. It's worse than Infinite Jest, where at least the footnotes are intentionally annoying and often funny. These are anything but.
Next, the science. All well and good to say you'll use up-to-date psychological theory: but psychology at that time was barely a science at all, and it shows. The "scientific" explanations are in most cases not much more than hand-waving and fanciful ideas with Latin names. There are no experiments, no statistics, no falsifiable claims. It's just a mass of case studies, selected and reported according to criteria that are never in any way made clear. Just: oh, this is interesting, let's stick it in. When you cherry-pick your data this way, you can prove anything.
To be fair, James does have an informal plan for selecting his examples, but it's one that I feel very dubious about. He says he will focus on the most extreme examples of religious feeling, since it is in such cases that we will see it in its purest form. We are thus treated to hundreds of pages of quotations from born-again converts, saints and mystics. The greater part of these passages are tedious in the extreme: few of the people in question write well. And, more important, I am not at all sure I agree that religious feeling is best studied in these extreme cases. There's an analogy which suggested itself to me more than once. Imagine that most people never experienced sexual desire, and you wanted to investigate the minority who claimed that they knew it from their own experience. I would definitely not start by reading accounts of people who were into extreme BDSM; The Story of O is interesting in its perverse way, but it would probably give you all sorts of odd ideas about what sex was like. I hate to say this, but some of the saints James discusses rather reminded me of O.
At the end, I was surprised to see James unequivocally claiming that he thought religious feeling was a good thing, and that its object was some definite spiritual reality. I do wonder if he truly believed this. If he did, why pick such bizarre and unconvincing examples? I am quite capable of being moved by religious authors: for example, I love The Divine Comedy, Ash Wednesday, Jan Kjærstad's Jonas Wergeland trilogy, Flaubert's La tentation de saint Antoine and Selma Lagerlöf's Jerusalem, to name just a few. If James had actually wanted to convince his readers, I think he could have done better. He says himself that he was a person who never experienced religious feeling much at first hand; you often get the impression that he was rather sceptical about it. He is certainly quite willing to poke fun at many of the subjects he quotes.
All in all, then, an annoying and frustrating book. If you're interested in these matters, I'd instead recommend reading Gide's La porte étroite and L'immoraliste, and Smullyan's Planet Without Laughter. They're shorter, better written, and, in my humble opinion, considerably more insightful. (less)
People new to Goodreads will not be familiar with the enigmatic BishopBarnes. When I joined in 2008, he was one of the most active members, and his wi...morePeople new to Goodreads will not be familiar with the enigmatic BishopBarnes. When I joined in 2008, he was one of the most active members, and his witty, erudite, provocative posts had attracted a large following.
No one knew who BishopBarnes really was; he maintained the persona of a 1930s senior British cleric with rather unorthodox religious views, who somehow also happened to be startlingly well-read in science and mathematics. He never allowed the mask to slip, and invariably stayed in character. There were several theories. Some people claimed he was a consortium of smart grad students at CERN or the Perimeter Institute; his prolific output and wide-ranging interests tended to support that idea, as did his remarkable grasp of the technical aspects of relativity theory. But he was stylistically consistent, and would CERN grad students also know Latin and obscure science texts from the late 19th century? After a while, a rumor started to circulate that he was Roger Penrose. (One self-claimed expert pointed knowingly to the way he cited Poincaré and Clifford). It didn't seem impossible; but why would Penrose spend so much time on such an obscure joke? The fact was, we simply couldn't figure it out.
His core interests were science and religion, but BishopBarnes had opinions on absolutely everything: whether quantum mechanics made sense, if bees could learn from experience, in what ways the characters of the Son and the Father differed, whether Helen of Troy might have had an unusual number of chromosomes. He was clever about deploying his 1930s outlook for maximum shock value. Some people, like me, found him hilarious, but others were less amused. After he posted his Jared Diamond review, where he solemnly assured us that scientists had determined that the sub-human Neanderthals were black while the superior Cro-Magnons were white, he was angrily unfriended by several people; there was a similar reaction to his Cyril Kornbluth thread, where he argued that "feeble-minded women" urgently needed to be sterilized "before their uncontrolled breeding undermined our race".
On the whole, though, his fans were very loyal. He had two party pieces, which we never tired of. The first involved getting into a debate with a creationist. He would begin by explaining the scientific evidence in favor of evolution (it was impressive how he never once forgot himself and mentioned DNA); then, just as they were starting to quote Biblical verses back at him, he would switch around smoothly and demonstrate that they were equally ignorant about theology. The second routine was basically the first one in reverse. This time, the stooge would be an aggressive atheist; the Bishop would start by demonstrating how poorly they understood philosophy (he was himself particularly well-versed in Kant, Berkeley, Hume and Hegel), and then proceed to show that he also knew more about science. Both setups were marvelous to watch.
One day, we discovered to our sorrow that BishopBarnes had disappeared. His account was no longer there, and all his reviews and comments had vanished. We missed him. But a few weeks ago, I made a remarkable discovery. The Bishop had gone underground! He had taken the entire body of work he'd posted on Goodreads and miraculously reformatted it all into a lengthy book. Evidently, Cambridge University Press are in on the joke: completely straight-faced, they assure us that this is a reprint of a work originally published in 1933, which in turn is based on a series of lectures delivered between 1927 and 1929 at the University of Aberdeen. Someone has even constructed a few plausible-looking Wikipedia pages.
I immediately ordered a copy, and have spent several evenings reliving the Bishop's glorious career. A single little grumble: he probably shouldn't have begun with his one-star review of A Brief History of Time. Admittedly, he's done a fantastic job of condensing down the 800-post comment thread into a coherent narrative, and I think he does more or less justify his rather extravagant claim. (General Relativity is obvious: it just follows from the definitions when you think about it carefully enough). But not everyone will want to read though this amount of tensor algebra, and personally I think he could have moved it to the end of the book. On the other hand, if he'd done that he wouldn't have been the Bishop.
