Books you've read in 2010 (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Finished reading "The Lightyears Beneath My Feet" by Alan Dean Foster a few days ago. Not bad for light reading. I pick up quite a few of his books and generally find them entertaining. It doesn't harm that he is a fan of one my favorite comic book authors: Carl Barks.

Not quite sure what I'm going to start on next. I might look for Foster's folllowup book to "Lightyears".

 

[Andy Sheets]

The Ten Thousand by Paul Kearney. This is marketed as a fantasy novel but it's more like historical fiction based on Xenophon's Anabasis with a sci-fi overlay. The "Greeks" are humans but it's implied that they're not native to the planet on which they live, and the "Persians" are a race of tall, golden-skinned humanoids. I really liked it and am looking forward to reading more of Kearney's stuff, both his older work and the upcoming sequel to this book.

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. This was interesting but I have to admit that I think the movie is better, if only because the filmmakers keep the classroom lectures to a minimum compared to the book. The more I read and re-read Heinlein, the more I realize I don't like him as much I used to think I did.

The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester. I was in a classic sci-fi mood after reading Starship Troopers so I got this one out and it took less than a chapter to realize that Bester absolutely crushes Heinlein as a writer. While I'm not crazy about the resolution of the plot, because I was drawn more to the villain than the hero and I'm not sure that was intended, the book is rich with ideas, moves at a good pace, and has a lot of witty dialogue. The Tenser said the Tensor jingle is still stuck in my head even though I've never heard it put to music

Hunt at World's End, by Nicholas Kaufmann. The third of the Gabriel Hunt series, this was my least favorite so far because the hero's love interest is really annoying. Otherwise it's another entertaining Indiana Jones movie except for being, y'know, a book.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Andy Sheets

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. This was interesting but I have to admit that I think the movie is better, if only because the filmmakers keep the classroom lectures to a minimum compared to the book. The more I read and re-read Heinlein, the more I realize I don't like him as much I used to think I did.

The problem with Heinlein, as one matures, is that he's dirty old man, and his puerile social attitudes become tedious. (I say having loved him in my youth, but being disappointed reading him more recently)


I, Robot by Isaac Asimov.
Read today, without context "I, Robot" feels completely derivative and hastily written. Which is to say, that Asimov's view on robotics, especially the three laws and psychological consequences that follow, were so influential that they've been permeated the past 50+ years of sci-fi, especially Star Trek. With that view, reading I, Robot is like reading original texts in the original language. Or perhaps reading the Robert Noyce's original engineering notes, after having used the modern computers with Intel chips for decades. It's informative, interesting in a historical sense, but not as satisfying as having read them a half-century earlier.

And again, on their own, they feel a bit of a cheat. They are puzzles; they are Asimov figuring out how robots work in his universe and the consequences thereof. They are an anthology of logic parables, lashed together with a string of some inconsequential framework. The human characters aren't particularly interesting or dynamic: perhaps that's intentional to keep the focus on the robots.

I think the original reading of I, Robot some five decades ago would have felt revolutionary. Reading it today is entertaining, and broadens my framework for sci-fi; but is not nearly as interesting as contemporary literature.

 

[DaveF]

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", Philip K. Dick

In contrast to "I, Robot", "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" felt very contemporary. Perhaps because I've not read my dystopic sci-fi of this style, it was fresh to me. It's also an excellent to I, Robot. Whereas Asimov pursues a coolly logical examination of robots which, by design, cannot hurt humans and in the limite are perhaps better behaved than humans, Dick is more emotional in telling a story about androids who are inferior to humans, know, and chafe at it, and in trying to throw off their forced servitude can be murderous. The characters are also significantly more emotionally rounded than the cardboard individuals in I, Robot. "Androids" is also has an strangely mystical aspect. I'm not sure what to make of , but it didn't really distract.

