Scan barcode
david_agranoff's review
4.0
I tend to not review the non-fiction books I read because I skip around, sometimes I don't finish them, or they are for research for my own books. I decided to give this one a review because I read cover to cover. It will be a short review however. The odd thing was I grabbed it off the new release shelf at the library with out really realizing that it was very connected to the novel I would end up reading next. (Well I finished The God Gene first)
So what interested me in this book. Edward O. Wilson is a famous award winning naturalist and I have read bits and pieces of his musings before. I thought a look at how we as a species developed the ability to think creatively might be useful as an author. It is funny looking briefly over the online reviews it is clear that many missed the point of this book.
There is a degree that Wilson is expressing himself in a stream of conciseness that feels unstructured. It is clear he has many thoughts about the how humanity made the leap from instinct to be able to create art. The point of the book is that the humanities like art, fiction, and film need to have a closer relationship with the sciences in what he considers a third enlightenment. Could he have just said that without giving a detailed history of how humans learned to imagine? Maybe but it is important to remember what an amazing gift that is.
It is one thing recount events that happened down the generations, but how amazing is it that stories that exist totally in one person's mind lives on in words, and images. We have a chance to explore the universe, and inner space in way thought impossible as science and science fiction work together. We need creative minds and trained minds to work together to unlock discovery. That was the point.
The history of how story, and human evolution have always been tied together is much of the point here. It is a short book, but lots of interesting insights and I agree with the basic point.
Also I learned was the world's most famous Pulitzers prize winning biologist considers Alien and Carpenter's the Thing to be the two best science fiction films ever. He is smart dude.
So what interested me in this book. Edward O. Wilson is a famous award winning naturalist and I have read bits and pieces of his musings before. I thought a look at how we as a species developed the ability to think creatively might be useful as an author. It is funny looking briefly over the online reviews it is clear that many missed the point of this book.
There is a degree that Wilson is expressing himself in a stream of conciseness that feels unstructured. It is clear he has many thoughts about the how humanity made the leap from instinct to be able to create art. The point of the book is that the humanities like art, fiction, and film need to have a closer relationship with the sciences in what he considers a third enlightenment. Could he have just said that without giving a detailed history of how humans learned to imagine? Maybe but it is important to remember what an amazing gift that is.
It is one thing recount events that happened down the generations, but how amazing is it that stories that exist totally in one person's mind lives on in words, and images. We have a chance to explore the universe, and inner space in way thought impossible as science and science fiction work together. We need creative minds and trained minds to work together to unlock discovery. That was the point.
The history of how story, and human evolution have always been tied together is much of the point here. It is a short book, but lots of interesting insights and I agree with the basic point.
Also I learned was the world's most famous Pulitzers prize winning biologist considers Alien and Carpenter's the Thing to be the two best science fiction films ever. He is smart dude.
celesteinspace's review against another edition
1.0
What an incredibly frustrating book. Broad statements with no supporting evidence. Large sections with no clear argument. Frequent use of personal anecdotal evidence with no clear purpose. And repetitious. I had a check a few times to make sure I hadn't read sections before.
This book tries to use the evolution of humankind to better explain the nature of creativity and its importance to human culture. He argues that the contemporary art world is not merging closely enough with science and the solution to this is to decenter the human experience from art. Frankly, I don't think the author knows much about the art world.
There are also shameful and frequent uses of words like 'savage' and 'primitive' used to describe nonwestern communities. As well as a mention of an outdated study from the 1960s that argued that women are natural, genetically submissive and young boys are genetically aggressive. I had to check when this book was published.
The substance of this book could have been said better in less than half the pages, and it would be an essay of one man's interpretation and complaints about the relationship between arts and science.
This book tries to use the evolution of humankind to better explain the nature of creativity and its importance to human culture. He argues that the contemporary art world is not merging closely enough with science and the solution to this is to decenter the human experience from art. Frankly, I don't think the author knows much about the art world.
There are also shameful and frequent uses of words like 'savage' and 'primitive' used to describe nonwestern communities. As well as a mention of an outdated study from the 1960s that argued that women are natural, genetically submissive and young boys are genetically aggressive. I had to check when this book was published.
The substance of this book could have been said better in less than half the pages, and it would be an essay of one man's interpretation and complaints about the relationship between arts and science.
kateraed's review
1.0
Pretentious and not useful. Because he's taking on so many fields of thought, he must stay at introductory-level for all of them. Might have been interesting when I were much younger in my education (though then I probably would have experienced it as too dry/academic tone).
brianharrison's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
readingisbelieving's review
3.0
This book seemed promising in the beginning but I found that it ultimately fell short. A lot of it, as others have mentioned, was more stream of consciousness and consisted of rambles. It failed to get to the point. I agreed with his argument that the humanities are just as important as STEM, and I was entertained by his stories, but it just didn't live up to the title. Additionally, it was a little repetitive. I probably wouldn't recommend this to a friend, but it wasn't bad either.