New books sixty-nine to seventy-five (July)
Still catching up; some of these were written up at the time (or not long after), while others have just had notes made based on what I remember two to three months later. This may or may not show :)
No O'Brian this month, alas; I had to wait until August to get my hands on a library copy of "The thirteen-gun salute".
69) Keeping It Real (Justina Robson). In my traditional threeway classification, this falls on the boundary between sci-fi and skiffy. I'm sure someone recommended Robson to me, and I can only assume that some of her earlier books (nominated for a whole range of SF awards) are better than this. After a few chapters of pretty tedious and clumsy exposition, it settles down into a lightweight but moderately entertaining adventure story, but there's no science and very little depth, and the heroine rapidly goes from slightly overpowered to full-on raging Sue-ism. Then the final third of the book descends into "Mary-Sue has l33t healing sex with elves" (complete with classic hurt-comfort. Yaay!) interspersed with occasional moments of rampagingly obvious political allegory and stunningly trite moral observations. Since Robson can certainly write well, I'll probably try and look out one of her earlier, award-nominated, books, in the hopes of some proper science fiction, rather than this self-indulgent second-rate-fanfic stuff. I might consider reading the sequel for light entertainment, since I can cope with the awful cheese between the adventure bits, but I'd probably rather have... well, about anything from June's list, to be honest.[Library]
70) Nation (Terry Pratchett). Which is a good book and highly recommended, and which I should probably read again so that I can offer some more coherent comments now that I'm trying to write about it a couple of months later. I did have slight problems with the couple of points where (things that are very difficult to explain without resorting to) supernatural events are used to hurry along the plot of a book that is, basically, a diatribe about the need to apply rational thought to everything without exception, but mostly it does pretty well. Good solid Pratchett, and definitely recommended to all three people who hadn't read it before me :)
71) Science of Discworld 3 (Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen). Um, not bad, I guess. The story parts are fairly entertaining (if unavoidably anthropocentric), and the other half is perfectly adequate pop-science explanation of evolution and related stuff (which totally failed to grab me because I know that much anyway).[library]
72) Unjust Rewards (Polly Toynbee, David Walker). Another polemic against the way that the country (and most of the world) is run for the benefit of the few rather than the many. Unlike many, however, Toynbee and Walker don't just complain about the problems - they suggest solutions (and indeed solutions that might actually work, in many cases, since they're much less based on wild-idealism-against-the-facts than some I've seen). Also well-written and, for both those reasons, much less depressing than most similar books I've read.[Library]
73) In God We Doubt (John Humphrys). "Confessions of a failed Athiest", the cover has it, and in theory he's talking about agnosticism, which I thought might make for a good book; there are plenty of books advocating either religion or atheism, but rather fewer for the position of doubt. The early parts of the book, where Humphrys is discussing his research and discussions with various theologians, are excellent. Then he starts burbling and giving his own thoughts on matters, and the prose style falls off rather - while the content disintegrates completely (anthropic fallacies and argument from incredulity everywhere, never mind the other problems). In addition to showing that Humphrys is a good journalist but a poor theologian, I have to agree with the various interviewees who told him that he was a confused theist rather than an agnostic - he so obviously wants to believe in something (anything!).[Library]
74) Selling Out (Justina Robson). OK, so I saw this (the sequel to (69)) in the library and decided to have a quick flip through the first few chapters. I then proceeded to read the rest of it, with some degree of skimming. Much better than the first; still no science, but highly enjoyable writing, an entertaining spy-thriller plot, and no cheesy porn.[Library]
75) Bad Science (Ben Goldacre). Which is very much in the style of his blog. I don't think I gained anything from the book except for details relating to a few specific cases, but it would make a fairly good basic primer for people who need an introduction to thinking sceptically and doubting authority - which is, after all, Dr Goldacre's intention. I'm a bit uncertain how much of an audience it's likely to get among the people who actually need it, though; it seems more likely to be picked up by people who already read his blog or Guardian column....[Library]
No O'Brian this month, alas; I had to wait until August to get my hands on a library copy of "The thirteen-gun salute".
69) Keeping It Real (Justina Robson). In my traditional threeway classification, this falls on the boundary between sci-fi and skiffy. I'm sure someone recommended Robson to me, and I can only assume that some of her earlier books (nominated for a whole range of SF awards) are better than this. After a few chapters of pretty tedious and clumsy exposition, it settles down into a lightweight but moderately entertaining adventure story, but there's no science and very little depth, and the heroine rapidly goes from slightly overpowered to full-on raging Sue-ism. Then the final third of the book descends into "Mary-Sue has l33t healing sex with elves" (complete with classic hurt-comfort. Yaay!) interspersed with occasional moments of rampagingly obvious political allegory and stunningly trite moral observations. Since Robson can certainly write well, I'll probably try and look out one of her earlier, award-nominated, books, in the hopes of some proper science fiction, rather than this self-indulgent second-rate-fanfic stuff. I might consider reading the sequel for light entertainment, since I can cope with the awful cheese between the adventure bits, but I'd probably rather have... well, about anything from June's list, to be honest.[Library]
70) Nation (Terry Pratchett). Which is a good book and highly recommended, and which I should probably read again so that I can offer some more coherent comments now that I'm trying to write about it a couple of months later. I did have slight problems with the couple of points where (things that are very difficult to explain without resorting to) supernatural events are used to hurry along the plot of a book that is, basically, a diatribe about the need to apply rational thought to everything without exception, but mostly it does pretty well. Good solid Pratchett, and definitely recommended to all three people who hadn't read it before me :)
71) Science of Discworld 3 (Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen). Um, not bad, I guess. The story parts are fairly entertaining (if unavoidably anthropocentric), and the other half is perfectly adequate pop-science explanation of evolution and related stuff (which totally failed to grab me because I know that much anyway).[library]
72) Unjust Rewards (Polly Toynbee, David Walker). Another polemic against the way that the country (and most of the world) is run for the benefit of the few rather than the many. Unlike many, however, Toynbee and Walker don't just complain about the problems - they suggest solutions (and indeed solutions that might actually work, in many cases, since they're much less based on wild-idealism-against-the-facts than some I've seen). Also well-written and, for both those reasons, much less depressing than most similar books I've read.[Library]
73) In God We Doubt (John Humphrys). "Confessions of a failed Athiest", the cover has it, and in theory he's talking about agnosticism, which I thought might make for a good book; there are plenty of books advocating either religion or atheism, but rather fewer for the position of doubt. The early parts of the book, where Humphrys is discussing his research and discussions with various theologians, are excellent. Then he starts burbling and giving his own thoughts on matters, and the prose style falls off rather - while the content disintegrates completely (anthropic fallacies and argument from incredulity everywhere, never mind the other problems). In addition to showing that Humphrys is a good journalist but a poor theologian, I have to agree with the various interviewees who told him that he was a confused theist rather than an agnostic - he so obviously wants to believe in something (anything!).[Library]
74) Selling Out (Justina Robson). OK, so I saw this (the sequel to (69)) in the library and decided to have a quick flip through the first few chapters. I then proceeded to read the rest of it, with some degree of skimming. Much better than the first; still no science, but highly enjoyable writing, an entertaining spy-thriller plot, and no cheesy porn.[Library]
75) Bad Science (Ben Goldacre). Which is very much in the style of his blog. I don't think I gained anything from the book except for details relating to a few specific cases, but it would make a fairly good basic primer for people who need an introduction to thinking sceptically and doubting authority - which is, after all, Dr Goldacre's intention. I'm a bit uncertain how much of an audience it's likely to get among the people who actually need it, though; it seems more likely to be picked up by people who already read his blog or Guardian column....[Library]