How sweet—another quirky hipster feature in which the girl with a sexual history is villanized, and the one without is the Ultimate Perfection because she has met the stringent intellectual standard of not listening to Top 40. How many of these do we need?

This is the first book I’ve ever thrown in revulsion. There are so many things wrong with it, from the relatively minor (Shermer doesn’t know the difference between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’) to the excruciating (‘science is just another type of myth!’ and ‘here are some reasons why religion doesn’t make sense, but please don’t be mad at me religious people, oh please please pleeeeeease’).

For anyone interested in the subject matter without the incoherence, painful grovelling and poor grammar, Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained is excellent.

Kaku uses the word ‘ironically’ about a thousand times. Other than that, it’s not bad, but didn’t contain much that I hadn’t already read elsewhere.

Decent execution of an unoriginal concept, with a lot of heavy-handed symbolism thrown in. It’s been less than two weeks since I’ve finished this and it’s already slipping out of memory.

Be forewarned that the last 100+ pages are blather about the fairy tales that he lifted for use, along with a ridiculously indulgent Q&A with the writer. I had no idea, which destroyed all sense of reasonable pacing.

You have to be candy-and-flowers romantic to appreciate this fully, which I’m not. It’s bland, one grand gesture after another without any of the friction that underlies actual chemistry. When two people have a connection, whether romantic or platonic, it’s usually accompanied by an uncanny ability to hurt each other in a millisecond—to respond to a slight with a direct hit to the other’s weakest point. Passion goes both ways in real life. It’s that constant interplay between acknowledging a person’s vulnerabilities and accepting him in spite of (because of?) them that creates a bond. Here we get only hugs, gazes, drives into the sunset.

But it wasn’t terrible, writing aside. Visually appealing, incredible soundtrack, and I do adore Jean-Louis Trintignant.

As an atheist and former Christian, I’ve mixed feelings about this. Most of it was surprisingly gentle, and I did laugh several times. But the way he closed (things to the effect of ‘religion is bad, religion is evil, fully evolved humans don’t want/need it’, etc.) was strikingly cold. Those statements aren’t entirely off the mark—if you look solely at the damage religion has inflicted, obviously it’s awful.

My complaint lies in his failure to acknowledge the good that it can bring out in people: the generosity, the warmth, the reminder to look past ourselves. Of course these things are all fully possible outside of religion, but one approach will never suit everyone. To make all gods obsolete would be to remove this internal motivation for many, not to mention a critical social structure.

Overall it reminded me too much of conversations with some of my more antagonistic friends. He raises fair questions, but the tone ensures that no one but the converted will listen to them. And how can you claim to be attempting to better your society when you’re incapable of showing respect for the majority of its members?

I liked this book a lot more when it was called Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World.

Top complaints:

Endless exposition
Overly detailed (and too 2006 specific)
Self-impressed

I was really enjoying this until the terrible ending.

I’m kind of shocked to see that I’m the first one to rate this movie as “worth consuming”. It was amazing. Within the first five minutes the characters are more fully developed than most movies accomplish during a full two hours.

This is now my favorite game. Since finishing it yesterday I’ve been moping about, unmotivated. A strategy guide has been ordered and should arrive in a few days. Depending on how many things I missed, a second play-through may soon be in order (which is ridiculous, for a 60 hour game).

But I’m so very much in love with it, it can’t be helped.