Plch read and liked Paul Servini's review of To Kill a Mockingbird:

"I read this book twice when I first picked it up before going on later to read it to each of my children. It's a wonderfully written thought-provoking book which everyone should read and discuss. "

Plch read and liked Steven Peterson's review of The Origin of Species & The Voyage of the Beagle:

"This is an excellent volume. Two of Charles Darwin's major works are included: "The Voyage of the Beagle" and "The Origin of Species." There is a well written and sprightly introduction by evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins. On...more This is an excellent volume. Two of Charles Darwin's major works are included: "The Voyage of the Beagle" and "The Origin of Species." There is a well written and sprightly introduction by evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins. One additional good feature is a Chronology, beginning on page xxxiv.

Dawkins sets the stage with his 20+ page introduction. He speaks eloquently of the importance of Darwin's work, and the profound nature of his theoretical perspective on evolution. He places Darwin's work in an historical context, in which we see other theorists before Darwin working on how to explain change in animal species. He concludes with the strong statement that (Page xxix): "[Darwin:] also gave us by far the most plausible theory for how evolution has taken place, the theory of natural selection."

Darwin's "The Voyage of the Beagle" provides a view of his trip, as the resident naturalist, on the ship Beagle, during which time (left England in 1831 and returned in 1836) he made myriad observations that helped him work through his theory of evolution. As he notes elsewhere (page 537), the facts that he observed on this voyage "seemed to me to throw new light on the origin of species. . . ." Upon reflection, he felt that this voyage had been a wonderful developmental experience in his life. He observes (Page 516): "In conclusion, it appears to me that nothing can be more improving to a young naturalist, than a journey in distant countries. It both sharpens, and partly allays that want and craving, which. . .a man experiences although every corporeal sense be fully satisfied."

There follows his chef d'ouevre, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." The chapter headings are key for understanding the logic of evolution, with natural selection as a key force in explaining change in species, among which chapters are "Variation under Nature," "Struggle for Existence," "Natural Selection," "On the Imperfection of the Fossil Record," and "On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings." A brief quotation at the end of this book encapsulates the basic logic (Page 913):

"These laws [of nature:]. . .being Growth with Reproduction: Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the direct and indirect action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms."

Such a straightforward logic: inheritance of characteristics from generation to generation; variability in characteristics within a species; more individuals born than the carrying capacity of the land can provide for; selection of those individuals' whose characteristic best facilitate survival and subsequent reproduction. Darwin surely had errors and problems in this work. Nonetheless, it remains one of the most important scientific contributions of the last millennium.

His theory has stood up well over time; one major problem, the explanation for the transmission of characteristics from generation to generation, was solved independently by the developing understanding of genetics. When natural selection and genetics were wed in the "synthetic theory of evolution," associated with thinkers like Mayr and others, Darwin's theory reached its culmination.
(less) "

Plch added a quote:
"In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation." — Simone de Beauvoir

Plch read and liked Manny's review of Les Mandarins:

"A lot of people appear to dislike Les Mandarins, which I think is a pretty excellent novel, so let me try and explain what I think is good about it. To me, it's basically about what happens to people (particularly to women) when they realize that the...more A lot of people appear to dislike Les Mandarins, which I think is a pretty excellent novel, so let me try and explain what I think is good about it. To me, it's basically about what happens to people (particularly to women) when they realize that they are no longer young. This has several consequences. To start off with, not being young means that you're no longer as physically attractive as you were. Of course, you can go into denial, and say that as long as you eat healthily, exercise, and think positive thoughts, you're going to stay young and tasty for ever. But let's be realistic. I'm 50, and at my age it's become significantly less likely that people will want to rip my clothes off because they can't wait to get at my body. In 20 years time, I'll be 70, and 70 year olds simply don't get their clothes ripped off for that reason any more. Well, except perhaps for Isaac Bashevis Singer... I recall the memorable scene in Sandra Bernhard's Confessions of a Pretty Lady, where she meets the 70-something Singer for the first time. "Women were all over him like cheap perfume"... that's a great line. For the rest of us, though, we'd better get used to the idea that, sometime in the not too distant future, we're no longer going to be desirable in the way we once were.

Simone de Beauvoir was a exceptionally clear-thinking person, and two of the main characters in the book are women who are having to confront this problem. Paula, who used to be very beautiful, goes into denial. Her guy, Henri (heavily based on Camus), is just not that into her any more. He wants to be with someone young and gorgeous, and she no longer fits the bill. Paula is unfortunate on several counts: she is still deeply in love with him, and she has always prided herself on not being one of those conventional, clingy types. So when he says he wants to go off on vacation with another, much younger woman, she agrees; the important thing, you see, is that he told her all about it, and he's still sleeping with her too. He is, but de Beauvoir describes, in her precise, analytical way, how it's less and less interesting for him. After a while, he isn't sleeping with her at all. Paula still won't accept it; she's the love of his life, he'll come back, he just needs time to grow. Etc. Stage by stage, we get to see what happens as she slides further and further away from reality. It's one of the most heartbreaking things of its kind that I've come across. Anne, the main character, is clearly modelled on de Beauvoir herself. She doesn't become delusional, but just adjusts rationally to changed circumstances. There's this myth that she spent her whole life pining for Sartre after he dumped her. In fact, she got over him pretty well, and had several fine relationships afterwards. In this book, we see a lot of her romance with the American writer Nelson Algren, whom she falls for in a big way. He's crazy about her too, and wants her to come out and live with him permanently in the US (she's there on an extended visit). But she can't just drop everything, she has to go back to France for a while, and things get complicated. This thread is heartbreaking too, in a different and less obvious way.

A lot of the book is about postwar French left-wing politics, and it's easy to be dismissive; what do these deluded Marxist intellectuals have to do with us? In fact, I find the story pretty universal. Another thing about getting older is that you acquire the dubious benefits of hindsight, and important choices you made earlier in your life often start to look doubtful. In my case, the research direction my colleagues and I picked may have turned out to be incorrect; it's not like no one is citing our papers, but a lot fewer than we'd like, and it's not becoming mainstream. Maybe we called it wrong. In de Beauvoir's case, the thing most of her friends got wrong was the Soviet Union. During the period covered by this book, news was starting to turn up about just how bad the Gulag was, and many people suddenly understood what a huge mistake they'd made. Again, some of them went into denial, and others adjusted. The story of how this plays itself out is pretty interesting. OK, we all know now that Stalin was a monster, and we imagine we wouldn't have fallen into this particular trap; we think they were dumb. Perhaps they were, though for my money Sartre was wicked smart. But even if they were dumb, we've all made our own bad judgement calls, and in 50 years time we may look just as dumb. For example, any predictions on what future know-it-alls will say about laissez faire free market economics?

In conclusion, I found this a great novel about the big issues: love, sex, death, work, politics, writing. I read it in French, and really liked her elegant, understated style; I think I finished both volumes in two or three weeks. It's possible that her English translator did a poor job, and spoiled it a bit. But even if it's not being expressed quite as pleasingly, she's saying interesting and important things, and she tells several great stories on the way. It's definitely worth reading.
(less) "

Plch read and liked karen's review of Roasting in Hell's Kitchen: Temper Tantrums, F Words, and the Pursuit of Perfection:

"you can probably read this book in an hour. its fine, its not life-changing, but it at least got me off of my biography-month-is-destroying-my-love-for-people-i-love jag. gordon ramsay is what he is: he makes food, he says "fuck" a lot, he ...more you can probably read this book in an hour. its fine, its not life-changing, but it at least got me off of my biography-month-is-destroying-my-love-for-people-i-love jag. gordon ramsay is what he is: he makes food, he says "fuck" a lot, he wants people to cook more and appreciate food more in their own kitchens, and if you work for him, he will probably bust your balls a lot. end of book. its mostly quick because its written exactly as he talks, which is fast and peppered with delightful british colloquialisms that unfortunately, after i read enough of, find their way into my speech for a week or two. i have a terrible accent-chameleon thing that happens to me - i came back from south carolina in my youth with a terrible case of the drawls. but given a week, i will be back to normal. if im not, give me a slap, yeah? (less) "