Scan barcode
toggle_fow's reviews
1004 reviews
Lock In by John Scalzi
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
*me highlighting every passage that would be straight up impossible just because of the way the government bureaucracy works*
I enjoyed this! Interesting police procedural murder mystery, set in a world where a big chunk of the population is paralyzed and uses robot avatars to interact with the world. The worldbuilding and plot had me flipping pages quickly, even though there was little else of substance in the book.
I enjoyed this! Interesting police procedural murder mystery, set in a world where a big chunk of the population is paralyzed and uses robot avatars to interact with the world. The worldbuilding and plot had me flipping pages quickly, even though there was little else of substance in the book.
Witch King by Martha Wells
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
This was incredible amounts of fun.
Right from the beginning I was hooked by that "I have ZERO clue what's going on right now but also it's GREAT" feeling.
This story starts with Kai, a demon prince, and Ziede, a witch with wind powers. They were imprisoned, and have no memory of what happened or who did this to them. The present-day storyline follows them as they try to reunite their friends an family, while also investigating the conspiracy that locked them away.
There is also a past storyline interspersed, that slowly unwinds the backstory at a pace that neatly mirrors the present storyline.
The framing of all of this is interesting, because if anything the past storyline is the more epic, world-ending, sweeping tale of tyranny toppled against all odds. In the present, Kai is already a well-known figure of legend and the plot is, at its core, a very simple find-and-rescue mission. In addition, it occurred to me several times while reading that I think it would be more conventional to tell this story from the perspective of the hapless young human who gets swept up into this mess and has to rise to the occasion surrounded by supernatural beings.
Instead, we follow Kai and Ziede, who just want to protect their family and be left alone. As someone who is normally a big fan of political plots and intrigue, it was fun to have a plot that was basically "get your stupid politics out of my FACE."
I also really enjoyed all the relationships here. While understated, they had good resonance and felt important. Ziede and Kai's sibling-like bond was particularly nice, since we got to see so much of it, but I really like Dahin as well.
Overall, this was an excellent read and I'm excited for the sequel!
Right from the beginning I was hooked by that "I have ZERO clue what's going on right now but also it's GREAT" feeling.
This story starts with Kai, a demon prince, and Ziede, a witch with wind powers. They were imprisoned, and have no memory of what happened or who did this to them. The present-day storyline follows them as they try to reunite their friends an family, while also investigating the conspiracy that locked them away.
There is also a past storyline interspersed, that slowly unwinds the backstory at a pace that neatly mirrors the present storyline.
The framing of all of this is interesting, because if anything the past storyline is the more epic, world-ending, sweeping tale of tyranny toppled against all odds. In the present, Kai is already a well-known figure of legend and the plot is, at its core, a very simple find-and-rescue mission. In addition, it occurred to me several times while reading that I think it would be more conventional to tell this story from the perspective of the hapless young human who gets swept up into this mess and has to rise to the occasion surrounded by supernatural beings.
Instead, we follow Kai and Ziede, who just want to protect their family and be left alone. As someone who is normally a big fan of political plots and intrigue, it was fun to have a plot that was basically "get your stupid politics out of my FACE."
I also really enjoyed all the relationships here. While understated, they had good resonance and felt important. Ziede and Kai's sibling-like bond was particularly nice, since we got to see so much of it, but I really like Dahin as well.
Overall, this was an excellent read and I'm excited for the sequel!
The World's Greatest Book: The Story of How the Bible Came to Be by Jerry Pattengale, Lawrence H. Schiffman
3.0
This book was okay, but very brief and cursory. It's written for every possible audience, so a lot of its very few pages are taken up with Biblical explanation and backstory that most practicing Christians and Jews probably already know.
It seemed like it didn't trust you to be interested or continue reading unless it tried to make every stage of the Bible's history into some Indiana Jones adventure and threw in a lot of references and "but you WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED THEN" and "but that's NOTHING compared to WHAT'S NEXT" clickbait-style teasers at the end of every chapter.
Honestly, it reminded me of those books people re-write for teenagers that are exactly like the adult version except trying way too hard because teenagers' brains can only read 140 characters at a time, right? It also seemed to be not-so-subtly name-dropping the museum that published it a lot.
I wanted:
If you already know the top three Wikipedia facts about Moses, Martin Luther, the Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Council of Nicaea, and Henry VIII, I would advise skipping this book and going for something a little more in-depth.
It seemed like it didn't trust you to be interested or continue reading unless it tried to make every stage of the Bible's history into some Indiana Jones adventure and threw in a lot of references and "but you WONT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED THEN" and "but that's NOTHING compared to WHAT'S NEXT" clickbait-style teasers at the end of every chapter.
Honestly, it reminded me of those books people re-write for teenagers that are exactly like the adult version except trying way too hard because teenagers' brains can only read 140 characters at a time, right? It also seemed to be not-so-subtly name-dropping the museum that published it a lot.
I wanted:
• More about the apocrypha!!!!!!!!!!! This ranks among a lot of people's, even Christians', top questions! The book explained about the different Bible compilations different denominations and church fathers have approved of, and listed five tests the early church used to evaluate supposedly-divine manuscripts, but that was about it.
What I want to know is: WHY. Why, using these five tests, did different early churches come up with different lists of divine books? What was their reasoning? What is the content of the book that is debated over? The World's Greatest Book talked about some Gnostic gospels, and other letters that claim to be of inspired origin, but "scholars believe were authored in the 3rd century."
Like, okay, but... why? Why do scholars believe that? Why did the early church not credit these books? Why did the early church dispute over whether 1, 2, 3 John were inspired? You can't just say "scholars believe" without saying why! You can't just tell me an apocryphal book's origins are shady and not tell me why.
• More about the "oral Torah" compiled in the Mishnah. This I had never heard of before, and I needed way more information about it than I received. Where did the idea of Moses's "oral law" alongside the written Law come from? What are these oral laws? How do they make it possible for Judaism to be practiced "more flexibly" in different circumstances? GIVE ME THE DETAILS YOU COWARDS.
If you already know the top three Wikipedia facts about Moses, Martin Luther, the Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Council of Nicaea, and Henry VIII, I would advise skipping this book and going for something a little more in-depth.
The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter - And How to Make the Most of Them Now by Meg Jay
3.0
As a twenty-something who is trying her best but increasingly freaking out about how quickly life is passing me by, I expected this book to give me an ulcer and a stress hangover. And yeah, it was kind of stressful, in the way that facing the undefined vastness of your future life always is, but it didn't honestly pressure me any more than I am already pressuring myself.
This isn't a book that tells an already-hustling twentysomething the secret key to landing their dream job in the midst of an unfriendly economy. It's not a book that tells an already-hustling twentysomething from an underprivileged background and with no support network how to jump start their dream career in a field that requires a graduate degree for an even entry-level position without burying themselves in $200k of debt or health problems from lack of sleep.
The Defining Decade is a book that tells stagnating twentysomethings who are just ignoring their opportunities that the good life they want comes from being intentional, not just letting life happen to you accidentally day by day. INTENTIONALITY is definitely the underlying basis of the book's thesis. Plan for things. Go after goals. Hustle. This is, I'm sure, good advice, but I wonder whether the kind of twentysomethings Jay is writing to typically read self-help books about improving their lives.
The advice about intentionality wasn't overly impactful to me, since I stress myself out about that kind of thing on the regular. Intentionality is my middle name. What I found most valuable was the middle part of the book, the chapter about "calming yourself down."
You can't help but feel like a freak when you're crying every day at work, when you hate waking up alive every morning because it means going to work again, when you develop a weird PTSD-like reaction to your boss's voice. I don't know about you, but my thoughts tend to loop around like this: This isn't how life was meant to be, right? Am I doing this all wrong? This stage can't last forever, can it? Please tell me it ends. Did everyone else go through this stage? How can everyone else be so calm and happy and assured when I constantly feel like I'm just five seconds away from losing it?
This section on calming down described my own feelings in more accuracy than I would have thought possible, and helped me feel not alone. Jay's philosophy of focusing on day-by-day small accomplishments, working 10,000 hours to confidence, gave me hope that the terror does have an end.
I'm not sure who this book is for, exactly, because it seems like there are more people who will fall outside its realm of influence, either by circumstance or by self-selection, than people who it will apply to. But even though it seemed like only parts of it were useful, I came away feeling encouraged rather than torn down, which was more than I hoped for.
This isn't a book that tells an already-hustling twentysomething the secret key to landing their dream job in the midst of an unfriendly economy. It's not a book that tells an already-hustling twentysomething from an underprivileged background and with no support network how to jump start their dream career in a field that requires a graduate degree for an even entry-level position without burying themselves in $200k of debt or health problems from lack of sleep.
The Defining Decade is a book that tells stagnating twentysomethings who are just ignoring their opportunities that the good life they want comes from being intentional, not just letting life happen to you accidentally day by day. INTENTIONALITY is definitely the underlying basis of the book's thesis. Plan for things. Go after goals. Hustle. This is, I'm sure, good advice, but I wonder whether the kind of twentysomethings Jay is writing to typically read self-help books about improving their lives.
The advice about intentionality wasn't overly impactful to me, since I stress myself out about that kind of thing on the regular. Intentionality is my middle name. What I found most valuable was the middle part of the book, the chapter about "calming yourself down."
You can't help but feel like a freak when you're crying every day at work, when you hate waking up alive every morning because it means going to work again, when you develop a weird PTSD-like reaction to your boss's voice. I don't know about you, but my thoughts tend to loop around like this: This isn't how life was meant to be, right? Am I doing this all wrong? This stage can't last forever, can it? Please tell me it ends. Did everyone else go through this stage? How can everyone else be so calm and happy and assured when I constantly feel like I'm just five seconds away from losing it?
This section on calming down described my own feelings in more accuracy than I would have thought possible, and helped me feel not alone. Jay's philosophy of focusing on day-by-day small accomplishments, working 10,000 hours to confidence, gave me hope that the terror does have an end.
I'm not sure who this book is for, exactly, because it seems like there are more people who will fall outside its realm of influence, either by circumstance or by self-selection, than people who it will apply to. But even though it seemed like only parts of it were useful, I came away feeling encouraged rather than torn down, which was more than I hoped for.
The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement by David Brooks
2.0
This book was SO annoying.
He presents pages and pages of other people's research into scattered aspects of how brains work through four pretend people whose lives he's made up to illustrate his points. Harold and Erica are the main ones, but we also spend a ton of time having to hang out with Harold's parents. "This is the happiest story you've ever read!" the book claims, for some reason. In reality, the events of Harold's and Erica's lives range from stressful and frustrating to downright tragic. How the heck does Brooks claim any of this counts as happy at all, much less the HAPPIEST STORY EVER?
Maybe Brooks has never read any fiction books, because wow. This "story" such as it is -- in no way qualifies as "happy."
As you can see, I am overly concerned with Harold and Erica. What does it matter if their lives were happy, given that the point of this book was just to convey to me facts about neuroscience research?
It matters because Harold and Erica were horrible distractions.
I'm not against conveying scientific findings by means of story. Deborah Tannen basically does that through 100% of her books, and it works for me. It's a lubricating vehicle, the spoonful of sugar to help the otherwise dry science and statistics go down. My problem with Harold and Erica is that they did not lubricate anything, and instead threw up barriers to accessing what would have otherwise been interesting science.
Stories and anecdotes work to convey abstract, complicated ideas by encapsulating them in situations we all can instinctively understand, and by catching and holding your interest easier than a detailed page of statistical analysis could. Harold and Erica failed at being effective lubrication first because they were boring. Their "story" did not hold my interest any better than if Brooks had simply presented his information in organized chapters and argued transparently for his conclusions. In fact, it actively disengaged my interest by annoying the hell out of me.
I picked up this book because I wanted to learn about sociology and the brain -- not because I just really wanted to read about two flat caricatures falling in temporary love and living implausible, unsatisfying lives. If I wanted that, I could have read one of those classics, like Mrs. Dalloway, and gotten way more street cred -- the ones that make you existentially uncomfortable and seem like they're about nothing while actually being a deep examination of the human condition.
Second, the disjointed treatment of Harold and Erica's stories dragged The Social Animal down by constantly distracting from the point of the book. Harold and Erica are paper-mache intellectual models, not real characters from a novel, so of course they aren't treated like novel characters, nor should they be. Brooks didn't need to spend every moment of every day with them, so in my opinion the time jumps he did were fine and necessary. What wasn't fine was the way some massive, life-altering conflict between them would be introduced... and never resolved.
Harold desperately wants kids, and Erica screams at him when he brings it up. Why? We don't know. The book never mentions this conflict again. Harold and Erica go through a horrible period where they resent each other for years and barely speak, living together as strangers in the same house. Erica cheats on Harold, then regrets it and thinks about how she needs to "repair her marriage." Next chapter, years have gone by and they're all good again.