"Have you read The Book of Everything?" asked Sarah. "You might like it."
Manny said that he didn't usually read translated books. But he politely open...more"Have you read The Book of Everything?" asked Sarah. "You might like it."
Manny said that he didn't usually read translated books. But he politely opened it and read the first page, and then the second page. Pretty soon he had read a whole lot of pages. He tried to imagine what it sounded like in Dutch, and he could almost hear the words.
"Shouldn't you be working?" asked someone.
"I've almost finished," said Manny without looking up. He wanted to find out if Jesus would stop Thomas's father from hitting his mother. It didn't look too good, but sometimes Jesus can surprise you. He is a very tricky person. (less)
ME: So what are we going to read tonight? How about the cat book?
KID: Cat who lived a million times!!!
ME: Okay. So there was this cat, a great, tiger-striped cat, and how many times did he live?
KID: Million times!
ME: He did! And when he died, what did people do?
KID: They cried!
ME: They did. But did the cat cry?
KID: No!
ME: That's right, he never cried. So let's see what happened. Who is he in this life?
KID: He's a king's cat.
ME: That's right! And they go off to fight a war. What happens to the cat?
KID: Arrow hits him.
ME: Poor cat! The arrow kills him. And what does the king do?
KID: He cries.
ME: He does. He goes home and buries the cat in the castle garden and he cries and cries. Now who is he in the next life?
KID: He's a sailor's cat.
ME: That's right! And he sails around the world in the sailor's ship. But now what happens to the cat?
KID: He falls in the water.
ME: Poor cat! The sailor fishes him out, but he's drowned. So what does he do?
KID: He cries. And he buries the cat under the tree.
ME: That's right! He buries the cat under the tree in a far-away port.
(... several lives later ...)
ME: Now who is the cat this time?
KID: He's a stray cat.
ME: That's right! He can do what he wants. He thinks he's so important because he's lived a million times. Now who's he met here?
KID: A white girl cat.
ME: He thinks the white girl cat is so pretty! But she isn't interested. How does he feel?
KID: He's sad.
ME: He is! He keeps on telling her how clever he is. Is she interested?
KID: No!
ME: That's right! She isn't interested because he only thinks about himself. But now he asks the white cat if she wants to marry him. What does she say?
KID: Yes!
ME: She says she will marry him! He's so happy. They have lots of cute kittens. The cat loves the white cat and the kittens very much. But one day what happens?
KID: White cat is dead.
ME: The white cat is dead. She was very old. What does the cat do now?
KID: He cries.
ME: That's right. He is so sad the white cat is dead, and he cries and cries for three days. And now what's happened?
KID: Cat is dead.
ME: Yes, he's dead too. And does the cat come back again?
(Geneva, late 2012. Plainpalais market, a riotous display of phallic vegetables, ill-smelling cheese and trash literature. THE REVIEWER and his GIRLFR...more(Geneva, late 2012. Plainpalais market, a riotous display of phallic vegetables, ill-smelling cheese and trash literature. THE REVIEWER and his GIRLFRIEND walk through the stalls hand in hand. Polyglot conversations around them.)
THE REVIEWER: Now here's a significant quote. "My methods are new and are causing surprise To make the blind see I throw dust in their eyes."
STANISLAW LEM: Mogę to rozwinąć. MICHAEL KANDEL: I can give you more details on that.
Sad to tell, this book has never been published and does not in fact exist. I am, however, confident that a judicious application of the Ontological A...moreSad to tell, this book has never been published and does not in fact exist. I am, however, confident that a judicious application of the Ontological Argument should be enough to resolve these minor technical problems.
As Anselm of Canterbury nearly said in 1103, many books could potentially be called Creationism for Dummies. Most of them will be imperfect in some way. But, inevitably, there must also be a perfect version of Creationism for Dummies. Since existence is a perfection, an existing Creationism for Dummies must be more perfect than a non-existing Creationism for Dummies. Hence the perfect Creationism for Dummies exists.
For more details, consult your local source of infallible truth or this page.(less)
I read Professor DeNuthe's book while finishing Carroll Quigley's monumental Tragedy and Hope, and it's impossible not to be struck by the many parall...moreI read Professor DeNuthe's book while finishing Carroll Quigley's monumental Tragedy and Hope, and it's impossible not to be struck by the many parallels. Quigley spends 1300 pages giving a multi-faceted picture of world society over the first half of the twentieth century, considering it simultaneously from the points of view of macroeconomics, power relationships, weapons technology, psychology and religion. But DeNuthe, with the capable help of his editor and girlfriend, shows that a much simpler explanation is possible: it all comes down to ice cubes. At first, I will admit that I had my doubts, but DeNuthe's arguments are irrefutable. Socrates, Hitler, the Titanic, blue plastic trays... they all link together into a coherent whole. My view of the world is permanently changed.
I suppose the Nobel Prize committee will go through the motions of considering other candidates, but, frankly, they could spare themselves the trouble. Remember you read it here first. _______________________________________________
I recently came across this interesting page and immediately turned to my well-thumbed copy of World of Ice Cubes, expecting to find Professor DeNuthe's authoritative opinion set forth in his usual forthright style. Alas, nothing! But hopefully in the next edition? (less)
This book, which I picked up earlier this week in an Istanbul bookshop, isn't as good as Idries Shah's Pleasantries of the Incredible Mulla Nasrudin....moreThis book, which I picked up earlier this week in an Istanbul bookshop, isn't as good as Idries Shah's Pleasantries of the Incredible Mulla Nasrudin. On the other hand, it did contain several stories I hadn't heard before. Here are a couple that seemed particularly apposite:
The Two Mosques
Nasreddin (his name can be spelled in a variety of ways) has a difficult personal problem, so he makes the pilgrimage to the capital city. He goes into the huge central mosque, and humbly asks Allah for guidance.
Absolutely nothing happens.
Nasreddin stubbornly continues to pray for a while, but in the end he gives up. He's on his way home and just about to leave the city when he sees another mosque, this time very small and unimpressive.
