Finished reading

CRASHING THROUGH - Robert Kurson (hardcover, 306pgs)

Fairly good read, VERY interesting case study. (I like reading case studies, so hush.) I don't think I'll read it a second time, but it's definitely worth a first read. It's got fairly good scientific information about physiology, psychology, and a little bit of neuroscience all presented together in logical order. It goes into the case study in a way that's like story telling and, even if Kurson may be not be a talented writer, he is a GOOD writer. The part in the story about how May has trouble IDing the curbs had me sympathizing -- that's what it's like for me when I go out after dark without my glasses: I can't tell apart what is a curb and what is just a shadow. It's a strange feeling.

Finished

A MILLION LITTLE PIECES - James Frey (430 pgs, paper back)

Just like reading THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD, it takes a few pages to get used to the writing style, but from then on the perspective shifts and suddenly it becomes something that's horrifying, stark, but also almost lyrical and kind of -- the irony of using this word to describe a book about an addict is not lost on me -- psychedelic.

I like it in the sense that I'd liked I NEVER PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN: it's a different life, so different that normally I wouldn't have been able to grasp the enormity of it, but the book itself charted it out for you. There's emotional investment there -- the story is, in a way, heartbreaking, and I kept telling myself that I'd put it down after just ONE more chapter and end up with three more, annoyed at myself because now I'm behind my day's schedule for other things.

I got a lot out of this book. It's going on my re-read list.

The cover proclaims it to be from the Book Oprah's Club (that's the order it's printed), just like WHITE OLEANDERS. I like this one better than WHITE OLEANDERS.

Finished

Finished reading THE GLASS CASTLE by Jeannette Walls (288 pages, paperback).

In terms of autobiographies about a really interesting life started with traumatizing childhood, it is less depressing than A CHILD CALLED IT, THEY CAGE ANIMALS AT NIGHT, but more than RUNNING WITH SCISSORS. The writing quality is better than RUNNING WITH SCISSORS but a bit like THEY CAGE ANIMALS AT NIGHT if the author for that book loved his family more (which admittedly would be hard to do, considering all those foster homes meant that he was never around his family that much, which contrasted with the author this book). Fairly fast read but definitely one of those books where, after you've read it, you feel bad for ever being dissatisfied with your own life. Amazing story. Not something I'd voluntarily re-read, but wow, the lives that some people go through....

Finished...

...the Hitchhiker's physics book (parents think I'm mightily strange but that isn't something the didn't know before)!


Just... REALLY fun.

I went and looked for the HOLISTIC AGENCY book today, but the two copies are out and on-hold. I'll have to request a copy from the other library but I don't know when I'll get it.

Meanwhile I got a copy of the GLASS CASTLE.

*guilty look*

So I probably won't be doing 2 things I promised to do. Not anytime soon, anyway.

I'm still reading "Blind Watchers" but very slowly (btw, the author is more fun in chapters that involve biographies). I was distracted by "A Confederacy of Dunces" (you guys should add it to your lists!) and "Anansi Boys". I liked them both, in different ways. Anyway, and I still have two other books I want to finish before we leave (on the 21st).

So that also means Kate's reading list will wait :/ But I'll do that for sure once I get back. Meanwhile you guys feel free to to do the book-club thing without me for now.

p.s. Left a comment. I don't know, do you get notifications for these, Susan?

Blind watchers, ch11

Am I the only one who feels miffed by the fact that Kolb said he has some idea about what the universe is made of (p293) and then completely failed to talk about it?

Aggh. Oh well.

Despite the enormity of the task faced by cosmologists, they are an arrogant lot.

Um, yeah. That was observed during the course of the narration in this book. But admission is good, I guess?

If you happen to ask a cosmologist, or any scientist for that matter, what he or she thinks is the most interesting problem in science, more likely than not the answer will be the problem that scientist happens to be working on at that moment. If that is not the answer, find another scientist with whom to talk.

I like the first sentence, because it's true and in essence what I like best about the sciences -- that you get to pick the thing you're most interested in to work on. The second sentence irks me. See the previous quote.

Oh and, the part where he talks about he's not as selfish as he should be because he likes to spend time lecturing people on cosmology instead of just doing experiments in cosmology? Is that being "unselfish", as he seems to think it is, or is it just another form of arrogance, as I'm inclined to believe? It does take a lot of confidence to go and lecture people -- in different countries too, according to him.

And then, alas, the book is at an end. Though not without a final reference to the "blind watchers". Figures.

Yay done.

Blind watchers, ch10

Count for references to blindness continues to increase.

But the accelerator is an important instrument for anyone interested in understanding the earliest moments of the universe, because in the fireball of energy produced in the collision of high-energy particles, it is possible to taste the primordial soup of the big-bang.

There is a moment, while reading this chapter, where I was laying down with my forehead resting on the book thinking that maybe, just maybe, this book will be a much better read for people who are not familiar with the sciences.

"English majors," I thought, except then I realized that English majors would probably have torn this book apart before we've even reached chapter three. Ah well, maybe art majors then. They might appreciate the drama that the author's trying to instill into cosmology.

There are some intentionally funny parts in this chapters though:

This era [a point in the history of the universe where the average temperature is equal to or higher than the melting point of brimstone] might have theological implications, but nothing of interest to cosmologists occurred at this time; the universe seemed to pass uneventfully through the temperatures of hell.

Boredom, I suppose, can be a special type of hell?

On a completely unrelated note: It's Pan-Gu (pronounced: pan-goo), not P'an Ku (have no idea where he got that spelling from), which is a folklore (think Native American). The Taoists and the Buddhists and all the other followers (China had a melange of different belief systems, most of which I don't understand or even remember) each had their own ideas. [Random FYI.]