At this point, I've had to emotionally invest in Harold and Erica a little just to get through the book without ripping out all my hair -- and I'm PREOCCUPIED by this. They hated each other last chapter! What happened? I can't just let that go -- no explanation, not even a throwaway line to handwave it. Did Brooks not need to do any chapters on the neuroscience of resolving conflict or anything? Same with the kids/no kids fight. I can't concentrate on the statistics Brooks is flinging at me when I'm wondering WTH is up with Erica's aversion to children, why they never hashed this out, and how Harold doesn't spend the rest of his life resenting Erica!
Even though straw men like Harold and Erica don't deserve the detail and focus a novel would lavish on them, these kind of holes are too careless, too choppy, when they're glaring enough to actually distract from the information Brooks is trying to convey. They leave me confused. The book claims to show "how success is achieved," but I've read the whole thing and still have no idea how success is achieved. Is it achieved by faffing about until you meet a hot girl and then marry her and then spend the rest of your life as her mildly dissatisfied but passive kept husband? Is it achieved by striving so constantly and working so feverishly every day that all enriching relationships fall by the wayside, including your marriage? Because those are the only two options I see presented here.
In addition, I believe Harold and Erica made the book worse by acting as crutches. The infinite variation of having their whole lives as a canvas, from the cradle to the grave, allowed Brooks to unleash a monologue on any topic of interest even vaguely related to the science of the unconscious mind. In chapter after chapter, he jumped from topic to topic, giving brief insights about each, but not following any overarching theme for the whole book except "the unconscious mind." He makes some point that the influence of the unconscious mind is underestimated in today's rationalist society, but that's as close as I can come to "the Big Point" to take away from The Social Animal.
The information I learned is fragmented and scattered. If someone said, "So tell me some cool insights you learned from that book!" I would be at a loss. When the topic of babies' development comes up in conversation in the future, I will remember some tidbits about how they cry in sympathy with recordings of other babies crying, and not with a recording of their own cries! But I wouldn't be able to summarize anything for you. It's all disorganized, isolated facts, because disorganized, isolated facts were nearly all the book offered.
Finally, I think the device of Harold and Erica weakened the book by forcing/allowing Brooks to not really delve into any detail with or have to really prove his research. Using Deborah Tannen as a counterexample again - her use of anecdotes to support her theories comes off as weighty and valid because they are the stories of REAL people that she knows and has surveyed. Their single experience, while possibly not the best evidence, is at least EVIDENCE to support or detract from Tannen's findings.
Harold and Erica are not evidence. They are straw men, and their story affirms none of Brooks' conclusions or arguments. Their story allows you to understand his views better, perhaps, but it is HUGE and time-consuming. It is literally the whole book. Using all that page space and effort on a mere illustrative parable means that Brooks has very little room to go into specifics on the actual research he cites, or expand on how such-and-such a study actually supports his opinion that systematic societal ills are only treatable through cultural initiatives, or whatever.
This is supposed to be a book providing insights on neuroscience and sociology, not Animal Farm.
He presents pages and pages of other people's research into scattered aspects of how brains work through four pretend people whose lives he's made up to illustrate his points. Harold and Erica are the main ones, but we also spend a ton of time having to hang out with Harold's parents. "This is the happiest story you've ever read!" the book claims, for some reason. In reality, the events of Harold's and Erica's lives range from stressful and frustrating to downright tragic. How the heck does Brooks claim any of this counts as happy at all, much less the HAPPIEST STORY EVER?
Maybe Brooks has never read any fiction books, because wow. This "story" such as it is -- in no way qualifies as "happy."
As you can see, I am overly concerned with Harold and Erica. What does it matter if their lives were happy, given that the point of this book was just to convey to me facts about neuroscience research?
It matters because Harold and Erica were horrible distractions.
I'm not against conveying scientific findings by means of story. Deborah Tannen basically does that through 100% of her books, and it works for me. It's a lubricating vehicle, the spoonful of sugar to help the otherwise dry science and statistics go down. My problem with Harold and Erica is that they did not lubricate anything, and instead threw up barriers to accessing what would have otherwise been interesting science.
Stories and anecdotes work to convey abstract, complicated ideas by encapsulating them in situations we all can instinctively understand, and by catching and holding your interest easier than a detailed page of statistical analysis could. Harold and Erica failed at being effective lubrication first because they were boring. Their "story" did not hold my interest any better than if Brooks had simply presented his information in organized chapters and argued transparently for his conclusions. In fact, it actively disengaged my interest by annoying the hell out of me.