"Well," he thinks, "while I'm here, why don't I look at it?" He enters, and within a minute he suddenly knows the answer to his question.
He goes out again and looks at the huge central mosque in the distance, outlined majestically against the setting sun.
"You think you're so big and important!" says Nasreddin scornfully. "And you couldn't sort out my little problem!"
Bathroom Humor
Nasreddin happens to find himself alone in the bathhouse, so he takes the opportunity to sing a few ditties. He really likes the sound of his voice as it echoes off the marble walls.
"I didn't know I had such talent!" he says to himself. When he comes out, he immediately climbs the nearby minaret and starts reciting the call to prayer. He's terrible, and people beg him to stop.
"Well," says Nasreddin unrepentantly. "If you just took the trouble to build a marble bathroom up here, you'd be able to appreciate my real voice." (less)
There's this passage in Orlando Furioso, quoted at length in Anthony Powell's Hearing Secret Harmonies, where Orlando's friend Astolpho meets Time in...moreThere's this passage in Orlando Furioso, quoted at length in Anthony Powell's Hearing Secret Harmonies, where Orlando's friend Astolpho meets Time in person. Time is frantically busy dumping things in the Well of Oblivion. Nearly all of what is thrown in stays there, but every now and then an item is rescued by one of the local swans, who bears it away to the Temple of Fame. Powell uses this image throughout the book as a metaphor for rescuing the past.
The author of the present book, Dominique Lambert, is evidently a swan, and his life work has been to rescue Georges Lemaître from the Well of Oblivion and restore him to his rightful position in the Temple of Fame.
Francis Collins comes across as such a nice guy! He's clearly a very good molecular biologist - he led the Human Genome Project to a successful conclu...moreFrancis Collins comes across as such a nice guy! He's clearly a very good molecular biologist - he led the Human Genome Project to a successful conclusion, no mean feat - and he has strong Christian ideals that he's thought about a lot and tried hard to realize in practice. Here, he outlines his philosophy, a kind of theistic evolutionary creed which he calls BioLogos. It's intended to combine his scientific and religious beliefs into a harmonious whole; although it appears to work for him, I remain unimpressed, and I fear that both sides of the faith/science divide are going to see him as what Richard Dawkins memorably described as a "compliant quisling". But more about that shortly.
Repent! Repent, I say unto ye, while yet there is time! Repent, O Goodreads Administrators, of thy iniquity and hypocrisy! For did ye not say, that al...moreRepent! Repent, I say unto ye, while yet there is time! Repent, O Goodreads Administrators, of thy iniquity and hypocrisy! For did ye not say, that all Holy Books shall be deemed anonymous of authorship? Did ye not say, that the Playing Field should be level?
And what, now, do we see, to our everlasting shame? The Bible and the Torah have ye marked as Anonymous. Yea, also the Quran have ye treated in this wise. But the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have ye marked as the work of His mortal prophet Bobby Henderson.
Repent, I say again, and cast thyselves on His infinite noodly mercy! Fill me not with righteous wrath! Ye would not like me when I am filled with righteous wrath.
Okay, say not that I failed to warn ye...
[Diverse sound effects including insensate Hulk-like roar, money-changers being cast from temple, boiling pasta, etc etc] (less)
In response to innumerable queries from MJ and other people, this cheap, tacky PDF edition is now available to people who want to post sarcastic revie...moreIn response to innumerable queries from MJ and other people, this cheap, tacky PDF edition is now available to people who want to post sarcastic reviews without substantially affecting their bank balance.
Well, come on, tell me what this movie's about! It must be about something. And you're the central character, or so we're assured. But how can the cen...moreWell, come on, tell me what this movie's about! It must be about something. And you're the central character, or so we're assured. But how can the central character not say anything? How are we supposed to know what you're like?
Don't just look at me with those big eyes. Give me a hint. You mean that words are an inadequate way to communicate what we think and feel? That if we stopped talking for a minute and really listened, then we'd be able to hear the things that mattered? That most of the time we talk mainly for effect, or to fill the silence, or because we're afraid of thinking about the important things?
No, that's not it. I wondered for a moment, when you smiled... but I guess your smile meant something else. Maybe you mean that not talking says more than talking. That when we don't talk to people, we say more than when we do. That I should think about the people I'm not talking to, and the ones who aren't talking to me?
You could at least nod or shake your head. Help me see if I'm on the right track. But you don't. Why not? Damn it, this is pretty annoying. I've watched your movie five times now, and I still haven't figured it out. I'm pretty smart. It's your fault. You shouldn't be so obscure. Just explain it in normal terms. That would be a whole lot simpler.
Okay, if you're going to be like that then I won't watch you any more. See if I care. I am now officially telling the world that I will not watch Persona again. Maybe that'll get a reaction. Oh, and the opening sequence. It sucks. Bigtime.
Damn it, you smiled. I didn't mean it. I will watch you again. Maybe I'll get it sixth time round.
"...would make a great present for somebody who's never heard of GoodReads before, like maybe a caveman...morePraise 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
"... 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
"... book snob ... insecurity ... stupid ..." - midnightfaerie
"... 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:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied..."
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)
This book introduces Conformal Cyclic Cosmology: an amazingly beautiful idea, which I would love to be true. Unfortunately, the evidence to date is fa...moreThis book introduces Conformal Cyclic Cosmology: an amazingly beautiful idea, which I would love to be true. Unfortunately, the evidence to date is far from compelling. But, even if it isn't correct, Penrose is asking such interesting questions that the book is absolutely worth reading.
So here's my understanding of what it's about. Penrose starts by explaining the basic puzzle, which was a key theme in The Road to Reality and has been tantalizing cosmologists in general for a good while. As everyone knows who was paying attention during high school physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy increases with time; the universe gets progressively more and more disordered. If you drop an egg off a table, it breaks. But the time-reverse of this process is so vanishingly improbable that you don't ever expect to see it happen. A mess of egg-white, yolk and shell will not magically reassemble itself into an intact egg and then bound off the floor onto a table.
