User Profile

Certainly an interesting and important read, albeit a little taxing at times.

Pascoe is obviously passionate about this subject, one which deserves attention. He doesn't phrase his arguments as absolute truth, but vehemently requests deeper research into multiple aspects of per-colonial Aboriginal life and practice in an attempt to remove the (probably) fallacious historical account written by the 'victors', that is pervasive in today's collective understanding. This is to his credit.

On the other hand, his passion overflows a little too often and begins to proselytize. How wondrous such things must have been and how humble and magnificent other things were. Many cases in this book stem from second hand accounts, others are truly too simple (as in a passing phrase) of an account to warrant such diversions from the factual arguments Pascoe is making. It put me off in many places even though I'm sympathetic to his arguments. I expect that for an adversarial reader, the brunt of this dialog would be enough for them to stop reading - precisely the opposite behavior Pascoe is attempting to manifest.

All in all, Pascoe has persuaded me that colonial prejudice engaged in systematic removal of complexity from the post-colonial societies, that there were sedentary lifestyles with land management strategies in play before contact. At what scale and complexity? That merits more investigation.

A thorough investigation into a descriptive theory concerning the nation state and its endurance.

Not sure I can give this a thorough review though, since this really is a thesis concerning a non-trivial social theory, much of which I am not qualified to comment on or well read enough in this field to identify deficiencies in arguments.

Seemingly though, the text answers many concerns fired at other theories in this field quite well, and the authors give ample case studies (sometimes too many) to shore up their theory. If you're interested in a bit of social theory history, this book is actually laid out quite nice to give you context there, even if you skim over the model aspect of the work.

The final two or so chapters state, again at length, how and where to apply their theory, and why specific predictions are nonsensical, although some relative trending is most likely possible in their context.

With that being said, I found perhaps two things that were unsatisfactorily answered or discussed:
- Is there a strong causality between inclusiveness and success? The authors generally state that extractive societies may see growth (e.g. China), but only temporarily, then decline unless institutions change. The flip side is not discussed: failed states with inclusive and functional institutions. Is this because the authors do not see relevant examples of these states or is this an omission?
- How does the friction at the state level interact with sub-cultures of the nation? There are some points considered here: comparing the power structure of Botswana and Sierra Leone is helpful. I'd be interested to know though, how lag/lead time on institutions shape culture. Do the authors think that US slavery (ended 1865) & segregation acts (ended 1960s) still shape the endemic issues of the black communities in that country?

Mann explores two opposing philosophical positions on how we should shape the future of our society and planet by following two lesser known pioneers of modern sustainability research.

To his credit, Mann mostly manages to keep the reader engaged as we cover a continuous stream of dry subject matter that spans most of this work.

Interesting it it's own right as a historical account of the hard and soft path value systems that battle for supremecy in our political and scientific landscapes, the book doesn't lay out too much more than that and perhaps an outlook would have been welcomed at the conclusion.

Whilst I haven't read into the author's credentials at all, from the places he has visited and the connections to the subject matter he obviously has, the fact that he only barely shares his own opinion on the subject matter leaves me thinking the book is a little unfinished. Even without this insight, I found the concluding chapter essentially missing contemporary debates.

That's not to say the rest of the book is not impeccably researched and well written. All in all this is a great summary of the emergence and history of sustainability field even to this day.

First, a continuation of my gripes concerning the novella trilogy format: it was annoying to read books 2 and 3 back to back. You have a conversation at the end of book 2, and then 30 something pages later (but skipping over to book three) the conversation must be rehashed into a distant memory to 'refresh' the reader about what happened in the last installment. It happened literally yesterday - there is no need for a flashback sequence here.

Now, since the story is finished I can comment on it a little more. I think that this book was like the 3rd Lord of the Rings movie, where the big battle of the 2nd film was finished off right at the start, then for the next three hours everyone went home. There was no need for any of that.

