Comments on: Bitching about books

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:38:27 +0000

I'll have to reread TDA.

I think your idea of great literature is too narrow. I look how much of value was successfully communicated in a work. If a great deal of value was successfully communicated why doesn't that qualify as great?

By: shonk

shonk — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:41:21 +0000

I disagree that TDA fell apart at the end. I used to think it did, but upon re-reading I realized exactly what Stephenson was trying to do and how well it worked.

I’m not for dismissing The Fountainhead because Rand wasn’t a great stylist, I think her novels deserve to be appreciated on their own terms.

...which, no matter whether you agree with the philosophical content or not, is not as great literature.

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:18:07 +0000

I think The Diamond Age is a finer novel then Cryptonomicon (and I like the latter a lot), though I did feel it fell apart at the end. TDA soared higher.

I'm not for dismissing The Fountainhead because Rand wasn't a great stylist, I think her novels deserve to be appreciated on their own terms.

By: Curt

Curt — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:12:26 +0000

By the way, while we're playing these parlour games, I'll throw out what I think is probably the greatest novel I've ever read: Père Goriot by Balzac. I'm not even joking when I say it almost makes King Lear seem tame.

By: shonk

shonk — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:48:14 +0000

Well, I was enjoying it because I agree. Dawkins used to be a scientist, but he’s now basically a proselytizer.

By: Curt

Curt — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:19:30 +0000

Well, I won’t pretend that I didn’t just overlook him, but in a sense it’s true: even if he is a scientist it’s not in that capacity that he is prominent. Of course you could say the same thing about Chomsky as a linguist, Salman Rushdie as a novelist, etc., but in Dawkin’s case it goes even beyond the political posturing, since even in his ostensibly scientific works (at least the well-known ones) he’s just popularizing the theories of W.D. Hamilton, John Maynard Smith et al. It’s kind of like naming Scott McClellan most influential political figure in the world.

By: shonk

shonk — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:54:18 +0000

It’s slightly disturbing how much I’m enjoying the fact that you’ve exluded Dawkins from the “scientist” category.

By: Curt

Curt — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:29:28 +0000

Actually I’m not even sure that one would technically call Dennett and Pinker scientists, but they work a lot with cognitive science, so the distinction is not overly relevant.

By: Curt

Curt — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:24:35 +0000

Notice that it takes them 24 spots to get to any scientists, with the Dennett-Dyson-Pinker cluster.

By: shonk

shonk — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:43:21 +0000

Yikes!