They had now reached an area where the desert gave way to salt dunes and then to a substantial expanse...moreThe Flame Alphabet by Ben Marcus
by J.G. Ballard
They had now reached an area where the desert gave way to salt dunes and then to a substantial expanse of water that Travis tentatively identified as the Dead Sea. His wife at first disagreed, but the Jeep contained no maps, and her knowledge of the local geography was even less certain than his; given a lack of alternate hypotheses, she accepted the label he had given it. The bitter, salty, undrinkable quality of the water was at least consistent with the fragments of knowledge they did possess. The roads had decayed with startling rapidity since the Event, and Travis negotiated his way, at a crawl, around frequent pot-holes.
**spoiler alert** Notgettingenough and I went to this critically acclaimed play a couple of nights ago at the West End. I watched the whole thing with...more**spoiler alert** Notgettingenough and I went to this critically acclaimed play a couple of nights ago at the West End. I watched the whole thing with rapt attention; Not, as she sometimes does, took a short nap halfway through. I imagined this would give me an advantage during the post-mortem, but I should have known better.
"So what did you think it was about?" she asked as we left the theatre.
"Um, dunno," I said. "Maybe a metaphor for the current state of England? I mean, here we are, rotten to the core, served with an eviction notice and a few hours to vacate the property, but we think our charm and verbal brilliance will somehow let us sneak out of it..."
"Was he supposed to be a Christ-figure?" interrupted Not, impatient with my slow mental processes.
I hadn't been alert, and as usual I'd failed even to consider the possibility. Just because Rooster Byron is a drunk who's banned from every pub in town and supplies the local kids with illegal substances while telling them preposterous lies and getting a few of the prettier girls pregnant, it hadn't crossed my mind that he might also be Jesus. Verily, the Day of the Lord cometh as the thief in the night: maybe we wouldn't recognise Him this time either, a theme James Blish also took pleasure in exploring. So how strong is the case here?
There was certainly a lot of camouflage. You wouldn't necessarily expect Christ to put a glass of tea-and-vodka down the front of his stained pants, cheat at Trivial Pursuits or recount off-colour jokes about having sex with the whole of Girls Aloud. But, just as with Lisbeth Salander, there were surprisingly many hints once you started looking for them. Why does everyone love the old reprobate so much, even the woman from the council who pins the eviction paperwork to the door of his grubby trailer? Why is he able to spread a mysterious joy and peace to so many people? (He drives a good many more mad with rage, but Jesus did that too). He claims to be a virgin birth, after an incident where a local philander is caught in flagrante and shot through the scrotum and the bullet, after multiple ricochets, ends up in his mother's panties. He's tortured and branded with a cross-shaped branding iron. But he rises again, and, at the end, he - maybe - summons heavenly assistance. And then of course there's the title.
It's a daring hypothesis, and Google turns up few other people who've had the same thought. Even though I still can't quite believe it, kudos to Not for lack of conventional religious prejudices. And whatever the message, it's definitely worth seeing. (less)
- Sir, will you tell us about last night's reception at the Qrzyrfian Embassy? Did you meet the beau...more- Good morning, sir!
- Good morning, young fellows!
- Sir, will you tell us about last night's reception at the Qrzyrfian Embassy? Did you meet the beautiful new Ambassadress, of whom we have heard so much?
- Indeed, I had the honor of accompanying her in to dinner.
- Oh gosh sir. Are her ovipositors as large and pleasantly sinusoidal as the holovids suggest? Please excuse my vulgar curiosity.
Gabriel, Michael and Raphael Celestial Architects Eternity
Dear Mr. O'Brien,
Thank you for your response to our recent tender. After due deliberation, we must regretfully inform you that we have decided not to implement your interesting plan for restructuring and downsizing the afterlife.
Our accounting department confirms your statement that it would be more cost-effective only to retain Hell and wind up operations in Purgatory and Paradise. This would, however, directly conflict with our mission statement, which involves offering the chance of salvation to each and every soul. Our senior counsel, based on numerous precedents, contests your claim that this is in principle equivalent with "a boot grinding a human face, forever".
We appreciate your ingenious compromise suggestion that the "integrated afterlife experience", as you describe it, could be administered by a board chaired by the late Pope Boniface VIII, and accept that this offer was made in good faith. None the less, our feeling is that Signor Boniface is not in all respects a suitable person to fill this role.
The above notwithstanding, we are agreeable to implementing several of the specific points listed in Appendix C which concern improvements to the current structure of Hell. In particular, we will shortly be commencing an upgrade programme according to which the jaws of His Infernal Majesty will be substantially expanded. We are pleased to inform you that the work will be completed well before your own demise, according to our records scheduled for April 19, 1993, and we have already reserved a place for you next to Signor Cassius.
If you read this book and are not then able to waffle more convincingly about the movie Source Code, I will personally give you yo...moreMONEY BACK GUARANTEE
If you read this book and are not then able to waffle more convincingly about the movie Source Code, I will personally give you your money back.
The fine print. No warranty is made that you will get your money back in this quantum reality, merely that there is at least one world where the stated event occurs. The issuers of the guarantee explicitly refuse to take responsibility for collapses of the wavefunction and other non-acts of God.(less)
People who read pop science books will know by now that the physics world is rather like that of Star Wars. The dominant String Theorists are the Empi...morePeople who read pop science books will know by now that the physics world is rather like that of Star Wars. The dominant String Theorists are the Empire; led by the Vader-like Ed Witten, they control the corrupt funding agencies and rule science with an iron fist. Ranged against them, we have the eccentric and charismatic Rebels. Lee Smolin's Periphery Institute is clearly the main Rebel base, and Peter Woit comes across as a typical Han Solo figure. I rather fancy Roger Penrose as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Fotini Markopoulou as Princess Leia. Luke Skywalker, alas, does not yet appear to have turned up. But I've got no doubts about Julian Barbour: he can't be anyone but Yoda. Even something of a physical resemblance, wouldn't you say?
