Among other things, Glassner informs us that we shouldn’t be worried about violent crime Violent crime is (as of 1999) going down and has never been a huge problem. He provides plenty of statistics (with citations) to demonstrate this very convincingly (along with numerous other points.

But several times throughout the book, he stops talking about how violence isn’t a significant problem to briefly(?) rant about how violent crime involving guns is a HUGE problem. A sane person will recognise that gun violence is a subset of violence, and therefore the problem of gun violence CANNOT be a bigger problem than the problem of violence in general. Glassner, however, is not sane when it comes to the issue of guns.

Glassner writes intelligently and coherently for the most part, but as soon as the subject of guns comes up, he begins contradicting himself. He chastises People magazine for saying that gun violence is rare, three paragraphs after he himself insisted that violence is not a huge problem.

He writes from a very liberal perspective, but he does so rationally, and as a very rational, very liberal reader, it doesn’t bother me. Except when he starts ranting about guns. It doesn’t matter how much I favour gun control—his arguments on the subject at flat-out self-contradictory and the very scare mongering he spends the entire book arguing against. His out-of-place rants break the intelligent flow of the book in several spots. (I know I’m harping on this myself, but it really drove me to distraction numerous times.)

For the most part, however, this is an excellent book. It’s certainly a very left-wing perspective, but better left than right.

I found the repetition about prayer in the spirit tiresome, but there is some good content. His writing makes it clear that he’s an excellent speaker. Writing speech doesn’t always work well, and at times it seems comical with the capital letters, bold type, and italics, but when he’s telling stories from his life, he does it well.

For those who don’t want to read the book, at least read page 88 and 90-91 for great amusement (‘“Well, hello Oral. This is God.”’ ‘Oooooooh!’) Or read chapter 8 for a…um…powerful story from his life.

I’m still an atheist, of course. :-)

There was a ‘Free, take one’ table of these in front of the Church of Scientology near where I live.

Hating Scientology, I took one. And two more, since they had them in three languages (English, French, and Spanish), and I figured I’d be saving thrice the number of people from the evil propaganda.

This is by Hubbard, but the advice in the book is not evil. There is some nonsense (‘What is true is what is true for you’) but it’s mostly good.

It’s written at an amusingly simple, paternalistic level, and only took perhaps an hour to read.

Remember: Scientology is evil, but ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Okay, that’s not fair. This isn’t the worst movie ever, I’m sure.

But it’s certainly the worst movie I’ve ever watched all the way through. I’ve never seen Pearl Harbor, though.

Be wary, readers!

Most of the stuff in this book is stuff you should already be somewhat familiar with, in which case you may be able to recognise that he gets stuff wrong. Some times he gets things a little wrong—perhaps simply because he merely wants to get the general idea across—but sometimes he gets things very, very wrong. I’ve studies most of the philosophy he covers (including the primary sources), and his explanations frequently miss the point or flat-out contradict the original claims.

Go ahead and read this book if you’d like, but when his explanation of an idea makes you think ‘Boy, what a stupid idea; those philosophers/scientists/whatevers must have been idiots’, keep in mind that they probably weren’t. The author was. Sorry, Macrone, but you really screwed up on some of these. I especially hate your ridiculous bit about Aristotle’s three laws of thought. You messed that one up bad. See, there was this guy and he had a cat in a box…

This is a good book that could have been a great book.

I want to say it’s a great book that could have been a phenomenal book, but I think that’s mostly because it’s the sort of book I like.

The characters—and their interactions—aren’t as compelling as they could be. The world compelling, but not explored as well as I’d like. The plot good enough, but nothing amazing. The writing was good.

I’d read it again, but if I wanted to introduce someone to the genre, I’d pick something else, probably. The genre + world + writing carried it well for me, but for someone who isn’t in to this sort of stuff might find it boring. I know Gaiman can do better. What with him being a Writer-God and all.

I got this for my birthday a few years ago and didn’t listen to it for months. Never had heard of Badfinger.

Finally I did listen, and it was filled with songs I knew and liked but had never known who did them. Now I know: Badfinger, and they rock.

Dave Barry’s columns are okay, but seem very repetitive. The only novel I read by him—Big Trouble was excellent. Though this book is semi-non-fiction like his columns, it’s excellent. I laughed out loud a lot while reading it. Rarely do books make me laugh. People (not just the blurbs on the back—real people) are always saying Diana Wynne Jones is hilarious, but I don’t get it. She’s one of my favourite authors, but has she made me laugh even once? Not that I can recall. Dave Barry did. Megaprops to him.

I loved this book when I was young. Food is good.

I found the first halfish of this book somewhat long-winded and a bit boring. And very populist. More than I’m willing to be with any great enthusiasm. But the second halfish was better. I like reading about the terrible health effects of meat. The awful health conditions and poor testing of it’s production. I don’t eat meat, so I get to pat myself on the back sanctimoniously. Yay!

It’s not as good as everyone says, but everyone says it’s the bste book ever, so that’s not surprising. It’s certainly a worthwhile read.