andrewspink's reviews
549 reviews

I really enjoyed reading this book. The characters are a treat, the plot carries you along and the social comment is sharp. Classic Barbara Kingsolver, in fact. As a botanist myself, I loved Mary Treat, and when I found out at the end that she was based on a real person, that was even better!  The experiment where she sat there with a venus fly trap digesting her finger, that was also great fun, I could just imagine myself trying that out. Wonderful!

I have only one complaint. Why on earth give one of the main characters that dreadful name? For an English reader, that's like calling someone ' Trump', even decades on. It is not so easy to view a character positively with that name, it takes some getting used to.

The book is an interesting collection of anecdotes, history, natural history and reflections on seven animal species living in the far north. Some of the chapters, like the one on polar bears, happened to contain mostly information which I already knew, and so were not so interesting, others (like the one on giant red king crabs) were about animals that I hadn't even heard of and so were fascinating.
The book is easy to read, with the chapters being split into small sections, some very small. It does jump around a bit from history to anecdote to biology, but that is not really a problem. Because of that, this is more of a book to read a bit at a time, than to sit and plough through in a few long sessions.

To be wrapped up in a story by Alexander McCall Smith is always a treat. The people are good  but fallible. They have meaningful conversations with each other, instead of their phones. There is a gentle mystery,  which is solved. There is hope for the world. Everyone has pride in the place they call home, but without nationalism. It is pure blissful escapism. 

The central message of this book is that modern evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with Christian theology, and all but the most literalist fundamentalists should have no problem accepting evolutionary science. No one thinks that the parables that Jesus told actually happened, and if we read the first few chapters of Genesis in the same spirit (as theological, not scientific or historical texts) then there is no reason to doubt evolution. Apparently, in the US, there are many people who do not see this.

He also presents the case that recent ideas in evolutionary theory provide reasons to believe in God. I must admit, I found that unconvincing. They all seemed to me to fall very firmly under the 'God of the gaps' idea, which he later mentions. That is the idea that is something is too mysterious or unexplainable, then it must be caused by God. For instance, we have little idea how evolution proceeded from a few biochemicals to something looking like a cell, seeing you actually need something like a cell membrane for that to be able to occur. Garte's answer is that that is where we see God. I have two problems with that. Firstly, that if and when we do find a convincing mechanism for those steps, God is then removed. Secondly, it seemed to have the idea that God is like the watchmaker who winds up the clock he has designed, and steps back and observes it. That does not rhyme well with Christian theology based on the incarnation. That points to a weakness of the book that it is much stronger on science, especially biochemistry, than on theology. Decades ago, I was lucky enough to hear a series of lectures by Jürgen Moltmann (who unfortunately died last year). He wrote many books, including God in Creation which tackle the theological aspects of Garte's book in some depth. The issues discussed by Garte are actually as much theological as biological and some heavier theology, for instance Moltmann's ideas would have been welcome in that respect. For instance, Garte posits that 'consciousness is transmission of God's thoughts', but how on earth does that work with evil thoughts? 

I did have a few issues with the biology side, though. Since when is "biology the youngest of the traditional natural sciences"? What about Pliny? Crick and Watson are mentioned a couple of times. Nowadays, we know that Franklin should be included. The role of symbiosis (e.g. mitochondria being derived from bacteria) is a part of modern evolutionary theory that is an important addition to traditional Darwinism. The claim that there are no 'laws' about fitness is a bit odd. For example, population dynamics (which is essentially about fitness) is very mathematical - mostly expressed in models because it is too complex for simple equations. Likewise, the claim that biology is notoriously short on theory is not one that I recognise. I worked for ten years in ecological research, and much of that was about developing and applying theories. My work was not unusual in that respect. The statement that bees have no brains is just wrong. The assumption that human consciousness is fundamentally different from the consciousness of other species is rather out of date. See the work of the late great Frans de Waal, for instance. 

In conclusion. If this book succeeds in opening the eyes to some of the more fundamentalist
 American Christians that there is really no conflict between evolutionary science and taking the Bible seriously, then it will have served its purpose. It is easy to read and explains complex ideas clearly. However, its theology is a bit light and when the biology strays outside the author's own area of biochemistry it is sometimes a little inaccurate. 

Thanks to the publishers for providing an advance review copy (via NetGalley) in return for an honest review.

I was very lucky to pick up this early predecessor of the Discworld series at a second hand book market last year. It doesn't quite have the sparkle of his later works, but nevertheless, it is an entertaining read. 
Here is a gem, "he was ... undeniably dead. If he had believed in reincarnation,  he'd come back as a corpse. " A promise of what was to come in his later writing. 