I read Martin Rees's Before The Beginning a couple of weeks ago and found it remarkably interesting. But, as Nick said, it's also about 15 years old....moreI read Martin Rees's Before The Beginning a couple of weeks ago and found it remarkably interesting. But, as Nick said, it's also about 15 years old. I decided I needed something a little more modern, hence this book.
Well, if you're interested in Big Questions, there's no doubt that The Goldilocks Enigma is a fun read. The first half presents the core problem. When you look at the fundamental laws of the universe, a weird pattern emerges: everything is tuned exactly right for life to be possible. There is a whole row of these "coincidences", as they're generally called. If the early universe, just after the Big Bang, had been slightly more uneven, then galaxies couldn't have formed. If gravity were a bit stronger, stars would have burned up quickly rather than shining for billions of years. If carbon didn't have some very special properties, no elements except hydrogen and helium would have been created. If neutrinos didn't react just as strongly as they do with atomic nuclei, supernovae wouldn't happen and there would be no heavy elements. All of these things, and others, have to work for life to have a chance of emerging. Davies covers more or less the same material here as the Rees book, but his treatment assumes less background; for example, he explains how we know that the universe is expanding, and what a quark is. If you know this kind of thing already, you'll be a little irritated, and probably find the Rees more enjoyable.
The rest of the book looks at possible explanations, starting with the most mainstream ones and moving into more and more speculative territory. Even the mainstream stuff is seriously mind-blowing; we seem to be in the middle of a scientific revolution here. One possibility is that the "coincidences" are just that. It's possible, but seems very much against the odds. An explanation which has won some measure of respectability is some version of the "multiverse". People appear to have constructed reasonably plausible models of what happened in the early stages of the Big Bang, when a mysterious process called "inflation" exponentially expanded the universe, in a tiny fraction of a second, from the size of a proton to the size of, perhaps, a few meters across. As far as I can make out, no one really understands what "inflation" is, but it's the only theory that makes sense of the data, in particular the fact that the universe is so homogeneous.
Many models of "inflation" predict that the process keeps on occurring in different places ("eternal inflation"). Every time it kicks in, you get in effect a new Big Bang which creates a bubble of space-time like the one we live in. There is a huge, perhaps infinite, number of these bubbles, separated by incredible distances which make the size of our own universe look tiny in comparison. Moreover, each bubble universe could come with different flavors of the physical laws; it is not impossible that parts of the laws are set when the universe cools down from its initial superhot state. The strongest evidence to support this idea is the now generally accepted idea that the electromagnetic and "weak" nuclear forces are the same thing at high enough energies; the two forces were the same in the early universe, and then split apart. It's speculative, but maybe other and more dramatic changes in the physical laws happened even earlier.
If this account is roughly correct, and "eternal inflation" means that the Big Bang happened many times, then you could indeed in effect have many universes, all with more or less different versions of the physical laws. We just happen to be one of the ones which got the right combination of numbers. It doesn't seem out of the question to investigate the "multiverse" hypothesis scientifically, making testable predictions: in particular, statistical arguments suggest that, when a constant needs to have a value in a particular range to make life possible, we would usually expect it to have a value that's only just good enough, rather than being in the middle of the range. People have been trying to explore this line of reasoning using the strength of "dark energy", which is one of the critical numbers; so far, the results are unclear.
This was the section of the book I found most interesting. Afterwards, it got very speculative indeed, and often seemed to be straying into what to me felt like science fiction or mysticism. It was still fascinating to see Davies, clearly the veteran of many cosmological bull sessions, methodically going through the possibilities. One explanation, of course, is that the universe was designed by a Higher Intelligence. This is a solution, but has no explanatory power; we have no way of knowing anything about the the Higher Intelligence, and there is still the problem of where it came from. ("Who created God?") A twist I hadn't seen before is a cross between the "multiverse" and the idea that we are living in a simulation ("The Matrix"). If there are an infinite number of universes, the argument goes, then some of them must have advanced enough technologies that they can create simulated Matrix-style universes. It's much easier to create a simulated universe than a real one, hence statistically we are most likely living in a simulation. I'm afraid this idea sounded to me like pure bullshit, but apparently some people like it.
Another way-out suggestion may appeal to some mathematicians. Perhaps the "Platonic World" of mathematics is the real world, and every consistent mathematical theory exists merely by virtue of being consistent. On this account, the world we see as real is no more than a mathematical abstraction. Nothing needs to make it real; it already is. I have had this thought myself, and I can't actually see any flaw in the argument, but it still feels too bizarre to be credible. But the final chapters are the weirdest of all. Davies thinks about formulations of quantum mechanics where the observer is an essential part of the theory. Maybe the universe needs us, because it has to have observers; without them, it wouldn't exist. Again, this seems to be me ridiculous, and just shows that those versions of quantum mechanics are mistaken. But if as great a thinker as Wheeler took the argument seriously, I'm probably being a bit hasty in dismissing it out of hand.
Okay, okay... frequently annoying, but fun and thought-provoking. I couldn't put it down. Next, I'm reading Brian Greene's The Hidden Reality and Julian Barbour's The End Of Time. I will report in due course! (less)
Either the universe was created expressly to be able to support living beings, or there are many universes.
This extraordinary thesis, the most excitin...moreEither the universe was created expressly to be able to support living beings, or there are many universes.
