Today’s Nature has its annual list of “vacation books” recommended by various luminaries. Annoyingly, the online site doesn’t say who suggested each book (they’re in order at the top, though), so I’ll tell you here.
Piracy, recommended by Stephen Shapin
The Arsenic Century, W. F. Bynum
The Rational Optimist, Michael Shermer (I heard Ridley talk about his book at the Hay Festival; it seems to claim that everything in the world is getting better, and that science will solve all our problems)
Stumbling on Happiness, Nicky Clayton
Elegance in Science, Serge Daan
The Lysenko Effect, Hans von Storch
The Curse of the Mogul, Li Gong
Merchants of Doubt, David Orr
Composed: A Memoir, Daniel Levitin (the memoir is by Roseanne Cash—an interesting choice)
The Mind of a Mnemonist, Rodrigo Quian Quiroga
Galileo’s Dream, Candis Callison
Two on a Tower, Jennifer Rohn (another interesting choice; the book is a novel by Thomas Hardy)
Tigers in Red Weather, Pat Shipman
The Lion and the Mouse, Jessica Hellmann
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Abdallah Daar
Ils ont Fait Paris, Vaclav Smil (warning: the book is in French)
I have a huge stack of unread books already piled on my nightstand, but I may look in on Merchants of Doubt, Elegance in Science, and Tigers in Red Weather. If you’ve read any of these, do weigh in here.
‘Elegance in science’… has to be a fairly think volume…
‘Elegance in science’… has to be a fairly thin volume…
You were right the first time.
If I piled all of my unread books on my nightstand I would be afraid to go to sleep in fear of them falling on me. That would be a crushing blow.
Tigers in Red Weather is the title, Jerry, as you wrote in your second mention. There is no such book as Tigers in Rough Weather.
Whoops! Fixed, thanks.
“The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” is great. My girlfriend took me to see the movie a few months ago (previously I’d never heard of the book) and loved it. I just read the second and third book in the series, and have now gone back and am finishing up the first book. I don’t usually read a lot of fiction, but the entire Millenium trilogy is a great read. Not exactly high art, but really engaging mystery/thrillers.
I don’t read much fiction either, but agree completely. Just got my copy of Girl Who Played with Fire back from the post-doc down the hall – she’ll get Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest next. The movie of Dragon Tattoo is a rarity, too – just as good as the book. Why there needs to be a US version is beyond me.
Wait, what? A “US version” is being made? Holy crap, that’s beyond stupid. The casting and setting were PERFECT already. The xenophobic jingoism of many of my fellow Americans is a source of frequent embarrassment. As a fan of Japanese and Spanish horror, for example, the original is ALWAYS better than our retreads are. But we can’t be bothered to read a subtitle–is that it? Or won’t see a movie without a recognizeable (American) star? Pathetic.
It’s staring Daniel Craig, but will apparently be filmed in Sweden (huh?). I facepalmed when I saw the news this week. Why can’t (my fellow) Americans just sit back and read the subtitles?
As stupid as turning the magnificently suspenseful “Infernal Affairs” into the vapid “The Departed.” Leo diCaprio isn’t qualified to read cues to Tony Leung.
My wife bought me a copy of GwtDT, and I read it mostly to please her… and what a pleasant surprise! The story is fine, but what struck me was that the mood and setting in Blomqvist’s travels from Stockholm to the boonies are every bit as evocative of time and place as were Raymond Chandler’s novels of L.A. in the 1940s.
3/4 of the way through Merchants of Doubt and I can’t believe this book hasn’t gotten a wider audience yet. It is a staggering site to see the continually smarmy tactics of professional doubt mongers laid bare.
Oreskes and Conway should be commended for undertaking the large task of collating decades of evidence of obfuscation on a range of issues. It is a stark reminder that only a few people blinded by ideology can have enormously negative consequences.
My only gripe with the book thus far is that in trying to keep things understandable for a general audience they seem to gloss over some questions that have more complexity and it can give the impression they are dodging legitimate points.
I look forward to other opinions!
Abdallah Daar?
Don’t worry should have read more carefully
As to Rational Optimist, I gather the overriding mantra is Science Will Find A Solution – It Always Has. OK, I get the Optimist part, but where’s the Rational aspect? There Are Too Fucking Many People On The Planet, and they all depend on oil and minerals that become ever more depleted. Even if a solution to the energy aspect were to materialize, where’s the solution to the population part?
The whole thing sounds like a repackaged version of Jesus Will Save You.
Sorry, I should have written “… and WE all depend on oil and minerals…
According to Ridley, there are not too many people on the planet. You’ll have to read the book to see why, as I can’t remember exactly how he dealt with this in the Q&A session at Hay.
