beschizza at January 29th, 2014 11:15 — #1
gadgetgirl02 at January 29th, 2014 12:06 — #2
"Austen was a game theorist" reminds me of the James Thurber story where the narrator reinvents Macbeth as a murder mystery for a lady of very particular reading habits.
jhbadger at January 29th, 2014 16:51 — #3
But sometimes authors can really put things in books without really realizing it. The late, great computer scientist Alan Perlis once said "The best book on programming for the layman is 'Alice in Wonderland'; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman." Similarly, "Winnie the Pooh" has been used to explain everything from Marxism to Taoism.
johnaspinall at January 29th, 2014 21:54 — #4
I will squirrel away this line for future use:
This is a perfectly valid statement, as long as we ignore the accepted meaning of most of the words it contains.
gadgetgirl02 at January 29th, 2014 22:59 — #5
Okay, yes, but all of those things depend upon interpretation, not the taken-at-face-value content. And if you think the difference doesn't matter, talk to any fiction writer who made up something, only to have some self-important friend or relative decide the story was a veiled attack (even if the story was written before said friend or relative was a friend or relative).
kimmo at January 30th, 2014 03:18 — #6
Stopped reading here:
That’s the latest gambit in the brave new world of “consilience,” the idea that we can overcome the split between “the two cultures” by bringing art and science into conceptual unity—which is to say, by setting humanistic thought upon a scientific foundation.
The author is obviously winding up to hang shit on the very idea, while I find the wisdom of the notion self-evident. Figured the odds of being enlightened were much longer than those of being annoyed.
beschizza at February 3rd, 2014 11:15 — #7
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.