This extraordinary thesis, the most exciting one of its kind since the Copernican Revolution, is starting to become fairly well-known - but I would hesitate to say it's mainstream yet. If it were, I don't think most supporters of Intelligent Design would still be wasting their time attacking the well-defended fortress of Darwinian Evolution. Instead, they would be concentrating their energies on the far more profitable area of cosmology, where the case looks better than it has for centuries, and they would all be buying copies of this book. As far as I'm aware, that's not happening. And don't get the idea that Before the Beginning is in any way crank science or New Age mysticism. Far from it: the author is an extremely respectable observational astronomer and astrophysicist, who is doing his best to present the facts and let the reader decide for himself. There is an amusing exchange in the first few pages between Rees and Hawking that sets the tone. In the Introduction, Hawking concludes with the following passage:
... Martin and I have taken rather different courses. While I have been primarily interested in developing the theory and much of my work has not yet been confirmed by observation, Martin has always worked closely with the observations and what they tell us about the universe. I think this difference in approach is reflected in the books we have written. This one beings the reader in contact with the real stuff of astronomy - without mentioning the word God that Martin seems so uneasy with. After all, it is a theoretical concept.
To which Rees retorts:
My Cambridge colleague, Stephen Hawking, claimed in A Brief History of Time that each equation he included would halve the book's sales. He followed that injunction, and so have I. But he (or maybe his editor) judged that each mention of God would double the sales. In flattering imitation, God has figured in the titles of several subsequent books - The God Particle, The Mind of God, and suchlike. In that latter respect I shall not follow Stephen's lead. Scientists' incursions into theology and philosophy can be embarrassingly naïve and dogmatic.
True to his word, Rees makes sure that God is not mentioned again in the remaining chapters, though I'm afraid he was right: it does seem to have hurt his sales.
But enough about what the book isn't; let me tell you what it is. The first two-thirds present an overview of the relevant background from astrophysics and cosmology, as of the late 90s. It's just a little dated - in particular, there is no explicit reference to Dark Energy, which was discovered shortly afterwards - but I didn't experience this as important. Rees knows everyone and is personally familiar with most of the history. He does a great job of showing you how the key ideas evolved, starting with far-fetched hypotheses and odd observations and, in many cases, ending with detailed, coherent theories which have won general acceptance. I particularly liked his account of pulsars; I didn't realise how well-understood they now are, and that we can interpret the signals from them clearly enough that we can infer the existence of "starquakes". The topics he focuses on are galactic evolution, in particular the creation of heavy elements in stars and supernovae; neutron stars and pulsars; black holes and quasars; dark matter, and its role in the formation of the galaxies; and the very early history of the universe, where tiny quantum fluctuations created the imbalances that got the galaxies started. The greater part of this is now quite uncontroversial; he is honest about the areas that are still unclear and contentious.
Having set the scene, Rees presents his case in the last few chapters. The structure of the universe is determined by a few physical constants. There is no obvious reason why these constants should have the values they do, but, if they were only slightly different, life would be impossible. If omega, the density of the universe, were much greater, the universe would have collapsed long ago, and if it were much less then everything would have dispersed. Q, the constant which measures the large-scale "graininess", is set just right for galaxies to form. If the ratio of the strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces were slightly different, long-lived stars would be impossible. The ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron is pretty much exactly what's required to permit complex molecules. If neutrinos interacted slightly differently with protons, supernovae wouldn't be able to synthesize heavy elements. There are other items. It's a startling list.
It is not out of the question that there are ways of explaining some of these "coincidences". Rees tells one illustrative story about a coincidence that fooled as great a thinker as Paul Dirac, who could not understand why the ratio of the strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic attractions between two protons should be almost the same as the ratio of the size of a proton to the size of the universe. In fact, there is an ingenious explanation of this fact due to Dicke. But it's a lot to expect all the items on his list to be crossed off this way. His basic argument is convincing. One possibility is that the universe was designed to be hospitable to life. The other is that there are many universes, with many different settings of the physical constants. Since we are living observers, we have to be in one of the few universes that can support life.
The "multiverse" hypothesis isn't as far-fetched as it first sounds. When you trace back the history of the Big Bang, you hit this mysterious "inflationary period", when the universe suddenly got much bigger, for reasons no one really understands. Or at least, many cosmologists think so; it was interesting to read that Penrose, one of the most respected people in the field, is dubious about "inflation" and thinks it's mistaken and ugly. But, if "inflation" is correct, it could easily have created a much bigger universe than the one we see, or many universes. We don't know, and right now it's hard to think of ways to test these theories empirically. The history of science, however, is full of theories that didn't at first seem testable, but later turned out to be open to empirical verification. My gut feeling is that Rees is right: people will think of ways to do experiments.
This is a remarkably interesting book. If you're also fascinated by cosmology and have a decent grounding in high-school physics, go out and buy yourself a copy. I doubt you'll be disappointed. ____________________________________
I evidently wasn't paying attention - a few months before I wrote this review, Gurzadyan and Penrose published a paper in which they claim to have found signals emanating from violent black hole collisions in a universe (possibly even several universes) which existed before the Big Bang. I don't follow their reasoning, which requires rather a rather greater understanding of General Relativity than I possess, but the claim is that these events would show up as concentric circles in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The key graphic is extremely striking, and I'm surprised I haven't already seen it on a T-shirt:
Gurzadyan and Penrose estimate that the probability that this pattern could occur by chance is less than one in 10^14. Moss and Scott write to say that the analysis is faulty, and the patterns could easily be random and don't prove anything. Gurzadyan and Penrose reply, if I may paraphrase, that they do so prove something. The debate continues. ____________________________________
Damn! I am such a sucker. A bit more looking around, and I see that the Gurzadyan/Penrose idea was shot down in flames within weeks of being launched. So that's why there's been so little buzz.
Have other people noticed that the Qur'an is listed here as being by Allah, whereas the Bible is by "Anonymous"? If I were a Christian, I think that w...moreHave other people noticed that the Qur'an is listed here as being by Allah, whereas the Bible is by "Anonymous"? If I were a Christian, I think that would leave me feeling just a little annoyed. _________________________________________
Since I posted this review, the entry has been changed, and the Qur'an is now also listed as being by "Anonymous"!
Well, whoever did that is a braver man or woman than I am. I admire your chutzpah. So to speak. _________________________________________
And now it's "Allah" again!
My impression is that the Muslims and the Infidels are pretty evenly matched here. Looks like it'll be a close game. _________________________________________
Mere days later, and now we're back to "Anonymous"!