Yep, I know that’s his take on things. I’ll wait for someone else to read that one and summarize it. Meanwhile, I understand that Carl Hiaasen has a new one coming out (and Skink’s in this one, to boot). Hiaasen and Larsson are the only nonfiction authors I’ll read without any question, and unless Larsson’s unfinished fourth book is ever completed by his sambo (Swedish term, Eng: Otter – the two-legged kind), that leaves just one in that category.
I read the book. Quick synopsis: Wonderfully written, thought provoking. Specialization and trade are key to human progress.
But the book is quite complex. It is worth reading. 40 out of 47 reviewers on amazon gave it 4 or 5 stars.
So, if there are twice the people on the planet, will we progress twice as fast? Even if that was a given, are we in some sort of race? I know I’m pissing in the wind on this because it’s going to take some sort of widespread calamity along the lines of the plague or the Thirty Years War (Ebola anyone?) to curb the population.
Stop the silly assumptions and questions. If you want to know, read the book.
I read the Amazon reviews a few wks ago and didn’t find anything suggesting that the book speaks to my objections and concerns (but a few suggesting that they’re on the same page as me, as I recall) so, I’ll pass.
I’m deeply depressed that a terrible piece of dreck like Ridley’s latest is getting praise here (and in Nature, of all places!).
Doesn’t anyone see any irony in a man who was in charge of one of the most spectacular failure in British banking history (Northern Rock, which had to be bailed out by the government after it failed) telling us how governments should never interfere?
Doesn’t anyone worry about how the man (Ridley) is a anthropogenic global warming denier of the worst sort, and spends time denying global warming in this very book?
Check out the following link for details:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors
On the other hand, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is an excellent volume with, as others have pointed out, in-depth research about how unscrupulous scientists have deliberately obscured the issues on climate change. Future editions of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ will probably reference ‘The Rational Optimist’, as Ridley is a perfect example of one of those deniers.
People believe weird things. Why?
(Rhetorical question for Mr. Shermer)
Dang, you beat me to it.
I won’t buy Shermer’s book, but if I see it somewhere I’ll borrow it (unless it’s still in the bookstore – “borrowing” things from a bookstore attracts too many police).
Good reviews are also very hard to find since there are the “paid reviews” (always positive – gee, I can’t imagine why) and many reviewers are either not qualified to review the work or don’t want to write an honest review. I write honest reviews so these days I’m never asked to review books. In the past I’ve given the lowest ranking on some books which are highly prized by people not in the field and as a result I’m one of very few experts who are actually writing a review, but to John Doe I look like the dissenting kook. I tend to spend hours looking for a good review; I spend time looking up who’s doing the reviewing and assessing their qualifications for the task. Except of course if the book is a work of fiction.
Yes, Merchants of Doubt–a fantastic book, very well-written and well-researched…should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in a democracy guided by facts.
I’m pretty sure the last book on the list should be “Ils ont fait Paris”, not “Ils on…”. The typo occurred on the Nature website, too, but the picture of the book’s cover has the correct spelling.
Sie haben richtig. Danke.
Rough grammar there. Either:
Sie haben das richtig.
or
Das stimmt.
(sorry for nitpicking)
I just looked up The Mind of a Mnemonist recommended by Rodrigo Quian Quiroga (neuroscientist). It is about a “patient” with a extreme case of synesthesia which seems to allow him to form almost a unlimited capacity of memory. Totally fascainating.
I know I’m pissing in the wind on this because it’s going to take some sort of widespread calamity along the lines of the plague or the Thirty Years War (Ebola anyone?) to curb the population.
“Two on a Tower, Jennifer Rohn (another interesting choice; the book is a novel by Thomas Hardy)”
It is an interesting choice and is an interesting book. I have included my favourite passage from the book:
“Old Hannah came upstairs to pull
down the blinds and as she advanced to the window he said to her, in a faint
voice, ‘Well, Hannah, what news to-day?’
‘Oh, nothing, sir,’ Hannah replied, looking out of the window with sad apathy,
‘only that there’s a comet, they say.’
‘A WHAT?’ said the dying astronomer, starting up on his elbow.
‘A comet–that’s all, Master Swithin,’ repeated Hannah, in a lower voice, fearing she had done harm in some way.
‘Well, tell me, tell me!’ cried Swithin. ‘Is it Gambart’s? Is it Charles the Fifth’s, or Halley’s, or Faye’s, or whose?’
‘Hush!’ said she, thinking St. Cleeve slightly delirious again. ”Tis God A’mighty’s,”
I finished Merchants of Doubt a couple of weeks ago, and found it quite interesting.
If the suspicions about the contents of Shermer’s book turn out correct then the title should have been “Irrational Optimism”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you’re right though. Some people (including many economists) have a blind faith that science will miraculously solve all problems. Like much other woo-woo, the notion is supported by picking out a few cases to support the claim but no ideas are presented on how the claim may be validated or refuted – nope, just propped up by a few select stories.