Spoony Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I do a bit of acting both to make some extra cash and also as a hobby. So I'm currently reading "The Actor's Art and Craft: William Esper Teaches the Meisner Technique" by Bill Esper. If anyone here has any interest in acting it really is a great book. He teaches the Meisner technique which is practiced by Christoph Waltz amongst others. The way he writes is like you are a student observing one of his lessons so it's pretty engaging. If you're not into acting and that suggestion does nothing for you, then I highly recommend The Very Hungry Caterpillar. It challenges many difficult societal issues and is not uncontroversial in its approach to many broader topical issues, all set in an unconventional context. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2014 I highly recommend The Very Hungry Caterpillar. It challenges many difficult societal issues and is not uncontroversial in its approach to many broader topical issues, all set in an unconventional context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I do a bit of acting both to make some extra cash and also as a hobby. So I'm currently reading "The Actor's Art and Craft: William Esper Teaches the Meisner Technique" by Bill Esper. If anyone here has any interest in acting it really is a great book. He teaches the Meisner technique which is practiced by Christoph Waltz amongst others. The way he writes is like you are a student observing one of his lessons so it's pretty engaging. It is a fine technique and enables Tom Cruise (5ft 7in) to look 6ft 5in and 250lb when he's playing Jack Reacher - that's what I call acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Some of you might be shocked to discover that I am not a teenage girl, but that hasn't stopped me from powering through The Hunger Games trilogy recently. I think the constant bombardment of adverts for the second film piqued my interest enough to see what all the fuss was about. I'll confess I really did enjoy the first book, it's not very original of course (it owes more than a passing nod to The Running Man for starters) but it is tightly written and I felt a genuine sense of tension as the story progressed. As the series continues there has been a marked decline in quality though, I'm halfway through the third book and I reached the point where I would dismiss the whole series as juvenile quite a while ago but I guess that isn't really a fault of the books because they are clearly aimed at fifteen year olds. The love triangle aspect is quite dull and almost every dramatic point is generated by two characters keeping a secret from a third, then the third finds out and has a hissy fit. I'll reserve complete judgement until I finish the last bit but I think I am finding the series a bit "meh" which is a real shame because the first book was excellent and had that rare trait where the ending actually left me wanting more. I read them and really enjoyed them also. I have been on the lookout for something of a similar type. I was on Amazon the other day and it recommended me a book call "Wool" by Hugh Howey. I am 70 % through it and it is very enjoyable and with a girl as the main character. All takes place in a Silo and has a massive time scale which i like. It is a series of 7 or 8 books but I got 1-6 for about €6 from amazon in Kindle. I am proper enjoying it so far. Edited January 3, 2014 by Amsterdam_Neil_D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Well, lets's say it's the easy-to-digest version of the academic work he was doing at the time. It's not dumbed-down as such, but like CED says, a proper PhD thesis is damned hard going for the layman. Having started reading it, I have to agree. The prose he uses is quite different from the dry language of academia. Great reading so far, he has a remarkable ability to make science interesting which is more than can be said for science teachers in general I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Have anyone read A Christmas Carol? I got hold of a new swedish edition and read it before christmas. It was more of a kids edition as it was illustrated. Classy illustrations, though. The woman in the bookshop said that it was still the correct translation and it was just the pictures that made it less of a book for adults. So my question to those who've read it is: How long is it? From that edition I'd guess it would be somewhere between 100-150 pages in a normal edition for adults. Is it much longer or does it sound like a full edition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Probably an unfortunate title, but it's only the interpretation certain dim people (who haven't read it) put on it. Dawkins makes the meaning perfectly clear. I wouldn't presume to deny that I am dim but I do find the implications of Dawkins' metaphor worrying. I seem to remember that in the book he is attempting to explain the existence of altruism, as adaptive behaviour which has been selected for because it brings advantages in terms of survival. He states, if I remember correctly, that in kinship groups non-breeding adults support the offspring of their kin because they instinctively wish to preserve the portion of genes that they share with those