Review: Good Concept
Rating: 4 out of 5
Date: 08 29, 2013
I first submitted a mildly negative review for this book. My problem was the book I read was rather poorly written on a technical basis. It had misspellings, problems with syntax and some rather tortured language. I found that I had gotten a very early copy and one that slipped through without a rigorous edit. I have since gotten a newer copy and there is enough difference to warrant a revised review. Hence my revised review follows:This is one of my favorite authors. I have read many things by Anonymous. Beowulf, The Pearl, The Autobiography of a Flea, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Arabian Nights: Tales From 1001 Nights, even the Bible and The Quran, all by my favorite author, Anonymous. I think I like this one also.Let's start with the story. It was not bad and it is even unique in some ways. The premise was very fresh. The content was also fresh. It involves a discussion between a man and an alien. Initially, it involves a discussion of how differences in perception frame how we view our world. All sentient creatures have a unique view of their world based on their senses of perception. This narrative goes through the nature of science, physics (The quantum type), physics (The Newtonian type), perception, philosophy, psychology and a schemer of religion.The story shows an interesting perspective, it gives a context to discuss complex and at times controversial topics."TAL" developed the characters so that they were interesting and believable within the parameters of the story. The dialogue was constructed so that one idea blended into the next without the characters having to engage any unlikely antics to move the story line. That in itself is hard to do at all let alone well. There were essentially two characters and that spare cast of characters allowed a very concise dialectic without becoming polarized or argumentative. The author used some of the classic examples of illustrating hard to visualize concepts but with personal bent. I thought it worked.The story was interesting, but I cannot say I agree with all of it or even understand all of it. But, if you follow physics, chemistry, cosmology, even as a layman you will recognize that the conversations in the "TAL" are the same ones in the various fields of science, philosophy, math, quantum mechanics and so forth. As an informed layman I believe I kept up well and found the information believable.I have also looked at some of the other reviews. I understand if the story was not interesting. No story can be favored by everyone. I personally will never understand why people read 'Ulysses' let alone claim to enjoy it. But in at least one case a scathing review held the story to task for not adhering to the rigorous standards of scientific protocol. The story was scientifically invalid and provably so. It also used poorly constructed logical arguments for some of the philosophical arguments. Finally, the criticism is made that the author it did not clearly state that the book was fiction.I on the other hand did not assume that the book was fact. If it had been then it should be judged as a non-fiction piece of work. But that is clearly not the case and fiction allows the author to adjust, modify hard and fast fact to advance a story. I would not expect the book to uphold every tenant of an academic piece of work. I was not disappointed by the story being fiction.I very much liked this story and if there is another by this author I intend to read it.