What surprised me most is how very different "Bladerunner" is from the book. The basics are the same: escaped androids hunted by an individual. But, from what I recall of Bladerunner, all the details diverge. Even the core concept of Decker's identity and relationship to the androids seems completely different between film and book. I need to rewatch the movie now to compare. I can't say these are bad changes; just changes. This may be a case where the book had to be re-thought to make a successful transition to film.


If, like me, you've not read the classics of sci-fi, I highly recommend this, particularly in complement to I, Robot. Together, you have the basis of all modern sci-fi takes on robots.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

The First Family: Terror, Extortion, Revenge, Murder and the birth of the American Mafia by British historian Mike Dash. Dash tells the story of Giuseppe Morello, a man almost completely forgotten today, who is arguably the true founder of the American Mafia. Contrary to legend, the Mafia (a word used only by outsiders) is not an ancient brotherhood. Even in Sicily itself semi-organized bands of criminals (originally mostly cattle-rustlers!) only came into being in the early to mid 19th century. These groups were independent and had no central authority or over-arching hierarchy. Each controlled a city, town or rural district, operated in secret and thoroughly corrupted the local authorities. Eventually they developed similar initiation rituals, alliances and and power sharing arrangements. But there was no "boss of bosses" who controlled it all, and there was no central authority that sent minions overseas to create a "Mafia" in America. Morello's stepfather was a member of one of these groups, from the mountain town of Corleone ("Lion heart"), and many of the men who would form the core of Morello's American gang were Corleonese. Modern historians may have lost track of Morello, but clearly Mario Puzo's research went back further.

Instead the members of the Mafia who did come to these shores came as private citizens, as Giuseppe Morello did in 1892. At the time there were colonies of both Sicilians and Italians in several American cities, especially New Orleans and New York, and local criminal gangs that preyed on their fellow immigrants. Morello, a convicted counterfeiter who fled Sicily to avoid prison, initially tried to make an honest living, but soon returned to his old ways, and gradually began taking over Sicilian crime in New York from his headquarters in Harlem. This at the same time that the "Brotherhood of Honor" or "Mafia" in Sicily were becoming organized along the lines that would carry it into the 20th and 21st centuries.

Most histories of organized crime start with Prohibition, the rise of the Five Families and the creation of The Commission by Lucky Luciano. Many begin with the so-called Castellammare war, a Mafia civil war that involved leaders from the generation before Luciano (who ended up double-crossing the bosses of both factions initiating the power-sharing arrangement known as the Commission to replace a single "boss of bosses" and avoid future gang wars.) But Morello was "present at the creation", laying the foundation for a Mafia family that exists to this day. (The only one from his era that still does.) He lived into the Prohibition era and emerged from a long prison sentence to serve as consigliere to Joe Masseria, who had taken control of Morello's Family and led one faction in the Castellammare war. Morello died in 1930, only two years before Luciano would organize The Commission. He was born around 1872, only a generation or so after the "Mafia" would first emerge in the hills of Sicily, less than 10 years after the end of the American Civil War, and he would live to see the start of the Great Depression and the creation of the Five Mafia Families of New York. His story, this prehistory of the American Mob, is a fascinating one.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

And again, on their own, they feel a bit of a cheat. They are puzzles; they are Asimov figuring out how robots work in his universe and the consequences thereof. They are an anthology of logic parables, lashed together with a string of some inconsequential framework. The human characters aren't particularly interesting or dynamic: perhaps that's intentional to keep the focus on the robots.

But this isn't a peculiar failing of Asimov's or even of Science Fiction at the time. It was a feature common to most genre fiction of the era. The so-called "Golden Age" of the mystery story, the time of the locked-room murder and the isolated English country house, was full of such stories. Agatha Christie is also (rightly) criticized for her thin characterizations and sketchy descriptions. Her stories were also "puzzle box" affairs where the main emphasis was solving the mystery. It was what the readers of such stories mostly cared about, and therefore the magazines they read bought such stories and the writers very quickly learned that if they wanted to make a sale, that's what they'd have to write.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Edwin-S]

^^^^^^^^

I liked her Hercule Poirot mysteries, but I always became annoyed at how she would always resort to a cheat in order to prevent the reader from solving the mystery. There was always some "off-page" information that Poirot would acquire that was never available to the reader until the reveal. Half the fun of mystery novels is figuring out the perp and Christie used to ruin it with her "enter-stage-left" shenanigans.

