Micha itibaren Balsa, Macaristan
Onu sevdim. Ve ben üçlemenin diğer iki kitabını okumayı dört gözle bekliyorum.
İlginç. Bisiklet yarışları hakkında biraz şey öğrendim, ancak çoğunu çoktan çözdüm.
Kitap, kahramanımız Edward ile başlıyor, düşünülebilecek en kötü Sevgili John mektuplarından birini alıyor. Daha da kötüsü, Edward'ın yakında mektupta sayılan her kötü şeyin doğru olduğunu fark etmesi. Yazısında Jane, esasen Edward'a kendisini düzeltmesi için üç ay verdi; bu da en azından geleceklerini tartışmak için kapıyı açacak. Böylece, en iyi arkadaşı / kadın erkek / kadrosunun rehberliği ve yardımı ile, barlarından bayan barmen, bakıcı / erkek kovalayan patronu ve yeni kişisel antrenörü olan Edward, kişisel gelişim sürecine başlar. Jane'in olmasını istediğini düşündüğü türden bir adam. Bu çok komik bir kitaptı, hızlı ve hafif bir okuma, başka hiçbir şey iddiasında bulunmaz. Derinliği olmayan bir Nick Hornby / Jonathan Tropper kitabı (bu bir vuruş değil, Dunn derinliğe gidiyor gibi görünüyor - sadece zevk için), daha çok bir Mike Gayle veya Jennifer Weiner kitabının çizgileri boyunca. Görünüşe göre bir dizinin ilki, buradan bir şeyleri nereye götürdüklerini görmeye meraklıyım. Çok fazla kalp, çok fazla gülüyor. Ondan sorabileceğiniz her şey.
Bu iyiydi, ama kısaydı. Tarafından uçtu. Yazıyı beğendim - her şey birbirine bağlıydı ve geçmişten günümüze geçiş yapmamıza rağmen, hepsi güzelce akıyordu.
Her birini Harry Potter'ı seviyorum.
Bu üzerinde çalıştığım belli bir yazı projesinin objektifinden okuduğum ilk kitaptı. Bu kitap, kitapta bölüm başına kaç kelime ve kitapta genel olarak bir kelime edinmeme yardım etti - bundan önce eğer bana farklı kitaplarda kaç tane kelime olduğunu sorarsanız, hiçbir ipucum olmazdı. Şimdi wpp, wpc ve wpb tavşan deliklerinden aşağıya indikten sonra analizlerimle en iyisini yapabilirim :-)
** spoiler alert ** *Mega spoiler warning* HUGE GAPING PLOTHOLE! I'm sure anyone who's read it knows what I'm talking about, but maybe I've just missed something very crucial while I was reading. If anyone can answer any of these questions please let me know. (as long as it doesn't ruin future books or anything.) 1) when they were at the school, being told that everything was fake how much of that was true? It made sense that it was all a test, but then the author took it back, now there are all these little things that don't make sense to me, like why did Max's scars dissapear and reappear? 2) How "in the know" was Dr. Martinez? She had the photo of Gazzy. Why? Did Jeb plant it there? Does that mean Jeb had been seeing her this whole time? 3) we know now that Dr. Martinez was a scientist that was involved with Max's creation. She had to have known a little about what was going on. I'm assuming that she quit or whatever shortly after she and Jeb got together on the "max project." I just want an explination as to what happened and what part of the whole "School" experience she played. 4) The voice, if it's Jeb, how is it getting into Max's head? The chip has been removed (or has it? Who knows what martinez did during the operation considering she's a white coat.) Is Jeb a sort of hybrid? Does he have the same sorts of powers Angel does? 5) the director being a hybrid doesn't really make sense. Did they really have all this set up over a hundred years ago? Would they have had the technology? Anyhow, I know there are more questions, but I can't think of any more right now. I'll just have to keep reading and hope that the author addresses some of these issues. I still really like the books. I'm just a little frustrated by the lack of important information.
This BOOK is a miracle. In fact, it changed my mind about some things. Gave me some things to think about.. Wendell Berry is truly an independent thinker and when you read what he says, you realize how rare a thing he is. This book goes so far as to suggest that science is treated as a religion by most of us nowadays and we blindly and blithely accept that what it says and does is, its methodology are all above criticism or doubt. WE have accepted the notion that science will eventually solve all our problems and work out all our needs. We have imagined that innovation, progress, technology, opening new frontiers, are all unquestionably good for us and our society. Berry suggests that this may not be the case and shows that a deeper and deepening familiarity with what we have here before us could be a better route. I can't do his arguments justice, but I highly recommend this book. Wish I had it in front of me so I could add some quotes from it... okay, so I stole some quotes from someone else's review: "For a while I proposed to myself that the only things really explainable are explanations. That is not quite true, but it is near enough to the truth that I am unwilling to forget it. "What can be explained? Experiments, ideas, patterns, cause-effect relationships and connections within defined limits, anything that can be calculated, graphed or diagrammed. And yet the explanation changes whatever is explained into something explainable. Explanation is reductive, not comprehensive; most of the time, when you have explained something, you discover leftovers. An explanation is a bucket, not a well. "What can't be explained? I don't think creatures can be explained. I don't think lives can be explained. What we know about creatures and lives must be pictured or told or sung or danced. And I don't think pictures or stories or songs or dances can be explained. The arts are indispensable precisely because they are so nearly antithetical to explanation." (p113) "The time is past, if ever there was such a time, when you can just discover knowledge and turn it loose in the wold and assume that you have done good. "This, to me, is a sign of the incompleteness of science in itself - which is the sign of the need for a strenuous conversation among all the branches of learning." "In our present economic predicament, ethics, ecology, environmental law, etc. won't as specialties have much corrective force. They will be used to rationalize what is wrong." (p145) The most radical influence of reductive science has been the virtually universal adoption of the idea that the world, its creatures, and all the parts of its creatures are machines--that is, that there is no difference between creature and artifice, birth and manufacture, thought and computation" (p. 6). In response to that model he suggests that, "life, like holiness, can only be known by being experienced" (p. 8), and that "Our daily lives are a daily mockery of our scientific pretensions" (p. 33). And again, "Directly opposed to this reduction or abstraction of things is the idea of the preciousness of individual lives and places" (p. 42). "To define knowledge as merely empirical is to limit one's ability to know; it enfeebles one's ability to feel and think" (p. 103). Or this: "'Survival value', it seems to me, must deal in minimums, since any species dependent upon maximums would be too vulnerable to survive. The human race has survived because of its ability to survive famine, not because of its ability to survive feasts" (p. 110). Or this: A work of art says what it says in the only way it can be said. Beauty, for example, cannot be interpreted. It is not an empirically verifiable fat; it is not a quantity