I picked up this book because I wanted to learn about sociology and the brain -- not because I just really wanted to read about two flat caricatures falling in temporary love and living implausible, unsatisfying lives. If I wanted that, I could have read one of those classics, like Mrs. Dalloway, and gotten way more street cred -- the ones that make you existentially uncomfortable and seem like they're about nothing while actually being a deep examination of the human condition.
Second, the disjointed treatment of Harold and Erica's stories dragged The Social Animal down by constantly distracting from the point of the book. Harold and Erica are paper-mache intellectual models, not real characters from a novel, so of course they aren't treated like novel characters, nor should they be. Brooks didn't need to spend every moment of every day with them, so in my opinion the time jumps he did were fine and necessary. What wasn't fine was the way some massive, life-altering conflict between them would be introduced... and never resolved.
Harold desperately wants kids, and Erica screams at him when he brings it up. Why? We don't know. The book never mentions this conflict again. Harold and Erica go through a horrible period where they resent each other for years and barely speak, living together as strangers in the same house. Erica cheats on Harold, then regrets it and thinks about how she needs to "repair her marriage." Next chapter, years have gone by and they're all good again.
At this point, I've had to emotionally invest in Harold and Erica a little just to get through the book without ripping out all my hair -- and I'm PREOCCUPIED by this. They hated each other last chapter! What happened? I can't just let that go -- no explanation, not even a throwaway line to handwave it. Did Brooks not need to do any chapters on the neuroscience of resolving conflict or anything? Same with the kids/no kids fight. I can't concentrate on the statistics Brooks is flinging at me when I'm wondering WTH is up with Erica's aversion to children, why they never hashed this out, and how Harold doesn't spend the rest of his life resenting Erica!
Even though straw men like Harold and Erica don't deserve the detail and focus a novel would lavish on them, these kind of holes are too careless, too choppy, when they're glaring enough to actually distract from the information Brooks is trying to convey. They leave me confused. The book claims to show "how success is achieved," but I've read the whole thing and still have no idea how success is achieved. Is it achieved by faffing about until you meet a hot girl and then marry her and then spend the rest of your life as her mildly dissatisfied but passive kept husband? Is it achieved by striving so constantly and working so feverishly every day that all enriching relationships fall by the wayside, including your marriage? Because those are the only two options I see presented here.
In addition, I believe Harold and Erica made the book worse by acting as crutches. The infinite variation of having their whole lives as a canvas, from the cradle to the grave, allowed Brooks to unleash a monologue on any topic of interest even vaguely related to the science of the unconscious mind. In chapter after chapter, he jumped from topic to topic, giving brief insights about each, but not following any overarching theme for the whole book except "the unconscious mind." He makes some point that the influence of the unconscious mind is underestimated in today's rationalist society, but that's as close as I can come to "the Big Point" to take away from The Social Animal.
The information I learned is fragmented and scattered. If someone said, "So tell me some cool insights you learned from that book!" I would be at a loss. When the topic of babies' development comes up in conversation in the future, I will remember some tidbits about how they cry in sympathy with recordings of other babies crying, and not with a recording of their own cries! But I wouldn't be able to summarize anything for you. It's all disorganized, isolated facts, because disorganized, isolated facts were nearly all the book offered.
Finally, I think the device of Harold and Erica weakened the book by forcing/allowing Brooks to not really delve into any detail with or have to really prove his research. Using Deborah Tannen as a counterexample again - her use of anecdotes to support her theories comes off as weighty and valid because they are the stories of REAL people that she knows and has surveyed. Their single experience, while possibly not the best evidence, is at least EVIDENCE to support or detract from Tannen's findings.
Harold and Erica are not evidence. They are straw men, and their story affirms none of Brooks' conclusions or arguments. Their story allows you to understand his views better, perhaps, but it is HUGE and time-consuming. It is literally the whole book. Using all that page space and effort on a mere illustrative parable means that Brooks has very little room to go into specifics on the actual research he cites, or expand on how such-and-such a study actually supports his opinion that systematic societal ills are only treatable through cultural initiatives, or whatever.
This is supposed to be a book providing insights on neuroscience and sociology, not Animal Farm.
Muscle and a Shovel by Jamie Parker, Michael J. Shank
3.0
Basically an account of the Bible studies this guy had with his friend from work and his subsequent conversion. I learned some interesting things, such as some opinions that "church father" type reformation people held that I never knew about, and a new way of looking at what it means to "obey the gospel."