 

[Ockeghem]

I am currently reading There Is A God, and it's quite fascinating. What follows is a good little essay. It's fair and balanced on some difficult issues. Things are seldom what they seem on first glance. Flew seems to have revised his thinking to a limited extent, late in life. Quite likely not to a degree worth writing a book about, but, books get published for multiple, complex reasons. Flew's earlier published arguments stand or fall on their own logical merits (or flaws). I had not known that he was ever involved in the Socratic Club at Oxford. I find that to be an amusing coincidence. Myself, I don't think the complexity of DNA suggest anything about any putative divinity. Maybe if the genetic code were written in Hebrew, I might think a bit differently.

[FONT= 'Georgia']http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/[/FONT]

Antony Flew, 1923–2010
Following the Argument Wherever it Leads
a tribute by Kenneth Grubbs

A bristling chill swept the dimming colorless sky over Reading, England one evening earlier this year. In weather uncannily, perhaps even poignantly, similar it was my profound pleasure to speak at length with the delightful and charming Annis Flew, wife of the now notorious Antony Flew who, after almost 70 years vigorously defending atheism apparently changed his mind. Today, at the age of 87, Flew considers himself a deist . At least that is what Annis made clear to me when we spoke in January.


Flew, The Man

At the University of Oxford, during the war-ravaged 1940s, a group of undergraduate students, presided over by C. S. Lewis, gathered each Monday evening below ground in the Junior Common Room of St. Hilda’s College to passionately debate Christianity and atheism.


This elite group, known as The Socratic Club , was the “intellectual hub of Oxford.” At its core is the Socratic maxim to “Follow the argument wherever it leads,” a principle that would guide Flew his entire life. It was here at the Socratic club in 1950 that a 27-year old Flew presented his first relevant work, Theology and Falsification . It was also here at Oxford that he would meet Annis, the woman who would become his wife and lifelong friend and the woman with the kind and steady voice I would speak with on a crisp January evening, some 60 years later.

Professor Flew authored more than 35 books and essays on such diverse philosophical topics as free will and determinism, crime, evolution, logic, ethics, and language. His landmark works include God and Philosophy (1966), The Presumption of Atheism (1976), and now, of course, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007). I tried to gain access to Professor Flew for this story, but he was in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, tired, confused, and in the paralyzing grasp of advanced dementia. He had been there for well more than a year, and Annis informed me that “Tony is rarely aware of his surroundings anymore.” There would be no interview.

Flew, The Book

There is a God was published in 2007 by Harper One, the imprint of Harper Collins focusing on predominantly religious and spiritual works. The book is “about why I changed my mind,” Flew writes. His name appears in large print on the jacket. Below it, in considerably smaller type, it reads “with Roy Abraham Varghese.” From the jacket we also learn that the book is the “Winner of the Christianity Today Book Award.” This is a curious honor, given that deism shares almost nothing with Christianity, nor any other religion; but far more importantly, Annis informed me without hesitation that “Tony never came to recognize any of the revealed religions.”

Roy Varghese penned the 18-page Preface. The Introduction is written by Flew, spanning four and one half pages. In it comes the thunderous recant, “I now believe there is a God.” There are two Appendices. Roy Varghese writes the first. Its 22 pages consist of one part “New Atheist” bashing, and two parts tiresome argument. Bishop N.T. Wright, an Oxford New Testament Scholar, writes the second appendix. Before Wright begins his 28-page essay, “ The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus ,” there is a brief paragraph by Flew inviting Wright to contribute, an odd invitation from a deist .