offspring. So childless uncle Charlie hunts and gathers food to help feed his brother/sister's offspring so that he preserves at least some of his own DNA - thus the selfish gene has a good outcome in those terms. All well and good, but the implications of a theory which rests on the idea that we as individuals prefer certain sorts of DNA over another, create a starting point where the logical outcome is Social Darwinism. The blue-eyed blond Arian can use that theory to claim that he is only doing what is natural when he wishes to claim lebensraum from people who he claims are genetically different. So I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' metaphor and theory. It seems a little too simplistic and I see it as an early attempt by Dawkins to deal with his own personal apostasy (he had been quite a zealous Christian) by offering a scientific explanation to dispute Religion's claim to be the sole originators of morals and ethics. That's how I see it, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Have anyone read A Christmas Carol? I got hold of a new swedish edition and read it before christmas. It was more of a kids edition as it was illustrated. Classy illustrations, though. The woman in the bookshop said that it was still the correct translation and it was just the pictures that made it less of a book for adults. So my question to those who've read it is: How long is it? From that edition I'd guess it would be somewhere between 100-150 pages in a normal edition for adults. Is it much longer or does it sound like a full edition? I read it online, on Gutenberg but 100-150 pages in the actual book sounds about right. I think most of his books had Illustrations, mostly done by a guy called Phiz. Also I think sometimes the regular edition is billed as a child's story. I tried looking for a Swedish version online but couldn't find anything. Here's an English version on Gutenberg though, if you want to compare with your book. Edited January 3, 2014 by useless 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2014 Probably an unfortunate title, but it's only the interpretation certain dim people (who haven't read it) put on it. Dawkins makes the meaning perfectly clear. I wouldn't presume to deny that I am dim but I do find the implications of Dawkins' metaphor worrying. I seem to remember that in the book he is attempting to explain the existence of altruism, as adaptive behaviour which has been selected for because it brings advantages in terms of survival. He states, if I remember correctly, that in kinship groups non-breeding adults support the offspring of their kin because they instinctively wish to preserve the portion of genes that they share with those offspring. So childless uncle Charlie hunts and gathers food to help feed his brother/sister's offspring so that he preserves at least some of his own DNA - thus the selfish gene has a good outcome in those terms. All well and good, but the implications of a theory which rests on the idea that we as individuals prefer certain sorts of DNA over another, create a starting point where the logical outcome is Social Darwinism. The blue-eyed blond Arian can use that theory to claim that he is only doing what is natural when he wishes to claim lebensraum from people who he claims are genetically different. So I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' metaphor and theory. It seems a little too simplistic and I see it as an early attempt by Dawkins to deal with his own personal apostasy (he had been quite a zealous Christian) by offering a scientific explanation to dispute Religion's claim to be the sole originators of morals and ethics. That's how I see it, FWIW. I wasn't implying you were dim, MMV, it was a reference to the Xtian fundies who have seized on the word "selfish" without having actually read the book. I tend to agree with your analysis; one of the philosophical challenges of evolutionary biology is avoiding the social Darwinism/eugenics trap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Probably an unfortunate title, but it's only the interpretation certain dim people (who haven't read it) put on it. Dawkins makes the meaning perfectly clear. I wouldn't presume to deny that I am dim but I do find the implications of Dawkins' metaphor worrying. I seem to remember that in the book he is attempting to explain the existence of altruism, as adaptive behaviour which has been selected for because it brings advantages in terms of survival. He states, if I remember correctly, that in kinship groups non-breeding adults support the offspring of their kin because they instinctively wish to preserve the portion of genes that they share with those offspring. So childless uncle Charlie hunts and gathers food to help feed his brother/sister's offspring so that he preserves at least some of his own DNA - thus the selfish gene has a good outcome in those terms. All well and good, but the implications of a theory which rests on the idea that we as individuals prefer certain sorts of DNA over another, create a starting point where the logical outcome is Social Darwinism. The blue-eyed blond Arian can use that theory to claim that he is only doing what is natural when he wishes to claim lebensraum from people