The science in this sci-fi was quite far into the fiction zone. Not in the sense that it was more space opera than anything else (sure, it was that too), but more-so most of the actual science was either pedestrian, miss-understood or incorrect/out of context/irrelevant. Equations like xx=fx: such a beautiful tapestry of an equation, since f is therefore equal to x where x is the set of all numbers if no additional constraints are given, simplifying to x = numbers. Wow. Or when Binti uses the 'equations for circles' which is actually a rebadged Pythagorean equation for triangles. Or when there's biology lessons like 'you are more microbes than human now'. Or when things are thrice contradicted in the same paragraph: When Binti is perceiving herself flying through space, she sees the nothingness around here, no fixed points, yet suddenly she starts falling. Then a sentence later realises it's space and that's great because there is no up or down, but then a sentence later is doing barrel rolls due to her innate understanding of down?

The writing, mostly, is repetitive and not overly imaginative. 'His hear was like a dust storm and filled with dust, like a dust storm'. Maybe mildly smirk-worthy once, but not continuously throughout.

The story: I don't know. I think I liked the first book as a stand alone, and the continuation was a flop. I could see what the author was attempting to do, but didn't quite make it there. The plot may have wended from side to side, but the outcome was uncomfortably obvious as soon as book 2 got moving. Nothing was surprising.
I wanted to read this trilogy to gleam an insight into an author not from my part of the world, not from my culture, yet we know we have a common footing in the fact we are lovers of sci-fi. Instead, I learnt that being insular and prejudice as a culture is a generally universal trait, that teenagers are the same selfish idiots all over the place & solidified a notion that I'll probably never attempt to read a novella trilogy again.

Joe Valdez (a reviewer here on Goodreads) summaries my take on this book well with a single point: "[Dan Simmons'] great thinkers are not my great thinkers".

I just couldn't get into any of it. The stories weren't poorly written, they just weren't engaging at all. References to other real world authors and works that I've either read and felt were lackluster in their own right, or others that I have not yet read but certainly don't have high on my priority; continuously bombard the reader throughout. There were at least two novel things that I haven't much come across in a sci-fi novel before: heavy religious tones and poetry. Turns out this is also an unabridged list of things I don't enjoy in a sci-fi novel. Either that or I just don't tend to jive with Simmons' writing (this is the first of his work I have read).

Temporal jumps and weaving in and out of context is something that can truly form a great work. Illuminatus! by Robert Shea & Robert Anton Wilson, or House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski are testaments to this. Here though, the stories are confused mismatches of view point or description level that always shook me back to the stories 'present', and I would have to ask myself how ridiculous some of these people would sound, as a group listened to them explaining their origins in this manner.

Now really, the book isn't even a story. It's the start of a story that gets cut off at the beginning of the main act, but happens to have a bunch of filler up to this point so we round out a decent book thickness. Seemingly we are following a pilgrimage, a quest even. The quest to end all quests. Certain death and all. Ultimately though, a bunch of people take the bus, then have to swap to a tram, and afterward need to take a cable car up the mountain. But it's a Sunday and no-one is at work, so they break into a control room and turn on the cable car. Oh, the trials and tribulations!

Other than some campfire tales to pass the time, that's literally the entire quest and the end of the book. Sure, there's a part two, but jeez. That's really not something I'm dying to pick up next.

I'm very glad I kept at these volumes back-to-back. Since the subject matter is so difficult and ... unabridged, the momentum was necessary. Of course, Solzhenitsyn has done a fantastic job at keeping the reader motivated to read, not out of duty but of interest in his prosaic style.

This volume, somewhat unlike the first two, is a little milder in its content - since it discusses the death of Stalin and a subsequent relaxation of many decrees. Additionally, we hear of escape attempts, uprisings and those who fight back.

The most shocking (perhaps surprising is a better word) aspect to me was that of the exile life. Seems like those sentences were possibly harder for many than being thrown directly into a labour camp to begin with.