Flew, The Controversy

In December of 2004, 54 battle weary years after Theology and Falsification was first introduced at the Socratic Club, a lifetime of work was forever fractured when the Associated Press released the story that Antony Flew, famed British philosopher and atheist, “now believes in God.” In 2007, not long after Flew’s book was released, Mark Oppenheimer wrote an essay in the New York Times magazine (“The Turning of an Atheist,” November 4), for which he interviewed both Flew and Varghese. I spoke with Mark in February, who told me that Professor Flew informed him with no ambiguity that he did not write the book. “This is really Roy’s doing,” Flew said, “He showed it to me and I said OK.” When Oppenheimer interviewed Varghese, he too stated that the book was his idea , and that he (Varghese) “did all the original writing,” but that the “substantive” material came from Flew’s previous work. Oppenheimer describes Varghese as a Christian apologist as well as a “crusader for (and financial backer of) those who believe that scientific research helps verify the existence of God.” Varghese met Flew at a conference in 1985.

Subsequent to Oppenheimer’s story, Varghese wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times magazine: “First the good news: Antony Flew is alive and well (physically and mentally)” (“Doubting Antony Flew,” November 5, 2007. This letter was written just one year prior to Flew’s dementia requiring hospitalization).

When I spoke with Mark he reminded me that Harper One wasn’t entirely satisfied with Varghese’s prose, so they asked Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor, to re-write many of the passages, “To make it more reader friendly,” according to Varghese himself. So the ghostwriter had a ghostwriter!

In essence then, two-thirds of Antony Flew’s book is actually Roy Varghese writing for Flew, with some undefined portion written by Bob Hostetler writing for Varghese. The remaining one-third of the book is Varghese writing as Varghese, taking puerile whacks at the “New Atheists” in Appendix A; and Bishop Wright in Appendix B, writing as Bishop Wright, presenting his 28-page Christian dissertation. As Annis said, “All those Christians [were] trying to pull him to their bosom.” Yet almost unbelievably, nowhere in There is a God is any of this information disclosed. The omissions alone are disturbing. “The most disappointing thing to me,” Oppenheimer told me, reflecting back with clear candor, “is the cynicism of the publishing industry. They knew they made a mistake, and never took the opportunity to correct it.”

Roy Varghese declined my request for an interview. He did email me a written statement to highlight three points. First, he explained that the statements made in the book have been made by Flew in other forums as well. Second, Flew signed off on the book’s manuscript multiple times. And third, Varghese arranged a special meeting attended by himself, Professor Flew and Professor Richard Swinburne, famed Christian apologist and long time friend of Flew. The expressed intent of the meeting was for Swinburne to assess Flew’s genuine views, as well as his capacity. Swinburne wrote a testament proclaiming Flew’s grasp of the material, suggesting that Flew’s position was “most of the way toward Christianity.” (Varghese was kind enough to send me a copy of Swinburne’s statement).

The fact that Varghese felt the need for a third party confirmation regarding Flew’s capacity raises concerns. And having decided that such a confirmation was necessary, it would have been more persuasive had a truly independent third party, rather than a Christian apologist, conducted it.

Of the three important points Varghese wanted me to know, point number three negates points one and two. If Flew’s capacity is questionable to Varghese, then the credibility of expressing his newfound views in other forums and signing off on manuscripts is not compelling.

At this juncture then, having reviewed the controversy, having considered Flew’s age and capacity, and having considered the potentially biased motives of those around him, our story finally intersects with its purpose. Simply put, these antics are of no relevance to us here . Why? Because the Socratic maxim so dear to Flew’s heart is not to follow the man ; it is instead to follow the argument . Professor Antony Flew affirms that he is a deist; so stipulated. We will follow the argument and see where it leads.

Flew, The Argument

When someone abandons lifelong convictions, changes their mind , and writes a book to explain it all, we should expect new and dramatic reasoning. Let’s follow the argument spelled out in There is a God .

“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God,” the argument begins in earnest, summarily invoking the authority of science. “The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.”

Notice that these points are nothing more than observations for which science is seeking evidence. They are, in and of themselves, not evidence per se, nor do they “point to” anything, despite the semantic implications to the contrary.

The argument continues, “How did the laws of nature come to be? How did life as a phenomenon originate from non-life?” And lastly, “How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?”


The three scientific observations preceding these questions have been carefully crafted into questions from which the inferences, according to the authors, can only be God . Put more simply, the unspoken conclusion we are to infer is, what else could it be, but God ? This is the backbone of the argument for deism. The enigmatic truth that biology and cosmology remain confounded by these questions has been creatively reconstituted into would be articles of evidence.

Flew/Varghese argue that, “Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God’s existence is the so-called argument from design.” Having now read hundreds of pages of masterfully constructed arguments from this classically trained Oxford philosopher, in my opinion Professor Flew would shudder at the notion of employing “popular” or “intuitively plausible” statements as arguments for or against anything. They write, “What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”

Consider this passage from God and Philosophy , written by Flew in 1966: “Certainly it is proper to feel the awe in the contemplation of the human eye or of the single living cell. But no exploitation, however breathtaking, of the limitations and potentialities of materials would give good ground for inferring Omnipotence.” So what changed? Did complexity became more complex ? Did design became better designed ? Is Flew’s qualification, “however breathtaking,” invalidated by the complexity of DNA?

Another cornerstone of any argument for deism is the Anthropic Principle. Flew/Varghese submit the weight of electrons, the speed of light, and gravitational constants to demonstrate that the universe is too “fine tuned” to be accidental. Again, these observations contribute nothing substantive — they are simply statements about the universe, not packets of data’ — save the same misleading implication what else could it be, but God ? The authors conclude: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.” The logic proffered fails as an argument because it requires us to accept the lack of knowledge as knowledge , and the lack of evidence as evidence . This is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam , or, appeal to ignorance. It is also the Burden of Proof Fallacy, which states that if we cannot prove X to be false, then X is true; the inability to disprove X becomes the proof of X. The argument is of course invalid.

Bertrand Russell was fond of suggesting that a teapot orbited the sun just beyond Mars; no one can disprove his claim, therefore it is true. If we follow the this line of reasoning we must accept the conclusion that the more evidence we lack … the greater the likelihood that God exists . The argument beckons for God to be defined as “ the sum of all knowledge yet acquired .”


This was the reason Flew wrote The Presumption of Atheism back in 1976. It was written to mirror the legal maxim, Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat , or “The onus of proof lies on the proposition, not on the opposition.” Flew noted in that book: “If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing.” The absence of evidence hardly qualifies as “good grounds” for anything, much less god, and thus our expectations for some epiphanic insight to leap from the pages of this book and help us understand the basis for Professor Flew’s recantation have been thoroughly dashed.

The landscape of science has changed in almost unrecognizable proportions since Flew’s early life. However, it is unreasonable — irrational even — to suggest that Flew’s original position opposing complexity as an argument for a Divine Mind was only a matter of degree . If complexity is a poor argument for the existence of God (and it is) then the degree of complexity is an irrelevant attribute.

Flew, The Conclusion

As a species our hunger for answers is insatiable. So desperate are we to understand the universe around us that for untold centuries we have refused to accept any “gap” in that understanding. Unexplained phenomena are the spawning grounds for ghost stories, sea monsters, grassy knolls, and a Divine Mind.

Antony Flew understood this as well as anyone. He devoted a lifetime of vigorous intellectual argument against presuming God. Today we are asked to accept that he has changed his mind. With asterisks in hand, we accept.

Could we make a cogent argument “pointing to” his age and capacity as factors that might mitigate a change of this magnitude? We could. Are there uncertainties that could warrant a tenable challenge to the motives of those individuals surrounding Flew, with regard to his “conversion” and the curiously construction and authorship of the book? There are. Should the publishers bear any responsibility for preventing misperceptions concerning the disclosure of would-be ghostwriters? They should.

There is little hope of ever reconciling the Antony Flew of 87 years with the Antony Flew of 27 years. Did he change his mind, or did his mind change him?


History will record Antony Flew as a deist; Annis Flew confirmed that for us all. History, I fear, becomes an unwitting conspirator, forever defiled.

With so many varied aspects to this story, it is easy to forget that which matters most. Antony Garrard Newton Flew, philosopher, professor, author, atheist pioneer, and devoted husband, is now gone. For more than 60 years this thinker, this man of great intellect, marched to a different drum and followed the argument. We owe him much.

The last of the old guard, Professor Flew’s festschrift deserves to be written with admiration and respect for a distinguished philosopher. As Annis said to me, her accent reminiscent of British Royalty and her voice never wavering, “I am so very proud to have known him.”

 

[DavidJ]

I read my first Stephen King book recently, Under the Dome. I don't know if it was the best one to start with, but it was an engrossing read. Still, I don't know if I liked it or not. It was quite cynical. Is this typical of KIng's books?


I just finished Lee Child's Gone Tomorrow. This was a first for me as well and it was a decent thriller. It starts stronger than it finishes, but it was fast paced and kept me turning the pages. I guess I'd say it was OK in the end.


After reading Jack Welch's rave about Mojo: How to Get It, How to Keep It, How to Get It Back if You Lose It by Marshall Goldsmith, I decided to check it out. As far as this type of book goes, it was better than average and I'm putting to use some concepts from it, but I don't think it is worth raving about.


I've listened to a few books as well, The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis, Fearless and 3:16 by Max Lucado, The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale and The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow. I thought the Drunkard's Walk was fantastic. It deals with probability and statistics in a way that is easy to understand while providing historical and practical context. I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable.


Another book I read is 10 Days to Faster Reading by Abby Marks-Beale. I was pleasantly surprised by this book and found it to be quite helpful. Of all the "speed reading" books out there, this may be the best. I was already a pretty fast reader, but I did nearly double my reading speed for non-fiction works. It'll be interesting to see if the speed gains stick.


I've set some reading goals for the summer. I'm planning to read at least two fiction and two non-fiction books each of the next three months. Should be doable, but this does not include anything I was in the middle of when May began nor is it inclusive of all the school and work specific reading that is on tap. I'm hoping that this will be above and beyond that. Wish me luck.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Just finished S.M.Stirling's original emberverse trilogy (aka. The Change novels). A trio of survivalist-fantasy novels. Very long-winded accounts of how low-tech functions, characters carved entirely out of cliche, and the central deus-ex-machina plot is never resolved.


Recommended only to its target audience: SCA and ARMA members, Wiccans, survivalists, and people who would enjoy swordfights in a rural Amish setting.


I give the series a C


PS: The series continues past the original three books (But these are deep into magic and fantasy territory).

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Garrett Lundy /forum/thread/296293/books-you-ve-read-in-2010#post_3690324

 

[Andy Sheets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett Lundy

Just finished S.M.Stirling's original emberverse trilogy (aka. The Change novels). A trio of survivalist-fantasy novels. Very long-winded accounts of how low-tech functions, characters carved entirely out of cliche, and the central deus-ex-machina plot is never resolved.

I had a similar experience reading Stirling's Conquistador a couple of years ago. I couldn't finish it because it was so long and yet so little was happening with the plot and the characters. I like his ideas but the actual writing was disappointing.


I just read The High Crusade by Poul Anderson, which I really liked. Alien invaders pick a fight with medieval English crusaders and get their asses wrecked. Funny but also quite smart. Anderson is such an underappreciated writer.


