OT: best book in years

[Martin Maney]

McMaster Bujold (start with _Shards of Honor_, but don't read _Barrayar_
yet if you pick up the _Cordelia's Honor_ omnibus).

Are you advising the traditional publication order or reading here? I
did that the first time; last year I went through them again in
internal chronology sequence, and damned if I don't think they work
just perfectly well that way. I suspect Baen, and presumably Lois,
would agree, as that seems to be the way they're packaging the omnibus
reissues, at least mostly.

Social SF: anything by Ursual K. LeGuin, _Courtship Rite_ by Donald
Kingsbury

I stumbled across Kingsbury's _Psychohistorical Crisis_ at a bargin book
outlet early this year, and thought it was absolutely stunning. I have
to keep telling myself it's too soon to reread it, yet. A couple
months ago I had to dig out CR as a surrogate. I hadn't read it in
donkey's years, and I'm happy to say that I found it had aged very
well.

No, Martin, it is still TOO SOON! <rumble rumble ...>

(this group/list is dangerous. just a few hours ago I was looking
forward to finishing _Death in a Tenured Position_; now it's looking
more like a obstacle that wants overcoming. sheesh! maybe i can find
some nice python programming project to distract me...)

 

[Timothy Grant]

Military SF: David Weber (start with _On Basilisk Station_) or Lois
McMaster Bujold (start with _Shards of Honor_, but don't read _Barrayar_
yet if you pick up the _Cordelia's Honor_ omnibus).

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Weber and Harrington. My wife
bought me _War_of_Honor_ for Christmas last year, solely because I wanted to
support a company that would put a CD of an entire fiction series in the back
of a book.

I'm not a science fiction fan in anyway shape or form--or should I say wasn't.
I'm a few chapters in to _Ashes_of_Victory_ now, and have not had anywhere
near so much fun reading anything in years as the Honor Harrington books. I
loved Forrester's Hornblower, and now I love Weber's Harington.

--
Stand Fast,
tjg.

Timothy Grant
www.craigelachie.org

 

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

|Thinking of and fetching those titles made me think of Dennett's
|_Consciousness Explained_ and _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_

Yuck! Dennett puts the "naive" back in "naive reductionism." He was a
little bit clever back in the 1980s when he was writing cute, and
slightly clever, analytic philosophy essays. But then he thinks he
discovered Darwin (who was himself NEVER so naive or poorly nuanced as
Dennet), and wrote the subsequent drivel.... plus take a look for his
advocacy of the word "bright" as a weird neologistic synonym for
"secular"... well, some of you may have seen my post joking about the
word "disingenuous." You just cannot believe how awful Dennett's notion
is to you see it yourself.

That said... if Darwin and biology are interesting to you, I can highly
recommend reading some Steven Jay Gould. Anything, really, but the more
technical stuff includes _Ontogeny and Phylogeny_ and his masterpiece
_The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_. Slightly ligher than those, but
a bit more than his essay collections, try _Wonderful Life_, which is
quite a nice reflection on evolution and "deep time."

Now if you want really wild, try the fairly slim _Acquiring Genomes_ by
Lynn Margulis (who brought you the procaryotic symbiosis of mitocondrial
organelles) and Dorion Sagan (her son, my acquaintance). You need a
slight grain of salt for this book, but between a few flights of fancy
is some remarkably compelling stuff that almost no one else is doing.

Yours, Lulu...

 

[Aahz]

Are you advising the traditional publication order or reading here? I
did that the first time; last year I went through them again in
internal chronology sequence, and damned if I don't think they work
just perfectly well that way. I suspect Baen, and presumably Lois,
would agree, as that seems to be the way they're packaging the omnibus
reissues, at least mostly.

I'm absolutely recommending pub order. It's not critical the way it is
with Brust, and I certainly agree that re-reading Bujold in chron order
works quite nicely, but there are certain bits that work better if you
read in publication order.

I stumbled across Kingsbury's _Psychohistorical Crisis_ at a bargin book
outlet early this year, and thought it was absolutely stunning. I have
to keep telling myself it's too soon to reread it, yet. A couple
months ago I had to dig out CR as a surrogate. I hadn't read it in
donkey's years, and I'm happy to say that I found it had aged very
well.

No, Martin, it is still TOO SOON! <rumble rumble ...>

Yeah, I'd never gotten around to reading _Courtship Rite_, and my cousin
gave me _Psychohistorical Crisis_ to read while I was in Vegas. Anyone
who liked Asimov's _Foundation_ trilogy *has* to read _Psychohistorical
Crisis_.

I'm not sure how well it'll stand up to re-reading, though.

(this group/list is dangerous. just a few hours ago I was looking
forward to finishing _Death in a Tenured Position_; now it's looking
more like a obstacle that wants overcoming. sheesh! maybe i can find
some nice python programming project to distract me...)

<smirk>

 

[Alex Martelli]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
...

That said... if Darwin and biology are interesting to you, I can highly
recommend reading some Steven Jay Gould. Anything, really, but the more

Me, I'd recommend "Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest",
by Kim Sterelny. You do, of course, need some primary material
as well -- undoubtedly "The selfish gene" for Dawkins -- I'm not
sure for Gould, as:

technical stuff includes _Ontogeny and Phylogeny_ and his masterpiece
_The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_. Slightly ligher than those, but

....unfortunately I haven't read "Structure" yet (I do have it on order).

[Oh btw -- Sterelny's book is special order from Amazon -- thanks be for
the existence of Barnes & Noble, which has it available for immediate
shipping, way cheaper than a special order would take at Amazon --
long live competition!!!]