The main thing that stood out was... the crazy lengths people had to go to to learn even the SMALLEST FACT in pre-internet days. He was asked, "Who founded the Baptist church?" and basically polled every person he knew at church before finally going to the library to find out. To learn about any of the original Greek words they had to GO TO THE NEARBY UNIVERSITY and speak to an antiquities professor. Meanwhile I'm just here googling Blue Letter Bible whenever I feel like it. Incredible. I can't even imagine living that way, honestly. Lunacy.
Also, if I ever strike it rich, I'm going to found a nonprofit organization that provides pro bono proofreading to self-published authors because my gosh do they need it.
The main thing that stood out was... the crazy lengths people had to go to to learn even the SMALLEST FACT in pre-internet days. He was asked, "Who founded the Baptist church?" and basically polled every person he knew at church before finally going to the library to find out. To learn about any of the original Greek words they had to GO TO THE NEARBY UNIVERSITY and speak to an antiquities professor. Meanwhile I'm just here googling Blue Letter Bible whenever I feel like it. Incredible. I can't even imagine living that way, honestly. Lunacy.
Also, if I ever strike it rich, I'm going to found a nonprofit organization that provides pro bono proofreading to self-published authors because my gosh do they need it.
The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl by Timothy Egan
4.0
Some serious history. I learned a lot.
This was hard to read because it is not about one of my special historical interests, and also because it is essentially a narration of pure human misery. It does a lot of backstory, starting basically at the Civil War to tell us how and why the Dust Bowl came to be, and then tells the story of the Dust Bowl years by tracking the destroyed and desolate lives of twenty-odd Dust Bowl families.
Finally, it strands you with an unsettling "and things got better for some reason and they're still irresponsibly farming that land by draining and wasting all the water underneath America and we'll regret it in 50 years. The end."
Educational, but brutal.
This was hard to read because it is not about one of my special historical interests, and also because it is essentially a narration of pure human misery. It does a lot of backstory, starting basically at the Civil War to tell us how and why the Dust Bowl came to be, and then tells the story of the Dust Bowl years by tracking the destroyed and desolate lives of twenty-odd Dust Bowl families.
Finally, it strands you with an unsettling "and things got better for some reason and they're still irresponsibly farming that land by draining and wasting all the water underneath America and we'll regret it in 50 years. The end."
Educational, but brutal.
You're the Only One I Can Tell: Inside the Language of Women's Friendships by Deborah Tannen
2.0
I have a feeling that you only really need to read one Deborah Tannen book in your lifetime.
The good parts of this were rehashed from the more broadly applicable and more insightful That's Not What I Meant! The less good parts were stuff that you already know if you have ever been a female at any point. There was some odd stuff about social media norms at the end which, similarly, you already know if you have ever been on social media.
There were also a weird amount of anecdotes centering around ladies' bridge-playing groups for some reason?
The good parts of this were rehashed from the more broadly applicable and more insightful That's Not What I Meant! The less good parts were stuff that you already know if you have ever been a female at any point. There was some odd stuff about social media norms at the end which, similarly, you already know if you have ever been on social media.
There were also a weird amount of anecdotes centering around ladies' bridge-playing groups for some reason?
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins
2.0
A manifesto for theistic evolution.
Every time I read one of these books I feel smacked around and uneasy. I read Darwin's Black Box and felt compelled by Behe's explanations. I was similarly compelled by Collins's dismantling of Behe, though. What all of this comes down to is that I am a layman having to trust whoever writes these books to tell me what they wish, leave out & skip over what they wish, and interpret everything for me.
The only solution is to go back to school for my own PhD in biology, I guess.
Honestly, though, I would skip reading this book. If you want the good faith parts just read Mere Christianity or better yet C. S. Lewis's entire bibliography. If you want the good science parts, just read any mainstream college molecular biology textbook, or whatever the latest Richard Dawkins book is.
Every time I read one of these books I feel smacked around and uneasy. I read Darwin's Black Box and felt compelled by Behe's explanations. I was similarly compelled by Collins's dismantling of Behe, though. What all of this comes down to is that I am a layman having to trust whoever writes these books to tell me what they wish, leave out & skip over what they wish, and interpret everything for me.
The only solution is to go back to school for my own PhD in biology, I guess.
Honestly, though, I would skip reading this book. If you want the good faith parts just read Mere Christianity or better yet C. S. Lewis's entire bibliography. If you want the good science parts, just read any mainstream college molecular biology textbook, or whatever the latest Richard Dawkins book is.