Also just finished Goldfinger by Ian Fleming. While I generally think the novels are better than the films, in this case I think the film improved on a novel that was alright but not among the best of the books. The plots are essentially identical but the filmmakers make a few changes that allow Bond to be a more proactive character and gets the reader into the action a bit more. That said, while the movie's use of a laser beam is very memorable, I think the book's equivalent for bisecting Bond, a circular saw, is a lot scarier

 

[mattCR]

I just finished "His Dark Materials" trilogy. Despite the over abundance of huge praise for it, I really struggled to finish it. (I'm an atheist, so the argument of me being opposed to the books ideology are crazy) but the books just struck me as ugh, can't even think of the right word. I liked none of the characters. I suppose Lord Azrael was the "good" guy in a sense, but I kept thinking of him abandoning his kid and blowing up the edge of the world without assurances of what he was doing.


All of the characters came across to me as basically unlikable, and wow, for children's literature was there a lot of really morbid action. I kept reading this was aimed at pre-teen.. I'm wondering what kid that is that wouldn't read it and end up with incredible nightmares. I mean, the tales of little kids getting their genetalia cut off, or having their bodies cut apart, or a kid who gets his fingers lopped off and is forced because of who he is to battle to the death repeatedly.


I mean, Ender's Game had death in it, but it was NOTHING in comparison to the gory details provided in the Subtle Knife and Amber Spyglass. I mean, not even close.


I'm sure I'll have lots of people leap to the defense of the books. I'm sure for some they are great reads, and I don't regret going through the series to say that I did, but just not my style I think.

 

[DaveF]

Matt, thanks for the comments. My interest was piqued after the movies came out (though I didn't see the movie). But the aspects you describe were never mentioned in any of comments I saw on the books. I think I'll skip them; I've got plenty else to read.

 

[mattCR]

It is very well written, with lots of awards, I just.. well, I just found it really difficult to get through due to some of the content. Like I said, 'm in no way judging it on the religious opposition to them, I just found the style and content to be a real slog. But, that's me.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I liked the first two books, but the third one came across as very bitter and obvious. In the first two books, the anti-Catholic commentary was in the background, coloring our perceptions of Lyra's world and how it relates to ours. The third book is basically open war on religion in general and Christianity in particular.

The fleeting, offhand death of God as a momentary distraction from the battle around them turned me off as well. The wonder was gone,


because in destroying the Christian paradigm he failed to replace it with one of his own --- which I suppose was the point, but it's rather a bitter pill to swallow, especially for the young audiences the book is targeted at.


because in destroying the Christian paradigm he failed to replace it with one of his own --- which I suppose was the point, but it's rather a bitter pill to swallow, especially for the young audiences the book is targeted at.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by mattCR

It is very well written, with lots of awards, I just.. well, I just found it really difficult to get through due to some of the content. Like I said, 'm in no way judging it on the religious opposition to them, I just found the style and content to be a real slog. But, that's me.

The philosophical content, I understand from other reviews. The elements of torture, mutilation, etc. I'd not heard about and don't sound particularly appealing right now.


[EDIT: for "me fail English, that's unpossible" errors]

 

[mattCR]

Adam: I'd agree. The Golden Compass was a very good book, actually.. but it seemed as though the series got way more dark as it went on, and really stopped being children's lit about the time they got to the world of Spectres in "Subtle Knife" by that point on, it became a rather adult, complex story that just wasn't as fulfilling.


Dave: yeah, that was kind of my feeling.

I think the books will have those who desperately support them and those who crazily oppose them based on religious content. It is kind of sad, then, that I don't think the merits of the story get enough debate. "The Golden Compass" is in fact, a really compelling read. The other two, not so much. (IMHO)


One other thing:



I hated that the final book, damn near everyone had an elithiometer, which was made to seem so special in the first book. Then by the third book, tons of people had one. That seemed to me like very lazy storytelling.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not to mention that the arbitrary ten year time limit outside one's own world seemed devised at the last minute to create artificial tragedy between Lyra and Will.

 

[DaveF]

You guys are going to make me read these books, simply so I can read your spoilers!


I'm slogging my way through the fourth of the Ender Quartet (Children of the Mind). I don't know if it's me and my current interests, but this is by far the least interesting of the Ender books. Halfway through, it's now become interesting.