A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines - Entire Book, Spoilers Allowed (January 2016)

[Whitney]

Here's the place for discussion of the entire book. Please post any questions or observations about the book you think are interesting. Below are a few general questions to help get things started, but as usual feel free to take the discussion in any direction you desire.

Why the title? Who is the “madman”, and in what sense is Lavin using the term?

One of the themes of the books is fate or determinism vs. free will, as well as the connected question of the existence of God. How do the different ideas and lives of the two men relate to these questions? Why Gödel and Turing? What kind of connection is Lavin making between them, whether between their theories or their lives (or deaths), or both?

Levin writes herself, or a version of herself, into the story at several points. She’s kind of a downer:

“We are confused and brilliant and stupid, lost clumps of living ash.” And
“I could have written this book entirely differently, but then again maybe this book is the only way it could be, and these are the only choices I could have made. This is me, an unreal composite, maybe part liar, maybe not free.”

What do you think of these intrusions? How do they (or how are they intended to) add to the novel?

Tiffany, this may be a good question for you. Lavin seems to embrace the questionable assertion that Turing was someone with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or at the very least she emphasizes traits that suggest he was. Do his biographers support this idea, or, as suggested in this article from The Spectator, is it “Romantic Gobbledygook”?

[Peter]

Once again we're dealing with the troubling issue of a novel based on actual historical people, and unlike in Euphoria, they are not even fictionalized. If these were made-up characters in a novel, Turing being on the Autism spectrum wouldn't even be an issue, it'd be just another decision that the author made in composing the narrative. But because there was a real, historical, Alan Turing, the question becomes entangled in the issue of what's real and what's fictional. I have to admit that I'm generally kind of dubious about the use of historical personages as major characters in fiction(*), particularly when they are recent and well documented people as they are here. The author has interpreted them in one particular way, but who's to say that's because that's how she sees them or is it because that's what she felt that made the best story?

(* I don't mind if they are used as minor characters, however. I'm OK with Turing's appearance in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon , but there he's mostly someone one of the main characters knew.)

[Whitney]

I agree, I usually avoid fictionalized historical characters in novels, it usually seems to me like the writer is trying to have it both ways. (I love Star Trek, but you can't pay me enough to watch the Next Gen "Mark Twain" episodes. ) In this case, as you say, they characters are not really fictionalized, per the author's own statements.

So why do you think Lavin wrote this book? What is she trying to say with the things she choose for the narrative that we can't get from reading a straight up biography?

[Tiffany]

Peter wrote: "...But because there was a real, historical, Alan Turing, the question becomes entangled in the issue of what's real and what's fictional."

However, I do appreciate that Levin included references for some of her quotes to help the reader distinguish between what's real and what's fictional. Some of the scenarios where they were spoken may be fictionalized, but the fact that they were said is backed up by her references. For example, one of Turing's discussions about machines: in the book, he says this to Joan while they play chess (p. 166 in my copy); according to the references at the end of the book, Turing spoke this at the London Mathematical Society. So Levin's scenario is a fictionalized way to relay the information, but the information (the quote) is still true.

[Tiffany]

Whitney wrote: "Tiffany, this may be a good question for you. Lavin seems to embrace the questionable assertion that Turing was someone with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or at the very least she emphasizes traits that suggest he was. Do his biographers support this idea, or, as suggested in this article from The Spectator, is it “Romantic Gobbledygook”?"

Argh, I'm trying to remember! I'm almost positive that at least one of the books (probably Alan Turing: The Enigma) discusses the possibility of Autism, but I don't remember if the author(s) agreed with that assertion, or just relayed it as a possibility others have suggested.

[Marie (UK)]

I have limited knowledge of Godel and Turing but don't think it is necessary for the read. I am about a third of the way through. It is a difficult and demanding read in some ways, particularly following the arguments, although i have studied some philosophy as relates to nursing so the mind- body argument - I think therefore I am.

The characters are very "alive" well described by the author and i can feel their inner tumult. however the book feels all over the place i cannot say i like it

[Marie (UK)]

I agree with Peter we only get a one person view of these people. I really did not enjoy it. I couldn't even attempt to answer the questions as i have no idea what Lavann was attempting and whatever it was - in my opinion - it did not work.

[Whitney]

I did like the book quite a bit, but pulling a specific theme out of it is proving elusive. Here’s my stab at it.

I found this quote from Levin on her novel (from http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/p...). I also found this interview with Levin from The Brooklyn Nail to be enlightening.

   “These two people converge in history and diverge in belief. They act out lives that are only tangentially related and deaths that are written for each other, inverted reflections. They are both brilliantly original and outsiders. They are both loyal to reason and to truth. They are both besotted with mathematics.

   But for all their devotion, mathematics is indifferent, unaltered by any of their dramas -- Gödel’s psychotic delusions, Turing’s sexuality. One plus one will always be two. Their broken lives are mere anecdotes in the margins of their discoveries. But then their discoveries are evidence of our purpose, and their lives are parables on free will. Against indifference, I want to tell their stories.”

Mathematicians and philosophers have always wrestled with the philosophical implications of physical and mathematical theorems, especially those dealing with probability or uncertainty. Gödel and Turing both contributed to the idea of uncertainty and incompleteness in their studies, as well as in their lives. In one sense, the messiness of their lives may fit in within that either inconsistent or unknowable area of Gödel’s theorem. In another, their lives may show how very removed human endeavor is from the idea of pure mathematical systems. Maybe the “madness” of the title results from our inability to fully rectify things one way or another.