There are many astronomical facts that cry out for a deeper and more consistent explanation.

The screaming! Make it stop! lol

Oh and in the page afterward, just as I was thinking how all this talk about primordial soup was making me think of edible kind of soup, I turned the page and saw the photo of the Campbell-styled can with "Fermilabs: Primordial Soup" written large upon it. I lol'ed. Lucy probably will appreciate this, too.

And the part where he says "Because the equation is so beautiful, I can't resist writing it..." made me think of those cartoon scenarios with a deranged-looking scientist in coke-bottle glasses twitching over a sheet a paper with tears running down his face, muttering to himself, "It's so beautiful...it's so beautiful...."

That's from comics, mind you. I'm a little concerned about people like that in real life.

Aside from that, I have discovered that Kolb is right on the bandwagon with everyone else who is trying to find the grand theory that'd unify Life, the Universe and Everything (and good luck to him). The sudden increase in "blindness" at the end of the chapter made me go "gah".

Blind watchers, ch9

The count for references to "blind watchers" has started to go up again.

This chapter was just...

Just one year after the bang, in the formless fiery mist that existed long before the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, or even atoms....

Once upon a time, long long ago.... This is how the chapter started. Really.

After almost all of the electrons were swept into electrically neutral atoms, the photons was no longer chained by its interactions with the charged electrons, and at long last it was finally free to roam unimpeded across the universe.

Free Willy!
Kolb is apparently a writer of dramas.

Gamow roared through the otherwise quiet, scholarly world of physics as if still astride his BSA motorcycle with a group of Hell's Angels terrorizing Sunday School picnic.

Imagining physicists at a Sunday School picnic makes me laugh. (As a biologist I must say that BSA makes me think of bovine serum albumine, and thinking of a serum motor bike is very... o_O; )

Oh oh and this also made me laugh:

Young, white male physics Ph.D. student seeks a collaborator to share the joy of primoridal nucleosynthesis. Must be sensitive to the nuances of general relativity and unafraid to dabble in the big-bang theory. If you would like to build the elements with me, call me at (301) 953-5000. No steady-state cosmologists, please!

It reminds me of the time Victoria made that comment about chromosome crossing in 11th grade....

I've heard (well, read) the pigeon story at least five times (almost certainly more) from different sources already, but it never gets old.

Blind watchers, ch8

Remember what I said about metaphors in this book, and how they are over-used?

Try abused. Like the poem described by Billy Collin in his poem on poetry analysis:
But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

The chapter is called "Expanding Fog". I guess that constitutes a fair warning?

But here are some quotes:

I am not odd enough to think that just any old mathematical equation is beautiful; those really weird people who think that all equations are beautiful are know as mathematicians.

So glad you made the distinction, sir.

No, I don't like all equations, for some leave me with a numb, empty feeling inside, like one has after listening to a Barry Manilow song.

lol WTH? Okay, you are "normal", we get it, can we move on now?

What a wonderful world, where we can enjoy both an artistic interpretation and a mathematical description of the same scene!" (This is on a J. M. W Tuner painting of of a "storm-tossed sea".

First of all: you geek. You have failed to convince us of your normality.

Secondly: painting does NOT equal math equations. I'm enough of a geek to admit that both has their aesthetics, but a scene of storm-tossed sea can't be summed up with merely an equation about hydrodynamics. Even if we want to reduce it to symbols and numbers (think about it) the number of things in nature that's represented in the painting requires at least another equation on aerodynamics (wind), saturation curves (humidity and rain), and light intensity (the painting is not a canvas painted black all over, therefore there is light). The foam in the sea can be described with equations, yes, and so can the waves themselves (simple harmonic motion with vectors where they break). The spray of water can be described with more vectors as the droplets travel their parabolic paths.

Yes, the entire scene can be described in math, but I think Kolb has it grossly simplified. The amount of stuff that you can put into one average 8.5 x 11 inches of canvas can take up to PAGES of equation to describe. And as we all know, repeat with me now, Prof. Kolbs, since you're so fond of repeating things: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

As you can tell, that bit really bothered me.

Onwards!

The word "fog" is used too many times in this chapter, though "blind" is not used as much. The "expansion of the universe is an expansion of space, not an expansion of galaxies into space" got very, very annoying. Kolb is no doubt one of those professors who thinks that repetition is the key to life, the universe and everything. ("Reason conquering sense....")(Gaaaah make him stop! Please!)

I like the paragraph about how aesthetics can drive science though, because sometimes the moment when you figure something out after a long period of hard word, the solution does look beautiful.

The stars seem to reach out and seduce all sorts of people.

We GET the idea that the stars are fascinating (otherwise we wouldn't be reading this book), but this is laying it on a bit thick (well it's been a bit thick all the way through, but this makes it even...thicker?) Stop with the succubi analogy already. (It wouldn't be so bad if he varied his lines, or embellished that line a little with something else instead of having it stick out like that but no....)

I've also discovered that I don't like Hubble as much anymore, but the train (Kolb seems to really like trains) thing was amusing. The bit about the habit of mentioning astonomical discoveries in New York Times made me imagine one of those spectrum chart things next to the stats on Wall Street.

Most things you were taught in high school geometry is true only for flat spaces.

ZOMG and the earth is NOT FLAT! What EVER shall we do?

I'll owning up to like to play with the mental visualization games though (one dimension circle on two dimension space, two area on three dimension space, etc. I had to grapple with the difference between the fourth dimension and the fourth spatial dimension though, since they're apparently not the same thing). (Knowing our universe has a center in the fourth spatial dimension is cool, though.)

In conclusion?

Foooooooooooooooog.