If you managed to get through Vol I&II, then yes - do keep going. As much as one can 'finish' a story / telling of this magnitude, this volume manages it. In general, if you're thinking of embarking on reading this work: I thoroughly recommend doing so.

I'm not sure what more I can say about this volume that I haven't already expressed in my review of the first volume.

It's difficult not only from the depressive and shocking nature of the content, but as well as reading it as a non-russian with only a spattering of knowledge about this era. But I do feel far more confident this time round. I follow the stories, I know the vernacular, I know the timelines & things get worse - but I'm no longer surprised.

There are definite repetitions in this volume that, word for word, you read in the first volume. I guess, at each of these junctures we get an elaboration on each topic, but it makes such a long work even longer.

The most interesting part would have to have been the exposition of the thieves law and how they came to essentially run the camps from the inside with the guards blessings. Some of the worst parts were descriptions of how a person usually dies of scurvy, or that it's more efficient to bury people alive rather than shooting them first because dead-weight is more difficult to carry than barely-living weight.

Straight on to volume 3. What an eye opener of a document.

I think D. Taylor has a knack for writing Average Joe stories where they get wrapped up in some fantastic voyage. This was an enjoyable read and true to form, however I think I was enjoying it far more before they found the artefact.

I would have actually loved to hear a space miner story. This is the near future day to day that authors should begin to explore.

I guess what happened afterwards was not so much the story telling that got me down - that, like all of Taylor's works is light hearted and fun, sprinkled with a sense of 'oh, shit!'. But, the endgame and ultimate fate of the universe just doesn't make sense.

If you're going to speak about the drake equation and the Fermi paradox, then solve that by using 3 great filters - fine. I follow you there. But you can't just say "this is why we don't see biological life" and call it a day. None of thses things are speaking about biological life specifically, they are investigating intelligence. When you have a galactic war between immortal machines capable of solar system wide terraforming and AI who definitely use physical resources: then you will certainly have signs of intelligences.

That simple fact undermines the premise of the story, and I can't shake it. Thus, a 3 star review for a very enjoyable read.

This is a rough, but important read. Written by a Russian, for Russians; it is not so easily accessible for those of us outside of that locale both spatially and temporally. I'd suggest that those who wish to embark on this journey already have an invested understanding of Russian revolution history of the early 20th century, otherwise you'll end up missing some of the conceptual framework that Solzhenitsyn takes for granted that you know.

With that being said, the translation is done very well, and Solzhenitsyn must be commended for writing what must be some of the toughest paragraphs put to paper in a manner that is respectable to those that were trod underfoot, whilst not leaving out anything that he could corroborate happened. All the while making such a dreary and somewhat repetitious set of situations have their time in our memory, so the collective conscious learns and hopefully never forgets the depths we as a people can achieve.

Another commendation must be Solzhenitsyn's writing style and methods with which he draws letters, personal experience & copious second hand accounts into one story crossing over half a century of time.

I don't think I'm in a position to comment much on the content specifically, but can say without a doubt you should read this.

The writing style of this series is impeccable. Crass when it needs to be, as well as funny, disjoint, confusing & tense - all these threads woven into a fantastic web of intrigue and suspense. Sometimes a character's disposition or emotional state is given in a five sentence paragraph for dramatic effect. It's incredibly surprising how such a small set of words can be constructed in such a manner that seems to never have occurred to me to arrange like that, yet convey such an impressive statement of fact and emphasis.

And then, we have such a thrilling story going on with characters, vernacular and hard sci-fi themes deeper than many contemporary sci-fi stories even begin to attempt.

These are the first set of books I'm reading after seeing the TV adaptation, so I'm not going to comment on much of the story here, since for the most part I already knew it coming into the book, thus probably have some bias. But suffice to say, the changes done in the TV version weren't any better or worse than discussed in the book - that's something I hear about ad inifitum about other television adaptations, so I'm very pleased in that sense.

Really looking forward to continuing the series.