[Whitney]

Marie wrote: "The characters are very "alive" well described by the author and i can feel their inner tumult. however the book feels all over the place i cannot say i like it .."

Marie, do you think you would have liked the book if it had had more of a straightforward narrative quality instead of jumping around so much?

You said the characters felt alive, do you think that applied to the secondary characters as well? I would have liked Levin to delve a little deeper into the Adele's character. She seemed to embrace Oskar Morgenstern's assessment of her as a fishwife-type and then largely leave it at that.

[Tiffany]

Whitney wrote: "You said the characters felt alive, do you think that applied to the secondary characters as well? "

I loved Olga and thought she was well described. The way she stuck up for Godel to her husband, and really listened to him... I loved that. I thought she felt alive.

I also thought Adele was as alive as a secondary character would be. We got some of her backstory, lots of descriptions of how she took care of Godel and mothered him... I thought Levin did well bringing her to life.

[LindaJ^]

Whitney wrote: "I did like the book quite a bit, but pulling a specific theme out of it is proving elusive. Here’s my stab at it.

I found this quote from Levin on her novel (from http://faculty.webster.edu/corbet..."

I could not open the interview link, but the Corbett review really has me thinking, especially his take on the question "Don't our stories matter?" It has me considering the book in a completely different sense.

[Marie (UK)]

Whitney wrote: "Marie wrote: "The characters are very "alive" well described by the author and i can feel their inner tumult. however the book feels all over the place i cannot say i like it .."

Marie, do you thi..."


Yes i think a straightforward narrative might have helped and I was concentrating on Turing andGodel. I thought the book was harder work than any novel really should be and I do understand the philosophical concepts

[Whitney]

I wonder, as M. John Harrison did in his Guardian review, if some of the 'messiness' of the narrative was an intentional mirroring of the messiness of the characters lives.

The idea of paradox is a constant thread through the book. Gödel's theorem of incompleteness versus inconsistency, as inspired by the liar's paradox, is at the heart of the entire narrative. Gödel's death by starvation resulted from his fear of death by poison. Both of the logical mathematicians visit a gypsy fortune teller. There's the aforementioned contrast of the main character's lives versus their ideas. And there's the more light-hearted reminder of paradox in Adele's statement that "superstition is bad luck".

Is the difficulty in articulating the themes of this book a result of the theme being the inexplicable and paradoxical nature of their (or any) lives?

[Tiffany]

Whitney wrote: "I wonder, as M. John Harrison did in his Guardian review, if some of the 'messiness' of the narrative was an intentional mirroring of the messiness of the characters lives."

I could go with that.

Even that part is hard to articulate, though. I was going to say that the "messiness" parallels the messiness of their minds, what with all the theories and everything, but their minds weren't messy (I'd imagine) with theories. They thought a theory, and it was absolutely clear to them. So maybe the paradox comes from the messiness of what a person thinks. Like you said, Gödel starved to death because he was afraid of being poisoned, and yet there was probably some part of his brain that said either "You *have* to eat!" and/or "No, you're not being poisoned." So maybe the messiness parallels rational brain vs. ... I don't want to say "non-rational brain," because that's the same part of their brains that came up with the incompleteness theorem and Turing machines. So... I don't know! Messiness of thoughts in general. One part of our brain vs. another part of our brain. Messiness of human thought; messiness of human lives. Yeah, I'll turn your final question into the answer: the difficulty in articulating the themes of this book is a result of the theme being the inexplicable and paradoxical nature of their (or any) lives.

So messy. So paradoxical.

[Whitney]

That's true. I was contrasting their orderly thoughts with their messy lives. But, as you said, in the end everything is in their brains.

I thought another interesting contrast was when Gödel first revealed his theorem to the Vienna Circle. One of the most important ideas of modern mathematics, which results in him running from the cafe in shame.

[Tiffany]

Whitney wrote: "I thought another interesting contrast was when Gödel first revealed his theorem to the Vienna Circle. One of the most important ideas of modern mathematics, which results in him running from the cafe in shame."

Being a revolutionary is difficult when people don't want to accept your revolutionary ideas. Or, when people can't see the way you do. It takes a special kind of thinking to be a genius, and most people -- until it's explained to them -- don't think the way people with new ideas do. Especially when it's something so abstract like whether numbers are real, or the logic of The Liar's Paradox.

[LindaJ^]

I don't think I actually understood The Liar's Paradox until I read this book!

I think Gödel could not understand why the person who he looked up to could not understand his theorem and was fearful that he would never be able to participate again in the group. The poor guy was so incapable of understanding social norms.

[Karen D]

I'm torn about what I thought about this. I really did enjoy the narrative, and even how it jumped back and forth between the two "characters". I thought that was a really interesting way to show how their two lives paralleled so much, the struggles they went through and eventually succumbed to.

I think I might have liked it more if it was a bit longer honestly. It felt rushed, that we just got glimpses into each of them, and I think a bit more development could have helped. While it was a more human view than much of my previous knowledge of either, I still felt disconnected and then didn't really care all that much at their respective collapses.

[Britta]

I really enjoyed the book, so thank you for this great pick!

I especially loved the quiet, almost subdued language and the way the minds of these two men were brought to live. I studied Wittgenstein at uni and I do think, though, that some knowledge of his philosophical thinking and of Gödel's and Turing's work helps to deepen the enjoyment of the novel.