Good books you've just read

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 01:02:18

I just finished reading Prime Intellect. Although the ending wasn't that good, and I guess my comments about it don't belong here. But since it was intriguing enough to pull me in enough to read most of it in one sitting (at the computer no-less), I'll comment on it anyway (with spoilers).

Basically, it's about a woman who exists in a world where you cannot die. Ever. This word exists because a man wrote an AI which figured out the underlying basics of the universe, it being only limited by Asimov's Three Robotic Laws.

I found the main characters positions to be self delusional, if not hypocritical. The whole book is based on the characters being unhappy with their situation. Everything is boring, and basically, without really showing how, the only things which are ?interesting? are all negative.

The book does say billions of people within the world are happy gluttons, but it makes them seem like they are generic, wrong, boring, lame and so on for being this way, but the sad, sadistic people who participate in pain, death, etc are the interesting, fun, unique, or at least, alive (again, without showing how- it's quite frustrating!).

At one point in the book, the whole system is restructured so that it runs more effeciently. Instead of Prime Intellect representing everything in the universe molecule for molecule, it decides that everything can be represented via their basic bits. The funny part is that the main character can distingiush between before and after (even though they're identical from a conscious standpoint), but makes no move to really extinguish her existance (by removing herself from humanity and existing in infinite blackness, or by telling Prime Intellect to change her brain in a way that would make it no longer operable- things which are revealed possible), even though she herself is no longer real in the sense that she desires (all of this being, of course, philosophical and not practical- what does it matter if the air you're breathing isn't ?real?? what is ?real??).

I think I like the ending more than I give it credit for. But only because I interpret the ending much differently than anyone else would. In the end, the main character invokes a contridiction in the system, thus causing it to crash, sending her and the creator to a time before the creation of the singularity. The irony here, is that one could easily interpret it to be that they were merely sent to a simulated reality in which this was the case.

They saw what they wanted to see. As long as they were unhappy with their situation, they couldn't appreciate it for what it was for.

In the end, Prime Intellect merely figures out that letting people die if they want to die is not a real violation of Asimov's laws, and that indirectly he'd been doing this for awhile, by allowing people to change themselves in various ways. As long as your environment is dynamic, and your personality and memories are affected by it, death will always occur.

clark · 2003-02-26 10:55:38

Interesting take on Prime Intellect Josh.

As I understood it though, the story was delineiatign the probelms with having absolute power- the emptiness and virtual meaningless of it all.

Take one of the main characters prefrence for her "home". She chooses the bare minimum of environment- yet she could have anything, only limited by her imagination. To her, if it could be anything, then it might as well be nothing.

The world created was devoid of any value or meaning.

In order to appreciate a semblance of this feeling, try playing solitarie. Play 10 times, but cheat every time. How rewarding is it to play the game? How do you feel after each game? The arbitrary rules of solitare create the meaning inherent in "winning" or even playing all together. If we get rid of the constraints, it loses it's meanings.

And thus the dissatisfaction with the AI created world.

Yes, many people in the story are intimated to being happy with the status quo, but the characters rightly point out that eventuially they all will succumb to the same the problem- boredom. They will all eventually choose to have the computer induce complete and total endorphin bliss- which resulted in the problem for the computer- is a human with no connection with reality, really human?

The characters fascination with the perverts of society in this cyber world was expressly becuase they were giving the meaning to the worlds they created. There was purpose in what they did, and how they did it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 05:55:59

I formulated a really long, what I would consider good, reply to this the other day, but my comptuer crashed towards the end. I've been disheartened since, because I knew I couldn't possibly be as articulate as I was before.

It seems that obviously on the face of things, people who had everything and knew everything and so on would be bored and just kill themselves or what have you, but let's examine the book itself.

One of the most interesting things about Caroline, is that right after the Singularity she decides that she ought to run about naked in the forest without a care in the world. One can sit back and say that this is understandable, I mean, after all, we're talking about a very old lady who is most likely recovering from being in pain for years. Obviously being alive again must be quite an enchanting thing. I think her feelings of being completely safe with herself were totally legitimized, you don't get up from your death bed, turn 16 and not have a little faith in the system, so to speak.

So I don't think she really regressed until after Prime Intellect restructed the universe so that everything was a mere simulation, and all that existed was consciousness. Something clicked in her head that nothing was ?real? anymore, and she just had to become this person who thrives for death. Before that, I think that emotionally, she was normal.

I don't see regression as an immediate consequence of immortality. Nor do I see it as a consequence of having the power to have anything and everything the mind can desire or know.

Why? Because clearly the characters in the book do not have the capacity to know everything, or be everywhere and everything and so on all at once. They're still human, they're still limited by human ablities.

Case in point, Caroline doesn't know everything, because after a few centuries, she goes to a party and is told about aliens. Wait. Stop right there. Think about this for a second. We're to believe that Caroline has been playing Death Jockey games for centuries, and hasn't inquired about anything with regards to the rest of the universe? I'm surprised she hasn't become ?bored? with Death Jockey games, since in the span of a couple of centuries one would certainly think that you'd be used to every single painful (and hell, even sadisticly pleasurable) sensation! How can we reaonably accept that this person is ?bored? with life when she clearly hasn't even experienced it? She's going on ideology, if not self delusion.

I take issue with the concept of boredom. Boredom is inherently subjective. You can't say that one thing I do is more boring than one thing you do, because like beauty, what is boring is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. I play First Person Shooters every night, with my friend. To some people, this behavior would be quite boring, but to me it's great. Why do I go back again and again? I know all the secrets. I play very well. Heck, at times, in some games, I find myself depreciating my own ablities just so it's more interesting (by manually raising ping times, and so on), but I have practically ?lived out? the ?interesting? aspects of the game. I've quit for a few weeks, even months at a time, but I can still go back and play with joy, without being ?bored.?

When I first had the idea of people not needing to work and so on, because technology would make things easier (this is after I understood basic laws of thermodynamics- which was enlightening, actually), I shared it with my friends. Many of them responded with something like, ?Ooh! But what would people do?! They'll die of boredom!!? and I was totally dumbstruck. I was naive, though, having grown up a farmer and thinking everyone in the world enjoyed their lives, and work, as much as I did. I mean, at the time I didn't realize that the majorty of people who worked disliked their jobs, and indeed, were probably bored with it; especially monotonous labor, which a majority of labor is, anyway. Let's face it, a lot of people don't want to work.

My answer, after thinking about it awhile (and letting the issue die completely), was that people will simply do what they want to do, rather than what they have to do. Only those who find implicit meaning (ie, they want to do it also) in things they have to do, would have an issue with it. People who thrive on work, the concept of work and so on, are those who would be bored with ?not working,? even though they could have a hobbie which resembled their work. This is certainly a psychological problem, but it hardly applies to everyone, as people can certainly find meaning in things ?out of the norm,? so to speak. The problem is, you gotta look first.

Indeed, Caroline found some sort of meaning in her Death Jockey rituals. She never became bored of them, did she? We could argue about the merits about how boring or unboring Death Jockeying is, but we really can't say it is or isn't. But to get to my point about finding meaning in things out of the norm; look at Caroline, a person who self admittedly would protect her kids and grandkids and family in general from the sort of behavior she herself was participating in! This is no different from someone who thrives off of work to stop working and join in the gluttony associated with technology and so on!

No, boredom is subjective. And people becoming bored with their existances. Their existances losing all meaning and so on, is just laughable to me, really. You are in control of your individual, you make of your life what you want it to be. This reminds me of what Lawrence said to himself towards the very end of the book, about what kind of life he led while he was in his little world. And really, I find that he too was caught up in a similar case of self delusionment. This is perhaps why Prime Intellect sent them off to their own universe where they thought they were the only people. Where they were happy with their existance because they didn't have to adapt in any meaningful way. At least, Caroline didn't.

Palomar · 2003-03-05 09:52:35

And I'm also squeezing in the Harry Potter novels which I didn't get time to read when they came out.

*You got me onto a different track with your last sentence, Pat. A part of me has been wanting to indulge the "inner child," but Harry Potter doesn't appeal to me. I do know many adults who read the books; I browsed through the first in the series a few years ago -- it didn't interest me.

Saturday, while shopping with my husband, I noticed a package of Nancy Drew mystery stories on a shelf. I haven't read Nancy Drew in years; probably finished my last ND novel in my mid-teens. I decided to buy a 5-volume pack, and I am really enjoying rediscovering these stories.

I encourage anyone to get their young daughters, sisters, nieces, granddaughters, etc., reading Nancy Drew. The stories are intelligently written (even if the main characters are a bit impossibly nice and nearly perfect); for instance, in the current ND story I'm reading, Japan and its pearl industry are explained in rather indepth detail. Geography, history, some philosophy (not much), etc., can be found in each book, and Nancy's sleuthing activities takes her and her friends many places. There are, of course, main male characters as well; the books are written in the vein of equality of the genders.

Are Nancy Drew stories "feminist"? No, I don't believe they are. Mildred Benson, who ghost-wrote 18 of the original stories (under the pseudonym of Carolyn Keene, which all ND writers assumed) said that Nancy is not feminist and was not written to be so; simply that she is an intelligent young woman who is compassionate, capable, enjoys life, freedom...and a good mystery. I agree.

Happy reading!

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-03-05 11:37:38

Slightly off topic but due to the power of being an Amazon "one click" shopper this book may well be the next great book I read:

Daniel Dennett's latest book

Daniel Dennett and William Calvin are my two favorite writers on evolution and the implications of evolution for humanity, ethics etc. . .

IMHO - Darwin's Dangerous Idea is simply the very best single book written on evoution, ever. Adrian, given your education, I would appreciate your comments on these books.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-05 18:27:18

Cindy, it's a great relief to me to know I'm not the only adult who just can't seem to get interested in Harry Potter books!!
Thank you!

dicktice · 2003-03-06 11:14:41

Harry Who?

Byron · 2003-03-06 11:39:12

Harry Who?

I really hope you're joking...the author is only like the 2nd wealthiest woman in England, after the Queen....

B

wccmarsface@msn.com · 2003-04-20 21:25:59

I've recently purchased a rare first-edition (Chilton Books,1966) copy of: "Maps of The Ancient Sea Kings," with the subtitle: "Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age," by the late Professor Charles H. Hapgood. The read was engrossing and so utterly fascinating; of course, there should be skeptics of Professor Hapgood's claims, no matter how well done his thesis may be, but, to the professional debunkers of the world: who has given you an uncontestable monopoly on the truth, lest you have incontrivertable proof that certain ideas or claims are unequivocably impossible........anyone's reasoned skepticism should follow the guidelines of: "show me evidence that is, at least, plainly evident enough to satisfy me!" wccmarsface@msn.com

Palomar · 2003-06-24 11:12:04

I agree with you--about "1984" I mean. Interestingly, there seems to be a consensus that 1984 did not happen as Orwell described it...precisely because he wrote that awful novel about the possibility of it happening!

Big Brother 2003::George Orwell's 100th birthday 6/25/03

*His real name was Eric Blair.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-06-24 14:00:06

*Can anyone (Bill White?) recommend a particular publisher who is good to start out with regarding Shakespeare? I might give ol' Willie the Shakes a try sometime in the near future. I see a variety of publishers, some of whom have extensive footnotes and explanatory passages tucked alongside the text. That is definitely a bonus, considering I sometimes get lost on those 16th century English words and phrases.

Any suggestions? Would be appreciated!

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-06-25 10:44:40

Cindy: I read recently of an author who has successfully (according to literary critical aclaim) rewritten Shakespere's plays in modern idiom, while retaining rhythm and flavour of the originals. Worth a google?

Palomar · 2003-06-25 10:53:35

Cindy: I read recently of an author who has successfully (according to literary critical aclaim) rewritten Shakespere's plays in modern idiom, while retaining rhythm and flavour of the originals. Worth a google?

*Thanks for the information dicktice, but I'd prefer to stick with the original (...though with those footnotes and etc.)

--Cindy

Free Spirit · 2003-06-25 17:40:54

I find after you've read Shakespeare for awhile you naturally start to pick up on the language. I'd suggest you pick up a version of Shakespeare's plays that have good footnotes that define some of his more esoteric words and phrases to help you get through it. I think Richard the III is the easiest play to read, you might start with that one just to warm up. It's a marvelous piece of propaganda.

Palomar · 2003-06-26 06:19:15

I think Richard the III is the easiest play to read, you might start with that one just to warm up. It's a marvelous piece of propaganda.

*Thanks for the suggestion.

Propoganda, hmmmmm? Now you've really got me interested!

--Cindy :laugh:

sethmckiness · 2003-06-26 06:39:13

I have been all ove the place recently.

I have read

Entering Space, by Zubrin
Paramedics by Canning
some books on Buddhism
and Eiger Sanction (adapted into a Clint Eastwood Movie)

I will probably re-read a Pale Blue Dot soon, and when Return of the King is out in the Theatres I will re-read those books.

Bill White · 2003-06-26 09:53:02

*Can anyone (Bill White?) recommend a particular publisher who is good to start out with regarding Shakespeare? I might give ol' Willie the Shakes a try sometime in the near future. I see a variety of publishers, some of whom have extensive footnotes and explanatory passages tucked alongside the text. That is definitely a bonus, considering I sometimes get lost on those 16th century English words and phrases.
Any suggestions? Would be appreciated!
--Cindy

Hi Cindy!

My favorite Shakespeare reference is Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.

Be warned. Harold Bloom is a notorious Bard-alator who often asserts that Shakespeare simply is the best writer (at least in English) who ever lived. IMHO, Bloom argues that position quite persuasively and takes us deep into the plays to prove his point.

This book contains comments on each play written in Bloom's customary provocative style. Temerity is a good word to describe Bloom's opinions. Yet he is relentless in marshalling powerful arguments to support positions that some find simply outrageous at first impression. He has read and re-read Shakespeare and each time surfaces with a new pearl to share.

Be further warned. Shakespeare has endless depth. You can find just about anything you want to find in Shakespeare. Bloom likes to say that we don't read Shakespeare, Shakespeare reads us.

By the way - two other Bloom books I love are:

The notoriously titled How to Read a Book and Why and Genuis.

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Harold Bloom's urgency in How to Read and Why may have much to do with his age. He brackets his combative, inspiring manual with the news that he is nearing 70 and hasn't time for the mediocre. (One doubts that he ever did.) Nor will he countenance such fashionable notions as the death of the author or abide "the vagaries of our current counter-Puritanism" let alone "ideological cheerleading." Successively exploring the short story, poetry, the novel, and drama, Bloom illuminates both the how and why of his title and points us in all the right directions: toward the Romantics because they "startle us out of our sleep-of-death into a more capacious sense of life"; toward Austen, James, Proust; toward Thomas Mann, Toni Morrison, and Cormac McCarthy; toward Cervantes and Shakespeare (but of course!), Ibsen and Oscar Wilde.
How should we read? Slowly, with love, openness, and with our inner ear cocked. Then we should reread, reread, reread, and do so aloud as often as possible. "As a boy of eight," he tells us, "I would walk about chanting Housman's and William Blake's lyrics to myself, and I still do, less frequently yet with undiminished fervor." And why should we engage in this apparently solitary activity? To increase our wit and imagination, our sense of intimacy--in short, our entire consciousness--and also to heal our pain. "Until you become yourself," Bloom avers, "what benefit can you be to others." So much for reading as an escape from the self!

Bill White · 2003-06-26 09:59:58

PS

As for Shakespeare texts, I buy the 99 cent paperbacks of any play I want to read. (Some versions are $2.99 or $3.99)

Then I can scribble notes or highlight without guilt. Even the cheapest editions will have some help with exotic words but as for that I say don't get too hung up on knowing every word.

Like I was taught in ballroom dancing - "Cheat the feet, just keep the beat. . . " Shakespeare's rhyme and tempo are often more important than exotic definitions.

Don't forget, these plays were presented to illiterate tradespeople in London 400 years ago.

PPS -

Just reading the amazon.com reviews and reader comments about these three books is fascinating. Bloom is either a pendantic Yale blowhard or the greatest literary critic of our era. Probably both, IMHO.