I'm particularly impressed by the good sportsmanship both sides are displaying. Who says a religious war can't be carried out in a civilized and courteous manner? _________________________________________
In a surprise move, the author has now been changed yet again to 'ALLAH "the creator" (As believed in Islam)'. Match that if you can, Infidels! _________________________________________
"Anonymous" once more, but to be honest it seems rather unimaginative. Come on, Infidels, you can come up with something better than this, can't you? What would Dawkins do? _________________________________________
Back to "Allah" again. I clicked on His page and was immediately confronted with some interesting options. I could become a fan! (I was surprised to see that Allah didn't have any fans. Evidently I'd been misinformed). I was also asked if He had a blog, and on reading further discovered that
As a librarian, you can create a blog for this author even if they're not on Goodreads by adding the feed URL (Atom or RSS) of a blog they keep elsewhere. This will make summaries of their blog posts available here.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any blog kept by Allah, but if I discover one I'll make sure I use this feature.
Oh, and by the way He doesn't have any upcoming events either. Is this correct, or merely a reflection of the fact that He exists outside of space and time? _________________________________________
Ho hum... "Anonymous" is back. He/she has written a whole lot more books than Allah, but also lacks fans. Well, that's one thing they have in common... _________________________________________
Flash update: the author has now been changed to "God"!
This boldly ecumenical move impresses me. God, I learn from His Homepage, is the author not only of the Quran but also of The Gospels of Jesus (KJV) with Search Every Verse Navigation, Optimized for E-Readers, where He is credited as the author and King James as the translator. He has not written any other books. Well, I've never pretended to understand theology, but I recognize new thinking when I see it. I hope someone more competent than I am is already preparing an exegesis.
The page ends with the following rather intriguing prayer:
Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite God to Goodreads.
_________________________________________
I'm disappointed to say that we've now got "Anonymous" again. Whoever did that should be ashamed of themselves. "God" was inspired, this is just dull.
What other possible candidates could there be? Muhammad (PBUH)? The Angel Gabriel? Abu Bakr? Muhammad (PBUH), Bakr, Uthman and Hafsa? We need some fresh ideas here. _________________________________________
After several months of inactivity, we have another change, but it was worth waiting for: "Allâh (God Almighty)".
Brilliant! Isn't that circumflex just to die for? _________________________________________
The Infidels, with their characteristic rapier wit, have changed the author back to "Anonymous". Sorry, but I am not impressed. And don't give me that Goodreads Policy crap. Plenty of holy books are not listed as being by Anonymous, for example The Book of Mormon and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I look forward to seeing the Muslims' next move - I think they have the initiative. _________________________________________
The Muslims score again with "ALLAH" (all caps), who has also written Study the Noble Qur'an Word-for-Word Volume 2 and Study the Noble Qur'an Word-for-Word Volume 3. Mysteriously, there is no Volume 1. ALLAH has three quotes, of which the first is "لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الل" ("There is no god but ALLAH and Mohammad is his prophet").
Now that's class. Okay, Infidels, let's see if you can change the author to something that's not yet another "Anonymous". I dare you. I double dare you. _________________________________________
Boo! A few days later, and "Anonymous" is back. Honestly, it's enough to make you want to convert to Islam. _________________________________________
Allah has returned again, but in a confusingly different form! This time, I found He was only the author of the Qur'an and had two fans, Nabila and Tarek. I decided that it was prudent to become a fan as well.
I checked to see which authors were like Allah, and was startled to see that the list included Alexandre Dumas and Italo Calvino. I'm sure it's greatly to their credit. _________________________________________
That didn't last long. Notgettingenough, whose opinions I greatly respect, felt that it was inappropriate for me to be a fan of Allah. On reconsideration, I agree with her. I have cancelled my brief fanship and hope that both parties will understand it was an honest mistake. _________________________________________
The Infidels only have one idea, and here it is again. Sigh... _________________________________________
The Muslims are back, and score another fine goal with "الله". That's "Allah" in Arabic script for all you people who can't be bothered to check it on Google Translate.
Contrary to what certain skeptics may say, religious belief appears to give you imagination. Go Islam! !الله أكبر _________________________________________
Without waiting for the Infidels to reply, the Muslims score again with "الله جلَّ جلاله". The person responsible has even created a cool avatar for His homepage. Nice work!
Admit it, Infidels: you have been comprehensively outplayed here. The classiest thing to do would be to have some suitable representative come forward and formally concede. That might at least win you back some respect. _________________________________________
The Infidels refuse to admit defeat, and come back for the ninth time (I counted) with the single move they know how to make. Though, confusingly, the title of the book is now given only in Arabic script.
If it's an attempt at a compromise solution, I very much doubt that the Muslims will buy it. Watch this space. _________________________________________
I presume that the Infidels' peace overture was scornfully rejected. They have retaliated by changing the title to Roman script only, even removing the apostrophe.
Cheeky! This flagrantly provocative gesture will surely not go unpunished. _________________________________________
After 40 days of inactivity (significant or what?) the Muslims strike back with another "Allah". I suspect that the move is deeper than it looks, since His new homepage contains a long quote in Arabic referring to several passages in the Qur'an. Maybe someone better acquainted with these matters can explain it to the rest of us? _________________________________________
A little more than a day later, it's "Anonymous" again.
I think the Infidels have a home side advantage here, which makes me admire the brave and resourceful Muslim hackers all the more. Come on Islam! You can beat those security measures! _________________________________________
"Allah" has returned, and this time after only 21 days away! It looks like the Muslims have recovered from their unexpected loss of form.
Now, the question is how long they can keep possession. Both sides are demonstrating extraordinary tenacity in this long-drawn-out conflict! Quite inspiring to all us wishy-washy agnostics sitting on the sidelines... _________________________________________
The pattern from last time repeats: "Allah" lasts less than a day, and is quickly set back to "Anonymous".