who he claims are genetically different. So I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' metaphor and theory. It seems a little too simplistic and I see it as an early attempt by Dawkins to deal with his own personal apostasy (he had been quite a zealous Christian) by offering a scientific explanation to dispute Religion's claim to be the sole originators of morals and ethics. That's how I see it, FWIW. I wasn't implying you were dim, MMV, it was a reference to the Xtian fundies who have seized on the word "selfish" without having actually read the book. I tend to agree with your analysis; one of the philosophical challenges of evolutionary biology is avoiding the social Darwinism/eugenics trap. No harm, no foul.. I might add that the other problem I have with Dawkins is his habit of inviting religious types to debate science as if they were equals, which gives them credence they just don't deserve. The debate has sadly become a commercial activity. Latest hilarity on that front, is the Creationist museum in Kentucky, not content in claiming that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, have now introduced dragons, in an effort to boost visitor-numbers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) I can see why Dawkins wants to take them on, though. Although inviting them to debate is indeed giving them credibility they don't deserve, it's no good the rest of us just preaching to the choir. There are young minds out there (particularly in middle America) who need to hear those debates. If only handful of them start to doubt the crap their elders have fed them, it has to be a good thing. I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance. Edited January 3, 2014 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I can see why Dawkins wants to take them on, though. Although inviting them to debate is indeed giving them credibility they don't deserve, it's no good the rest of us just preaching to the choir. There are young minds out there (particularly in middle America) who need to hear those debates. If only handful of them start to doubt the crap their elders have fed them, it has to be a good thing. I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance. True. But I just don't think Dawkins is very good at it: a good scientist but he's just not good at arguing. His tendency to whine when he's presented with specious argument always makes him look unsure of himself. Unlike the late and great Christopher Hitchens who managed to be both charming and ruthless at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2014 Agreed on that. I hate Dawkins' speaking style, makes me cringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Agreed on that. I hate Dawkins' speaking style, makes me cringe. I think he knows because he always gets his missus to share the narration on his audio books. Lala has always been easy on the eye and the ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Have anyone read A Christmas Carol? I got hold of a new swedish edition and read it before christmas. It was more of a kids edition as it was illustrated. Classy illustrations, though. The woman in the bookshop said that it was still the correct translation and it was just the pictures that made it less of a book for adults. So my question to those who've read it is: How long is it? From that edition I'd guess it would be somewhere between 100-150 pages in a normal edition for adults. Is it much longer or does it sound like a full edition? I read it online, on Gutenberg but 100-150 pages in the actual book sounds about right. I think most of his books had Illustrations, mostly done by a guy called Phiz. Also I think sometimes the regular edition is billed as a child's story. I tried looking for a Swedish version online but couldn't find anything. Here's an English version on Gutenberg though, if you want to compare with your book. Cheers! Then I feel I can cross that one on my list of classic books to read. Coming up are Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm and War and Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Agreed on that. I hate Dawkins' speaking style, makes me cringe. The accent or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2014 Agreed on that. I hate Dawkins' speaking style, makes me cringe. The accent or what? The accent, and his general superior-sounding manner. The actual content is fine, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I was just handed this (late pressie) One chapter in and it's quite interesting. Also got Ursula La Guin's 'The Left Hand of Darkness' to occupy me until Amazon drones turn up and terminate me. Edited January 5, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Agreed on that. I hate Dawkins' speaking style, makes me cringe. The accent or what? The accent, and his general superior-sounding manner. The actual content is fine, though. Yes, it's posh, but I've never had a problem with his accent. Don't like Fry's accent though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2014 Also got Ursula La Guin's 'The Left Hand of Darkness' to occupy me until Amazon drones turn up and terminate me. Good book, as is her "The Dispossessed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts