false14123103true5688293read0true4298930currently-reading20true4298929to-read1false4476677meditation1false4299285crap
<![CDATA[Josh added 'Dune']]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/44662686
to: Dune (Dune 1)byFrank Herbert
Frank Herbert, like all people, struggled with certain ideas all of his life. With a dash of melodrama, a sprinkle of pretentiousness, and a large dollop of teenage empowerment fantasy, he gave us Dune.
As a young man I loved these books. Partly I loved them because I thought they were over my head. There is a philosophical mystery that permeates all of Herbert's work, the Big Question of "what is consciousness". You can read almost all of his books as attempts to answer this question within the simulation of a story (and all its interesting premises). Each of Herbert's stories can be read as the same experiment conducted with slightly different initial conditions.
I can't read Dune anymore because it's all brain and no heart. And my brain is no longer stimulated: Dune is the ultimate philosophical discussion that gives off much heat and no light. There are no standards for progress through the dialectic, and hence there is no progress. And what's more there is no possibility for progress. Dune is a dead-end in precisely the same area it promises so much progress. It's like a literary optical illusion or Escher print.
In particular, Herbert successfully captures the ache of not knowing but badly wanting to know, and this is no small feat. But the puzzle he chooses is so badly described as to be unsolvable. This is good if you want your narrative to last for 6 books; this is bad if you genuinely want to learn something about the mind, philosophy, or anything else really.
Contrast this with the oft-compared Lord of the Rings. As a teenager I could never even get through it. Now, it's my favorite book. Tolkien was a brilliant world builder, but more than that his world was an expression of his heart. Tolkien didn't treat the world as just some premise upon which to simulate the solution to a poorly expressed problem. His world was the non-dialectical poetry in which to embed his loves, hopes, and yes, faith. It is rare to find an author that can extend his art to the very fabric of the world. (And that's why fantasy has got to be the hardest type of fiction to write well.)
]]>
<![CDATA[Josh added 'Earth Abides']]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/59355745
to: Earth Abides (Paperback)byGeorge R. Stewart
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Josh]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/54818-dune-first-impressions
Josh made a comment in the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group:
Frank Herbert, like all people, struggled with certain ideas all of his life. With a dash of melodrama, a sprinkle of pretentiousness, and a large dollop of teenage empowerment fantasy, he gave us Dune.
As a young man I loved these books. Partly I loved them because I thought they were over my head. There is a philosophical mystery that permeates all of Herbert's work, the Big Question of "what is consciousness". You can read almost all of his books as attempts to answer this question within the simulation of a story (and all its interesting premises). Each of Herbert's stories can be read as the same experiment conducted with slightly different initial conditions.
I can't read Dune anymore because it's all brain and no heart. And my brain is no longer stimulated: Dune is the ultimate philosophical discussion that gives off much heat and no light. There are no standards for progress through the dialectic, and hence there is no progress. And what's more there is no possibility for progress. Dune is a dead-end in precisely the same area it promises so much progress. It's like a literary optical illusion or Escher print.
In particular, Herbert successfully captures the ache of not knowing but badly wanting to know, and this is no small feat. But the puzzle he chooses is so badly described as to be unsolvable. This is good if you want your narrative to last for 6 books; this is bad if you genuinely want to learn something about the mind, philosophy, or anything else really.
Contrast this with the oft-compared Lord of the Rings. As a teenager I could never even get through it. Now, it's my favorite book. Tolkien was a brilliant world builder, but more than that his world was an expression of his heart. Tolkien didn't treat the world as just some premise upon which to simulate the solution to a poorly expressed problem. His world was the non-dialectical poetry in which to embed his loves, hopes, and yes, faith. It is rare to find an author that can extend his art to the very fabric of the world. (And that's why fantasy has got to be the hardest type of fiction to write well.)
]]>
<![CDATA[Josh added 'Genesis']]>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/58138360
to: Genesis (Hardcover)byBernard Beckett
I got this book because of the cover art. A wall in the sea! I've had dreams with that kind of imagery. Alas, it was only a backstory.
Spoiler alert.
This book has the same subject as the movie "AI" (which was based on Brian Aldiss' story "Supertoys will last all summer!"). Basically, it's about the relationship between man and thinking machines (and thinking machines win). Much of the book consists of dialogue between man and machine - this was rather tiresome.
The post-human bombshell isn't dropped until the very last pages. But what sets this book apart is because of the assertion that there is something, an "Idea", that separates AI from Man. What this Idea is talked about a lot, and yet I would be hard-pressed to define it (and I read the book a few hours ago). But it has something to do with drive, with intention.
The rest of the book is really just a thin shell around this central meditation - which I feel is important, but not particularly interesting as it's presented here. But this is because of my background in posthumanism that not everyone shares. (It's clear to me that AI is possible, and that AI will almost certainly be very similar to us (more like the movie AI). Although I'm not convinced that personality downloads will be any more possible with AI that it is with OI, or that they will be that different from us at all, except for more survivable, maybe.)
I found the final revelation that humanity was extinct and the central character was a descendant of the first AI, rather uninteresting. The inconsistency occurs when you believe that a) this would be a utopia, and b) a society of hyper intelligent, happy free thinkers would not figure out that there is a death squad hunting down those with the human "symptom" of the Idea. This aspect was not explored at all. Indeed, the future society was not explored at all.
Egalitarian utopias maintained through draconian measures is nothing new - not even post-human ones. What gets me is the inconsistent - why would AI people find this practice any less abhorrent than OI people? I suppose the author could assert the unfathomable depths of a far future society. He would also point out that this is precisely why The Academy was secret.
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Josh]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/142207-new-star-trek-movie
Josh made a comment in the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group:
I'd like to see House diagnose "bug on the brain stem".
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Josh]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/139594-historical-fiction-historical-fantasy-spoilers
Josh made a comment in the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group:
Brad added *Spoilers* to this thread
How come?
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Josh]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/138495-first-impressions
Josh made a comment in the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group:
My first impression is annoyance. It's as if Kay wants to be writing historical fiction, but writes fantasy instead for the sole purpose of making up new place names! Honestly I don't think I'll get through it.
]]>
<![CDATA[new comment from Josh]]>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/139041-asking-for-help
Josh made a comment in the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group: