blake johnson

It has been quite a while since I reviewed or mentioned a book on this blog, but over winter break I finished reading the marvelously imaginative Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It is a fiction/fantasy book set in 19th century England. It has some of the feel of a Jane Austin book, except things actually happen. The story follows a pair of English magicians (Susanna Clarke uses the word “magician” where I might say “wizard”), who are determined to bring magic back to England. As they do so, their surroundings morph into a Midsummer Night’s Dream kind of fantasy land, with fairies mixing with kings. The landscape which develops is very dark, but is interrupted by the constant gaity of Jonathan Strange and the aloofness/awkwardness of Mr. Norrell.

My historian/anglophile fiancee really appreciated the inclusion of actual historical figures like Lord Byron, Napoleon, and the Duke of Wellington. The caricatured portrayals of these men serve to entertain as well as give the story a bit of historical depth. It allows one to imagine that the events actually happened, which is Ms. Clarke’s particular brand of magic.

Over winter break I decided to read The Da Vinci Code. There is no other book in recent memory which has had such mixed reviews by my friends. I had some people tell me that it was fantastic and fun and others tell me that it was stupid and riddled with eggregious historical errors. I wanted to read this just so that I could form an opinion instead of spouting off with the few tidbits that I knew.

My overall verdict was that it is simultaneously fun and disappointing. It is fun because Dan Brown actually does have some skill at creating a well-paced mystery/thriller. The story proceeds quickly with some exciting intrigue. However, this is all marred by the fact that a work which follows under the banner “FACT” (the header of the first page) has enough errors in it to call into question all references to real people, places, and events mentioned in the story. For instance, Dan Brown perpetuates the myth that Jehovah is the literal name of God (there’s a wide consensus that it is not, see this for a good discussion). One sentence which particulary bothered me was something to the effect that the main character’s previous love interest studied “entanglement physics” and that this had something to do with “satellites and manta ray migrations”.

Say what?! Excuse me? You can’t write something like that and have me take you seriously.

Salon.com reviews Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense. I have previously been entertained by Sokal’s critique of postmodernism; I even have a quote as an AIM away message from Sokal’s explanation of the gibberish he published in Social Text. Consequently, I might find this book quite amusing. However, this article makes a valid argument regarding the nature of Sokal and Bricmont’s critique: that postmodern authors frequently misuse or completely bungle mathematical or scientific analogies in their work does not refute their theories. It certainly means that postmodern authors often write in a manner which obfuscates rather than clarifies, but it does not mean that they have nothing of value to say.

I don’t know… anybody read this book and want to share their opinion?

There’s a book called Getting Things Done which is generating a lot of excitement among blog community. I must admit that I’ve never felt particularly unable to generate, categorize, and act on those things which I want to do, but I bet that I could learn some useful tips from a big-picture book like this. I’ll have to consider putting it on my “to read” list.