It pains me to give a "two stars" to a Wright book, but given Goodread's guidelines, "It was OK" is my honest reaction.
I generally enjoy Wright's bookIt pains me to give a "two stars" to a Wright book, but given Goodread's guidelines, "It was OK" is my honest reaction.
I generally enjoy Wright's books quite a bit and feel that he has a very honest, likely accurate interpretation of how the people at the time were receiving the events around them.
I think I felt, perhaps cheated, this time around, for lack of a better word…or maybe just disappointed. The book touches on the "New Atheists" as a competing voice in the conversation, a coming storm, as it were. I would love nothing more than to hear Wright respond to, or otherwise dialog with any of these authors.
But there was none of that. The book quickly turns to the theological interpretations and implications of the gospels. This isn't a response to Dennett/Dawkins et al, it's simply ignoring them.
I wasn't expecting a book of apologetics, but since this theological material had been addressed already in "Simply Christian", "Surprised by Hope", and "The Challenge of Jesus" (to say nothing of his scholarly works), I was expecting something…more, especially given that he spends so much time outlining the analogy of a "perfect storm".
Wright briefly bobs above the surface of the theological into the apologetical toward the end of the book in talking about the resurrection by offhandedly mentioning that the best explanation for the empty tomb was the resurrection given that the Romans were expert killers, etc. He glosses over it because he already went over it in more depth in "Surprised by Hope" (I think?), which is fine…but also seems completely wrong.
The answer can't be "The combination of empty tomb and definite, solid appearances [of Jesus postmortem] is far and away the best explanation for everything that happened subsequently" (p.192). Actually *any* other explanation is a better explanation. Even saying "we don't know what happened" is a better explanation than the resurrection.
As Carl Sagan wrote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You can't just brush aside the "atheist storm", especially after devoting pages of analogy to it. Perhaps it's unfair to expect the book to be something it wasn't intended to be. I think Wright missed an opportunity though, to write a book truly "for the masses", and not simply for believers. He has enough books written for them. The Christian community needs an intellectual powerhouse like Wright to respond to the "growing atheist storm". ...more
In all fairness I only read part of this book. It turns out that it's solidly written for women. The part I read had to do with periods and body imageIn all fairness I only read part of this book. It turns out that it's solidly written for women. The part I read had to do with periods and body images. I mean, it's fine and all -- still approachable and funny by association.
Tina Fey is a funny person, and I assume you need to strike while the iron is hot and write book when it will sell. It nonetheless feels like a "I have a book deal I and/or people who write for me should write something" rather than "I have something to say, I'll write a book". Maybe there is no difference. Maybe most books are born out of deal first, idea second. Maybe I'm just a sorry person without a deal or an idea. Maybe we all are.
The culmination of 84 "Little House" books ends with Laura being courted by her soon-to-be husband. This was by far the most interesting of the many,The culmination of 84 "Little House" books ends with Laura being courted by her soon-to-be husband. This was by far the most interesting of the many, many books because it had the most in terms of inter-personal relationships, but it still focused on the mundane tasks of prairie life....more