A thoroughly enjoyable and thought provoking account of a generation ship and its crew, on the way to Tau Ceti. Mostly narrated via the ship itself as it increases its capability and grapples with consciousness, or intelligence, or being - mostly humanity.

Some of the concepts and dangers brought up throughout are akin to KSR's other works, although a generation ship brings about its own unique issues. Zoodevolution seems like such a crazy problem to have to deal with.

I'm torn about the ending. Actually, it seems really laclustre. I want to know about the colony, I don't much care about beaches in this context. Reintegration isn't really explored as much as other themes, so why is an entire section devoted to this? The troubles of star people living at their destination, how that feels: fine. But it felt like this could have had a really decent 'the journey is the destination' ending. A small addition here is that this part is not narrated by anyone, its just 3rd person prose. This breaks away from the test of the book and thus seems to irk me.

With all that said, this is still a 4 star review. Really loved the exploration of these themes.

Harari's first two powerhouses: Sapiens and Homo Deus were two books I thoroughly enjoyed. This one, at least to me, missed the mark a little - although I'm struggling to find out why. Sapiens was almost an archetypal story, which is where it gained its power and prominence. Homo Deus, as I stated in my review of it, fell a little flat in the early portions but made up in the discussions of a post-liberal democracy technological future.

Where did 21 lessons go wrong? Why was it wrong? Well. Much of it was perhaps talking about things that are obvious, but could not be considered archetypal. Thus I was not hit in the face with the realisations and acceptance of every page turn like Sapiens. It was more of an "I know this, we struggle with this, because this is fundamentally a Value, and it's not a thing we can 'solve'" situation. Is it therefore that Harari's perceptions of these value questions were not as enlightening as the eye opening reflections he has on the subconscious portions of humanity a la Sapiens? Or, is this book a bunch of off cuts that didn't make it into the previous two master works? Since I couldn't differentiate these possibilities through inference, it made me feel that this was more and more a coattails product, however masterfully written & edited.

In addition, I strongly recommend you read Bill Gate's review here on Goodreads. His expertise with global problems and how to approach them, not just theoretically, but practically is certainly up there with the best we have. Some of his critiques resonate with my struggles with this book, and I'm not as qualified as he to tell you about them.

If you got a copy of this book by reading the title and neglecting to read beyond that, you may not be in for what you expect. Mars specifics are not really spoken of at all. This book is an investigation into the more mundane but necessary requirements of human space flights lasting longer than a brief jaunt around the world and back. How long can a human stay in the same clothing without turning into a fungus, what's the best way to take a dump, is it possible to then eat those feces to save on launch weight? These kind of questions.

In general, this is a great foray into some of the more eyebrow raising aspects of the early to present-day design and engineering of space bound systems, including eye witness testimonies and interesting quips from historical transcripts that idiosyncratically brings some of the heroes of the Apollo and earlier eras, back down to earth.

This is my first introduction to Roach's writing and I can't say I liked it all. Indeed, I think that a great deal of the content here is unique and interesting. It's just that it's peppered throughout the rest of this muck. Much of the baseline of the book is humble-bragging, name dropping and elaborations on just how hard the hardest job in the world is (i.e. journalism).

Let me explain my position a bit here. Roach likes to get into her topic viscerally. So a ride on a parabolic flight in an attempt to greater appreciate weightlessness is really a great step for a non-astronaut to take. Mix that with a forced attempt at constant humor to keep a reader engaged and it comes out shallow. Meeting and interviewing some of the greats from space history is an excellent thing to do for a work like this. I'm impressed by the meeting with Felix Baumgartner and the insights there - this was before his stratos jump. I'm less impressed by some non-sequitur about the ride with Tom Cruise in his convertible. It's difficult to hear about peoples heads turning to a jelly-like mass due to excessive centripetal forces, or brains detaching from the spinal cord, then drudging through an expose about the grueling ordeal that is people not responding to emails or having to deal with antisocial archive clerks.