Gould is a great writer, even though in his later works he often gives in to
unstructured rambling (I can of course well sympathize with THAT
temptation -- Dawkins, IMHO, isn't, even though in "The selfish gene" he
does manage (by a mix of his powerful ideas and his dry direct prose) to
be truly riveting. My personal choice for Gould's masterpiece is "The
Mismeasure of Man". If you do want to see (essentially) Dawkins' ideas
presented by a truly great writer, try Matt Ridley -- "Genome", "Origins of
Virtue", "Red Queen", all superb writing (haven't read "Nature via Nurture"
yet -- I'll wait for the paperback). Not to be confused with *Mark* Ridley,
who also writes (quite worthwhile books and antologies) in exactly the
same field, mind you.


Alex

 

[Chad Netzer]

Me, I'd recommend "Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest",
by Kim Sterelny.

Thanks, I had just been wondering if there was a book on this subject,
after a recent discussion about this topic with my girlfriend.

Gould is a great writer, even though in his later works he often gives in to
unstructured rambling (I can of course well sympathize with THAT
temptation -- Dawkins, IMHO, isn't, even though in "The selfish gene" he
does manage (by a mix of his powerful ideas and his dry direct prose) to
be truly riveting.

Agreed about Dawkins. I read "The Selfish Gene" while travelling, and
found it fascinating, but even I (uninformed as I am in this area)
thought the ideas presented (and often originated) by Dawkins needed
deeper presentation, or a richer justification. A good presenter, but
not a great one. Still, a great starting book, with fascinating ideas
if you've never progressed beyond the basic teachings of genetics, and
an important piece of work.

I haven't yet read Gould, though. I've heard him in interviews enough
to not yet try to read his books. He seems to have a "deeper" (for lack
of a better word) presentation style than Dawkins (ie. less intuitive at
first, but perhaps ultimately more satisfying). I didn't quite feel
prepared for him in the past, and should now try. Probably I'm doing
them both an injustice with these characterizations.

If you do want to see (essentially) Dawkins' ideas
presented by a truly great writer, try Matt Ridley -- "Genome", "Origins of
Virtue", "Red Queen", all superb writing (haven't read "Nature via Nurture"
yet -- I'll wait for the paperback).

Yes! I heard him talk about "Nature via Nuture", and immediately
ordered all his books. I haven't gotten to "Nature via Nurture" yet,
but the others have been fascinating reading (I'm proceeding from oldest
to newest).

I'm also reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It is
fantastic, and a great companion to any of the above. A very ambitious
work (the history of pre-modern humankind), with some powerful questions
raised and tackled. There are many reviews on the web, so I'll just
leave it at that.

 

[John J. Lee]

Thanks, I had just been wondering if there was a book on this subject,
after a recent discussion about this topic with my girlfriend.

[...]

That "debate" is so frequently depressing in its astoundingly low
quality that I couldn't bring myself to so much as pick up the book.
Full of straw men, certainly from a bunch of people who think or claim
they've read Dawkins (& co.) but haven't, but perhaps on the other
side too. They round and round in tiny circles, like some silly
USENET thread. Mind you, IIRC the "astounding" parts I remember were
mostly from Steven Rose rather than Gould (it's quite a while since I
read all this stuff).


John

 

[Nick Vargish]

Did I mention that it was *nothing* serious (unless the surgeon runs
into an uncatched exception...)

:^) My comment was only half-serious. Maybe GEB looms in my memory
because I was pretty young when I read it, I think I was in junior
high school.

Nick

 

[Philip Austin]

Gould is a great writer, even though in his later works he often gives in to
unstructured rambling (I can of course well sympathize with THAT
temptation -- Dawkins, IMHO, isn't, even though in "The selfish gene" he
does manage (by a mix of his powerful ideas and his dry direct prose) to
be truly riveting. My personal choice for Gould's masterpiece is "The
Mismeasure of Man". If you do want to see (essentially) Dawkins' ideas
presented by a truly great writer, try Matt Ridley -- "Genome", "Origins of
Virtue", "Red Queen", all superb writing (haven't read "Nature via Nurture"
yet -- I'll wait for the paperback). Not to be confused with *Mark* Ridley,
who also writes (quite worthwhile books and antologies) in exactly the
same field, mind you.

See Allen Orr's New York Review of Books article for a cogent
critique of Ridley's "Nature via Nurture":

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16522

Phil

Associate Professor
Atmospheric Sciences Programme
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
The University of British Columbia
6339 Stores Road
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

 

[Chad Netzer]

Thanks, I had just been wondering if there was a book on this subject,
after a recent discussion about this topic with my girlfriend.

[...]

That "debate" is so frequently depressing in its astoundingly low
quality that I couldn't bring myself to so much as pick up the book.

I might glance at the book (and read some reviews) to see if it goes
beyond the pettiness of the debate itself, to add insight or value to
the actual (supposed) claims of the debaters. I agree that, otherwise,
it could be of minimal value (except as a convenient way to deflect
conversation when the topic arises)

 

[John J. Lee]

Seems we have different metrics... I don't read science books (even
popular ones) for pretty prose ;-) As a result, I regard Dawkins'
writing as the more elegant, useful, and fun of the two, thanks to its
extreme clarity.

[...]

See Allen Orr's New York Review of Books article for a cogent
critique of Ridley's "Nature via Nurture":

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16522

Can't resist mentioning (even though I haven't read it yet) "The Blank
Slate" by Steven Pinker. Pinker's writing is Dawkins + jokes


John