It's no good making excuses any more. The romantic in me wants the exciting, creative Muslims to win, but the facts are more than obvious: however they've managed it, the grimly humorless Infidels have taken their game to a new level. Over the last couple of months, they've been in charge 95% of the time.
Muslims, you need to figure out what the Infidels are doing and stop them. It's as simple as that. _________________________________________
I was about to despair, but Allah is back! Though I am surprised to see that He still only has two fans, the ever-faithful Nabila and Tarek. Truly, their reward will be great.
I do wonder what thoughts Amazon have on this vital question. Which way could the different options push sales in the Muslim world? I imagine they have top analysts crunching the numbers as I write. _________________________________________
Incredible but true: the Infidels have finally come up with a new idea! The author of the Qur'an is now given as "A".
Who is A, I hear you ask? I haven't the slightest notion. The one slim lead we're given is that A has also co-authored Jamba Juice Power with Kirk Perron - possibly a minor prophet, but, to be honest, I'm clutching at straws here.
I don't dare predict what might happen next. Stay tuned. _________________________________________
"A" lasted mere hours, and now it's Allah again. For people who haven't yet looked at His Homepage, there is some interesting theological information:
gender: male genre: Religion influences: Almighty Yahweh, Jesus Christ
Oh, and He has now acquired a third fan, Esraa.
MJ claims to have tracked down the hackers. Kyle, Fil and Zain (if you are indeed the people responsible), please take a bow! _________________________________________
An hour after the post above, Abbey and Amritorupa swear that the author was briefly changed to "A Nonny Mouse" - but it only lasted a few minutes before reverting to Allah.
I have never seen so much activity. Has a fatwa been issued? Are Amazon hoping to boost sales of the new Q'indle? _________________________________________
And another hour later, it's Anonymous.
Whatever is going on? Is it the end of the world? I have consulted the Book of Revelation, but all I can find is 22:10:
And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
I suppose that may be a warning against blocking changes to authorship attributions on Goodreads, but I'm not at all sure. _________________________________________
Yesterday, I started reading Richard Burton's translation of the Arabian Nights, and this morning I see that Allah has returned! I must quote Burton's wonderful opening lines:
PRAISE BE TO ALLAH - THE BENEFICENT KING - THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE - LORD OF THE THREE WORLDS - WHO SET UP THE FIRMAMENT WITHOUT PILLARS IN ITS STEAD - AND WHO STRETCHED OUT THE EARTH EVEN AS A BED - AND GRACE, AND PRAYER-BLESSING BE UPON OUR LORD MOHAMMED - LORD OF APOSTOLIC MEN - AND UPON HIS FAMILY AND COMPANION TRAIN -PRAYER AND BLESSINGS ENDURING AND GRACE WHICH UNTO THE DAY OF DOOM SHALL REMAIN - AMEN! - O THOU OF THE THREE WORLDS SOVEREIGN!
I was a bit puzzled by the bed, but after a couple of chapters realized that it must be a "carpet-bed", presumably some kind of Middle Eastern futon. Just in case you were also wondering. _________________________________________
The Muslims are having a good week, and Allah (the most merciful, the most magnificent) is now in correct Arabic script again! If you cut and paste into Google Translate and click on the loudspeaker icon, you can even hear how it's pronounced. _________________________________________
There is no Majesty and there is no Might save in Allah the Glorious, the Great! (I understand from Richard Burton that this is the polite Islamic equivalent of our own "Jesus H. Christ!") We're back to Anonymous.
Come on Infidels, you're boring us all to death. But I just know you can do better. Raise your game and make your fellow-atheists proud of their lack of belief! (less)
Max's friend Koffi is coming for a couple of days. On the way home from school, he asks Max what religion he is.
"Uh... dunno," says Max, who's clearly...moreMax's friend Koffi is coming for a couple of days. On the way home from school, he asks Max what religion he is.
"Uh... dunno," says Max, who's clearly never even thought about it.
"Well, do you eat pork?" asks Koffi. "If you don't, then you're Muslim or Jewish."
"I'm not sure!" says Max. "We eat meat... and anyway, what's your religion?"
It turns out that's complicated. Koffi's father is Muslim, his mother's Catholic, and his African grandmother is animist. He's worried about Grandma, who's seriously ill, and he's praying that God will make her better.
"Don't they have doctors in Africa?" asks Lili.
"Now Lili..." says Mom.
"I mean," continues Lili, "you don't seriously believe..."
"LILI!!" says Mom. "Knock it off NOW!!!"
But Koffi isn't fazed. God, he tells them, is more powerful than any doctors. His simple faith impresses Max, who's never heard any of this before.
"So if I pray to God, I can get better marks on my tests?" he asks. Rather like Woody Allen in Hannah And Her Sisters, he's kicking the tyres before buying. "Maybe," says Koffi. But he's more interested in talking about Grandma. He had a dream that Grandpa appeared and said she would soon be joining him in Heaven, and he's terrified that something bad is going to happen.
"I need to make a sacrifice," he says. "Here, Max, you can have my Nintendo."
"Huh?" says Max. "Why?"
Koffi explains. Max doesn't get it, but he's pretty happy to receive the Nintendo.
Lili is starting to think that she should be a little more tolerant. "Well," she says at school, "I don't really believe in this prayer shit. But suppose we all join hands with you, Koffi, and think positive thoughts about your Grandma in our own ways. It can't hurt."
Koffi is a popular kid, and everyone says they're in. They're surprised to discover that it feels really good. The next day, Koffi comes in looking much happier. The operation went well, and Grandma's out of danger.
"You can have your Nintendo back then," says Max.
"Are you KIDDING?" asks Koffi indignantly. "Do you want my Grandma to get ill again?"
Max is almost convinced, but he still needs to run a few more controlled experiments. "Look," he says, "here's what I'm going to do. Before my next test, I'm not doing any revision at all, just praying. Then we'll know for sure, right?"
Lili sighs. "Max," she says patiently, "it doesn't work like that..." (less)
Loading...
