Sunday, September 30, 2001
The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers
by Phil Farrand
Did I ever mention that my wife has two bachelor's degrees? Well, she does, and now she's looking to add a MA after her name as well. Me, I've got an associate's degree from a community college. How can such a charming and intelligent fellow such as myself be so lacking in academic credentials? Well, perhaps this will illustrate. Last weekend, I went to the local library sale and bought this book. I came home. And did I continue with the academic volume, The Two Babylons, which I have on loan from the library? Of course not! During the next two days I manage to devote all my spare moments of reading to this volume, which I have already read! A book devoted to the little problems and inconsistencies found in a television series! (and subsequent movies.) Does it really matter that the Klingons changed their appearance between the series and the first Star Trek movie? What possible significance is there in the fact that the Mugato leaves rabbit prints? Who cares that Captain Kirk splits his pants in the episode "The Savage Curtain"? Unfortunately, Phil Farrand makes such minutiae quite amusing. So, not only have I read and enjoyed this book, but I'm putting it on my shelf. I've got an empty spot where I was going to put War and Peace, once I got around to buying and reading it, of course.
LibraryThing link
Did I ever mention that my wife has two bachelor's degrees? Well, she does, and now she's looking to add a MA after her name as well. Me, I've got an associate's degree from a community college. How can such a charming and intelligent fellow such as myself be so lacking in academic credentials? Well, perhaps this will illustrate. Last weekend, I went to the local library sale and bought this book. I came home. And did I continue with the academic volume, The Two Babylons, which I have on loan from the library? Of course not! During the next two days I manage to devote all my spare moments of reading to this volume, which I have already read! A book devoted to the little problems and inconsistencies found in a television series! (and subsequent movies.) Does it really matter that the Klingons changed their appearance between the series and the first Star Trek movie? What possible significance is there in the fact that the Mugato leaves rabbit prints? Who cares that Captain Kirk splits his pants in the episode "The Savage Curtain"? Unfortunately, Phil Farrand makes such minutiae quite amusing. So, not only have I read and enjoyed this book, but I'm putting it on my shelf. I've got an empty spot where I was going to put War and Peace, once I got around to buying and reading it, of course.
LibraryThing link
Labels: NitpickersGuide, OnMyShelf, PhilFarrand
Monday, September 24, 2001
Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Anthology, Vol. 5
edited by George H. Scithers
I'm not on an Asimov kick, honest. This book is merely an anthology of tales that appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. There's nothing spectacular about the collection, even though the stories were all pretty enjoyable. Good waiting room material.
LibraryThing link
I'm not on an Asimov kick, honest. This book is merely an anthology of tales that appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. There's nothing spectacular about the collection, even though the stories were all pretty enjoyable. Good waiting room material.
LibraryThing link
Labels: WaitingRoomMaterial
Tuesday, September 18, 2001
Nightfall and Other Stories
by Isaac Asimov
Here's some irony for you: I just finish talking about exposing myself to the scientific mindset (The Soul of Science, above), and now I review a collection of stories by my favorite secular humanist, Isaac Asimov. Our theologies disagree, but I enjoy his writing, both the stories and his introductions to the same.(I don't think I've read any of his non-fiction... I may have to change that one of these years.) Anyway, this is a nice collection of tales ranging from 1941's "Nightfall" to 1967's "Segregationist". The rationale behind the collection is to see how "Nightfall", which many consider Asimov's best story, compares with his later work. He was a bit miffed that a story written so early in his career was considered his best work. Well, with all due respect to the late Dr. Asimov, I thought that "Nightfall" was the best tale in the book. Not that the rest of the book isn't great. Anyway, I enjoyed the collection immensely and recommend it to all. This one's on my shelf.
LibraryThing link
Here's some irony for you: I just finish talking about exposing myself to the scientific mindset (The Soul of Science, above), and now I review a collection of stories by my favorite secular humanist, Isaac Asimov. Our theologies disagree, but I enjoy his writing, both the stories and his introductions to the same.(I don't think I've read any of his non-fiction... I may have to change that one of these years.) Anyway, this is a nice collection of tales ranging from 1941's "Nightfall" to 1967's "Segregationist". The rationale behind the collection is to see how "Nightfall", which many consider Asimov's best story, compares with his later work. He was a bit miffed that a story written so early in his career was considered his best work. Well, with all due respect to the late Dr. Asimov, I thought that "Nightfall" was the best tale in the book. Not that the rest of the book isn't great. Anyway, I enjoyed the collection immensely and recommend it to all. This one's on my shelf.
LibraryThing link
Labels: IsaacAsimov, OnMyShelf
Saturday, September 08, 2001
The Soul of Science
by Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton
I was interested in science as a kid as well as science fiction as an adult, so I read a lot about the scientific method and all that, as well as many scientists' disdain of religion, at least when it came to the field of science. Those who tried to bring religion into the laboratory, I heard, were a bunch of kooks. Well, I bought that theory and continued to believe it when my interest turned to other fields. I still believed that God created the world and all that, but I figured He must have used evolution, since all the scientists said that's what happened. I never gave it serious thought. Well, that changed a few years back as my wife started reading up on Creationism and started passing along books to read. When I stopped to think about it, I realized that of course scientists are no more infallible than theologians and that every scientist takes some philosophical baggage with him or her into the laboratory. I started questioning some of my assumptions and found out that I prefer to side with the "kooks." Anyway, I'm straying off topic. The Soul of Science is not a book of creationism. Though the authors seem to be favorable to that point of view, their real purpose is to show that the separation of church and lab is pretty much a 20th Century phenomenon. They detail the history of Western science and show how it and its proponents were influenced by Christianity. Having been raised to think that modern science was merely the discovery of what's always been there, I was a bit surprised to see the debates and rationalizations that have formed it. Like any other work of man, I guess if you look close at science you start to see the flaws. I recommend that you check it out, though the book may not be near as impressive to someone who has already bothered to think this through.
LibraryThing link
I was interested in science as a kid as well as science fiction as an adult, so I read a lot about the scientific method and all that, as well as many scientists' disdain of religion, at least when it came to the field of science. Those who tried to bring religion into the laboratory, I heard, were a bunch of kooks. Well, I bought that theory and continued to believe it when my interest turned to other fields. I still believed that God created the world and all that, but I figured He must have used evolution, since all the scientists said that's what happened. I never gave it serious thought. Well, that changed a few years back as my wife started reading up on Creationism and started passing along books to read. When I stopped to think about it, I realized that of course scientists are no more infallible than theologians and that every scientist takes some philosophical baggage with him or her into the laboratory. I started questioning some of my assumptions and found out that I prefer to side with the "kooks." Anyway, I'm straying off topic. The Soul of Science is not a book of creationism. Though the authors seem to be favorable to that point of view, their real purpose is to show that the separation of church and lab is pretty much a 20th Century phenomenon. They detail the history of Western science and show how it and its proponents were influenced by Christianity. Having been raised to think that modern science was merely the discovery of what's always been there, I was a bit surprised to see the debates and rationalizations that have formed it. Like any other work of man, I guess if you look close at science you start to see the flaws. I recommend that you check it out, though the book may not be near as impressive to someone who has already bothered to think this through.
LibraryThing link
Labels: CheckItOut
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
