Bellwether -- a book full of crap
Why?
On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Karen Kay wrote:
>Why? said:
>> In short, there are many ways in which the
>> book displays its total crappitude.
>
>I dispute the total crappitude. It's certainly not her best book;
>"Doomsday Book" was much better. I didn't post about it because I
>thought it was the best book in the entire world, I posted about it
>because I thought Brad would like it. And he seems to have enjoyed
>it. So what's your problem, Elephant Boy?
What problem? I am extremely happy to have come across a crappy
book.
tushar
ABCDEFG
Brad Grissom
Excellent review, Tushar. Did you read this while you were monopolizing
space and abusing free-coffee privileges at Borders? (That's Alex Trebek,
by the way.)
brad
Why?
And now to Bellwether, but prior to talking about it, I would like
to intimate to Bro. Brad that the remarks I made congratulating
someone who called "Southern Culture" an oxymoron were of an
unadulteratedly sarcastic nature. I hope this clarification is
well understood as honest, before I proceed to pan every word
from "Bellwether" I set my eyes on.
It is an open secret that this time round, Bro. Brad's supersubtle
mocking of the book was simply not understood by Karen, clearly due
to lack of fluids. Now, if K@r3n claims she is not a joiner, she
should at least be a plumber. But she has not understood this book.
To put it in more expressive words, "I was not expecting a spoof".
The only way in which SF writer can redeem himself is by showing
some amount of historical sense. The book therefore fails on page
2, by parading both Galvani and Fleming as examples of accidental
discoveries unaided by theory. It is unbelievable. These are the
very two examples most frequently given to illustrate wrong-headed
historical thinking. It has to be a spoof. Or alternatively, a
coffee-shop (thanked profusely in the dedication) is not the best
place to get a clue. (Assuming of course that it doesn't have web
access).
The symbolic value of "The pied piper of Hamelyn" would have been
ordinarily too subtle. It is hence repeated over all chapters till
we begin to smell a rat and realize that it is all referring to fads.
There is an encyclopedic--but far duller and shorter--entry on some
"fad" or the other preceding every chapter. But only Alex Trebeck
cares about burblers of facts. I take it on faith that the story
involves chaos theory. In short, there are many ways in which the
book displays its total crappitude. Hence it has to belong to SF
even though it might be a very serious novel of ideas.
tushar
ABCDEFG
Why?
FREE coffee? I didn't know that. I have been robbed.
It doesn't matter if I had my feet up on the table.
tushar
ABCDEFG
Why?
You are just saying that!
tushar
ABCDEFG