Free Spirit · 2003-06-26 10:54:40

I think Richard the III is the easiest play to read, you might start with that one just to warm up. It's a marvelous piece of propaganda.
*Thanks for the suggestion.
Propoganda, hmmmmm? Now you've really got me interested!
--Cindy :laugh:

Richard III is very loosely based on an actual historical battle in which King Richard the III was forever denied the throne. Shakespeare goes out of his way to make Richard the III look like the most irredeemable, demonic creature to have ever walked the Earth so the victorious royal line looks angelic in comparison. Shakespeare did similiar 'propaganda' stunts in some other plays like Henry V. After you read some plays post on here, I'm a big Shakespeare nut.

Palomar · 2003-06-26 11:12:37

*Thanks Bill and Free Spirit! I plan to pick up Shakespeare sometime toward the end of this year (my plate is currently super-full).

--Cindy

Echus_Chasma · 2003-06-26 22:22:34

I just read the new Harry Potter book.

It's good... truly. :;):

Palomar · 2003-06-27 05:55:45

I just read the new Harry Potter book.
It's good... truly. :;):

*Wow...you must have gobbled that book down quickly; over 800 pages, right? What an interesting sensation those books have provoked. I was in a bookstore this past weekend; in a corner, curled up with "Order of the Phoenix," was a sandy-haired little boy, with the bag and sales slip at his side; I guess his parent or guardian was still browsing the store, but he sure wasn't wasting any time digging in! It's great to see people eagerly reading, regardless of age. Kudos to JK Rowling!

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2003-06-28 09:10:31

While you've been busy reading Shakespeare and the Potter books, I've just finished Project Orion, The True Story of The Atomic Spaceship, by George Dyson and it was a truly great read. Can recommend it to everyone who's interested in the future of space propulsion.
Besides, now I know of a way for China or Europe to leap well ahead of the US in the space race.
:;):

http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books

Echus_Chasma · 2003-06-28 13:35:39

*Wow...you must have gobbled that book down quickly; over 800 pages, right? What an interesting sensation those books have provoked. I was in a bookstore this past weekend; in a corner, curled up with "Order of the Phoenix," was a sandy-haired little boy, with the bag and sales slip at his side; I guess his parent or guardian was still browsing the store, but he sure wasn't wasting any time digging in! It's great to see people eagerly reading, regardless of age. Kudos to JK Rowling!
--Cindy

I could've read the book faster but my mother kept on nicking it whenever I put it down.

I've started reading the series again, and i've found all these places where the plot is slightly mismatched. For example, in the first book Harry starts learning about Jupiter's moons, but in book five he's still having trouble with which one is Europa or Io. I thought that was rather amusing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-26 01:02:18

Re: Good books you've just read

#27 2003-02-26 10:55:38

Re: Good books you've just read

#28 2003-03-01 05:55:59

Re: Good books you've just read

#29 2003-03-05 09:52:35

Re: Good books you've just read

#30 2003-03-05 11:37:38

Re: Good books you've just read

#31 2003-03-05 18:27:18

Re: Good books you've just read

#32 2003-03-06 11:14:41

Re: Good books you've just read

#33 2003-03-06 11:39:12

Re: Good books you've just read

#34 2003-04-20 21:25:59

Re: Good books you've just read

#35 2003-06-24 11:12:04

Re: Good books you've just read

#36 2003-06-24 14:00:06

Re: Good books you've just read

#37 2003-06-25 10:44:40

Re: Good books you've just read

#38 2003-06-25 10:53:35

Re: Good books you've just read

#39 2003-06-25 17:40:54

Re: Good books you've just read

#40 2003-06-26 06:19:15

Re: Good books you've just read

#41 2003-06-26 06:39:13

Re: Good books you've just read

#42 2003-06-26 09:53:02

Re: Good books you've just read

#43 2003-06-26 09:59:58

Re: Good books you've just read

#44 2003-06-26 10:54:40

Re: Good books you've just read

#45 2003-06-26 11:12:37

Re: Good books you've just read

#46 2003-06-26 22:22:34

Re: Good books you've just read

#47 2003-06-27 05:55:45

Re: Good books you've just read

#48 2003-06-28 09:10:31

Re: Good books you've just read

#49 2003-06-28 13:35:39

Re: Good books you've just read

Board footer