Yolande Ligterink did an excellent job translating this thriller. Sometimes with translations of thrillers, you are ripped away from enjoying the plot by a strange choice of words, literal translation of a saying, or ignorance of obscure bits of British culture which can take away the pleasure of a story. With this book, I was immersed the whole time. The original helped as well, of course. In some ways, it was rather predictable; the remote location guaranteed that it would be cut off from the outside world and as soon as the protagonist made friends with

Boy

, you were sure that they were not on the side of good. But there were enough twists and turns and unexpected elements that it was entertaining enough, and certainly page-turning. I am not a fan of too much gore and violence, so could have done with a bit less of that, but I suppose it goes with the genre.
I am recovering from flu and this was just the light entertaining read that I needed.

I found this book hard going. It doesn't really have a plot, but it is more of a long diatribe. It jumps back and forth in time so that sometimes it is not clear if you are in the present or the past. Points are made by discussions between the characters, but they all sound the same; a group of teenagers swearing and making dirty jokes all of a sudden switch to long articulate paragraphs, for instance. 
An odd aspect of her use of language is that she has invented her own word for parent, 'verwekker' (conceiver). That is ok when it is the narrator/protagonist, but is very odd when it is in speech marks from other characters who would never say that. Once or twice she forgets and uses the normal word ('ouder'). 
There are some internal contradictions. There is no internet in their holiday village, but later we hear that the mother video-phones with her mother there every day. She says they never watched Dutch TV as children, but only a few lines later on says that they watched Dutch cartoons. 
The worst is that it is one long rant. I feel that someone is banging a sledgehammer against my head the whole time. The same points are made time and again. There is little pleasure to be had in the story. 
Ironically, it is a very Dutch story. Typical Dutch literature centres around a miserable childhood caused by a strict religious upbringing. Her experiences could easily be transplanted to Maasluis a few decades ago (and perhaps Staphorst today). The difference is that Maarten 't Hart wrote, beautifully, she doesn't. The coarse language is probably a deliberate style choice, designed to ram her points home with anger, but it doesn't make for fun reading.
It is, of course, a tremendous accomplishment to break free of such a restrictive controlling environment and even more of an accomplishment to write her experiences in a novel like this. 

The more I read by Elif Shafak, the more I like her work. This book has what I am beginning to recognise as typical characteristics; an interwoven plot of multiple strands, nice writing and the intersection between East and West. The attitude of the West towards Turkish Muslims is central to the book, and even though this was written eight years ago, it could not be more topical with all the anti-Muslim hatred by the politicians where I live (in the Netherlands). Shafak wrote in Rivers in the Sky that "there is no better space than literature, especially the novel as literary genre, within which to explore the most complex issues of our time with nuance depth and empathy". In this book, she proves herself right.

The book's themes were ones which interest me. The difference between listening and hearing. Seeing through photography. Living as an immigrant in a new country. That was all interesting. 
There were other aspects that I found more difficult to relate to. Were we supposed to believe in Philippe's ability to predict the future? In a story which otherwise didn't have any magic-realism elements, that was a bit difficult. Some elements were almost too realistic, I could have done with a bit less description of all the violence in Paris in the period that was covered. The aspect of how the fashion industry promotes eating disorders and body dysmorphia was a point well-made. 

With people like Musk promoting the idea that the solution to our wrecking the earth's ecosystem is to decamp to Mars, this book addresses an important issue. I must say that I was not really satisfied with the way that it did that. It did not really address the issue of if the resources spent on colonising Mars would have been better spent on fixing the earth. What it does make very clear is that the problems on earth that are caused by issues like the greed and duplicity of people will be just as much a problem in a new colony. The people who leave for Mars fly around in private jets, apparently oblivious to their own environmental impact. (Incidentally, Airbus planes are made in Europe, not America, that's a strange mistake to make).

A plot is uncovered to kill most people, but they don't seem to feel the need to do anything about it.

It is unfortunately hard to imagine that with the level of environmental damage described in the book that there will still be any corals around in a few decades. They are vulnerable and close to extinction today. 
The book is quite funny in parts, with amusing digs at Tump and so on. It is easy to be read, although there are some rather long philosophical dialogues which got a bit tedious. It does not go into overdrive describing the new technologies which will inevitably have been invented in the coming decades. Rather strangely, it goes into great detail explaining how AR glasses work in a manner which is very close indeed to present-day technology. The author doesn't seem to have used their imagination much in thinking how things might have developed in the future. It is set in the future, but feels very close to the present day.
In summary, I am glad I read the book, but it was not great.

This review is based on a free copy of the book provided by the publisher via NetGalley in return for an honest review.