Scan barcode
A review by wandering_not_lost
Riveted: The Science of Why Jokes Make Us Laugh, Movies Make Us Cry, and Religion Makes Us Feel One with the Universe by Jim Davies
2.0
(Advanced reader copy received for free through the First Reads program.)
The Good: This book had a lot of good points, and it was very comprehensive. (Almost too comprehensive, in parts, as I'll discuss below!) The author knows his stuff, and in general I felt that I did learn from the book (I even found myself discussing it in a random conversation, so the broad strokes of it really stuck.) Overall, it was interesting and well-researched, and the writing was engaging, though this isn't a book that I'll keep or read again.
The Bad: However, a few things that I felt seriously held the book back:
First, the organization left me with the feeling that the author was discussing topics more than once, with only a minimally different slant each time. When the chapters are about qualities, and he then discusses how those qualities feed into art, religion, media, etc. over and over, it gets a bit repetitive. I found it hard to slog on through the second half.
Secondly, the author, oddly enough, kept making predictions as if he was writing a scientific paper. He'd explain his theory or hypothesis, then discuss a further hypothesis that he didn't have data for...and then he'd stop. No discussion of whether studies were ongoing or what, just "I'd expect X to happen." I found it very odd, and it reminded me of reading science journal articles more than a popular book. It lacked...closure, I guess. (Not that I expected an answer where none is available, but just closure of the thought while reading.)
Thirdly, the author was almost TOO comprehensive in pulling in his examples, and the extra information often led to a messy tangle of logic that was difficult to follow in places. I feel like the book could have had about a quarter of it cut, as the author sometimes belabored his point, bringing in every tiny study he could find or minimally-related bit of evidence, or moving off on a logical excursion that didn't have much to do with the chapter's theme. I was often left in the middle of a chapter looking back, wondering what the chapter was supposed to be about, again? The lack of subheadings and the very long chapters did not help in this respect.
The Neutral:
The author could have gone several directions with the "why religion makes us feel one with the world" topic. He took the view that religion is a superstition that humanity has made up and perpetuated because the stories feed into a lot of the things that we are psychologically and biologically wired to find interesting. I had no problem with this, but something about the way he treated the topic left a bad taste in my mouth for reasons I can't really articulate. I guess I felt like he was taking a wink-wink-nudge-nudge-we're all atheists here, right? tone when he didn't necessarily have to, and it just rubbed me the wrong way.
The Good: This book had a lot of good points, and it was very comprehensive. (Almost too comprehensive, in parts, as I'll discuss below!) The author knows his stuff, and in general I felt that I did learn from the book (I even found myself discussing it in a random conversation, so the broad strokes of it really stuck.) Overall, it was interesting and well-researched, and the writing was engaging, though this isn't a book that I'll keep or read again.
The Bad: However, a few things that I felt seriously held the book back:
First, the organization left me with the feeling that the author was discussing topics more than once, with only a minimally different slant each time. When the chapters are about qualities, and he then discusses how those qualities feed into art, religion, media, etc. over and over, it gets a bit repetitive. I found it hard to slog on through the second half.
Secondly, the author, oddly enough, kept making predictions as if he was writing a scientific paper. He'd explain his theory or hypothesis, then discuss a further hypothesis that he didn't have data for...and then he'd stop. No discussion of whether studies were ongoing or what, just "I'd expect X to happen." I found it very odd, and it reminded me of reading science journal articles more than a popular book. It lacked...closure, I guess. (Not that I expected an answer where none is available, but just closure of the thought while reading.)
Thirdly, the author was almost TOO comprehensive in pulling in his examples, and the extra information often led to a messy tangle of logic that was difficult to follow in places. I feel like the book could have had about a quarter of it cut, as the author sometimes belabored his point, bringing in every tiny study he could find or minimally-related bit of evidence, or moving off on a logical excursion that didn't have much to do with the chapter's theme. I was often left in the middle of a chapter looking back, wondering what the chapter was supposed to be about, again? The lack of subheadings and the very long chapters did not help in this respect.
The Neutral:
The author could have gone several directions with the "why religion makes us feel one with the world" topic. He took the view that religion is a superstition that humanity has made up and perpetuated because the stories feed into a lot of the things that we are psychologically and biologically wired to find interesting. I had no problem with this, but something about the way he treated the topic left a bad taste in my mouth for reasons I can't really articulate. I guess I felt like he was taking a wink-wink-nudge-nudge-we're all atheists here, right? tone when he didn't necessarily have to, and it just rubbed me the wrong way.