So boring, could not get beyond the half way point. If he has a point he takes way too long to make it and he makes a lot of grand and vague unsubstantiated claims in an offhand manner. I don't like giving bad reviews but this book was painful to read. ( )

I can't imagine reading this book, having lived through Manny's reading of it. It was awful, having to listen to him talk about how completely Frayn had misunderstood everything in science and philosophy he talked about. When he did come to actual interesting content by Frayn he couldn't stand the round about, waffling way in which he wrote, peppering everything with asides which were sometimes entertaining and generally irrelevant. Somehow Bill Bryson writing mostly of irrelevancies is okay, but not Frayn. Maybe he isn't good enough a writer.

Having started this book some years ago, I am certainly never going to read it now. I don't have the discerning eye resulting from knowledge of the fields to be able to read it in a discriminating way. But I want to make a few points which come from my understanding of Frayn which explain the failure of this book.

The first is that this book is the consequence of a shambles - Frayn's mulling over the world for a great many years. So when, for example, he discusses some point of AI which has been obsolete for decades, or a Chomsky theory which he himself abandoned before the old queen died, this is, I suspect, because that his ideas came from that period. We happen to be reading them now.

The second is that this book undoubtedly reflects something Frayn talks about in Stage Directions - he found it very hard to go back to novels after working as a dramatist for a long period because writing plays was writing in a highly disciplined limited way, whereas novel writing was like open countryside compared with the city. Limitless. He found it necessary to create ways to give the novel limits. One can see that, for example, in one of my favourites, The Trick of It. In this context, what could be more unbounded, less able to be disciplined, than the subject of The Human Touch?

The third is that Frayn - and again this comes from reading Stage Directions - is obsessed with the notion of the audience and in particular with is ability to change the thing it is watching. Nothing is objective. The meaning of everything and anything comes from its audience.

Rest is here:


http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-human-touch-by-michael...

I can't imagine reading this book, having lived through Manny's reading of it. It was awful, having to listen to him talk about how completely Frayn had misunderstood everything in science and philosophy he talked about. When he did come to actual interesting content by Frayn he couldn't stand the round about, waffling way in which he wrote, peppering everything with asides which were sometimes entertaining and generally irrelevant. Somehow Bill Bryson writing mostly of irrelevancies is okay, but not Frayn. Maybe he isn't good enough a writer.

Having started this book some years ago, I am certainly never going to read it now. I don't have the discerning eye resulting from knowledge of the fields to be able to read it in a discriminating way. But I want to make a few points which come from my understanding of Frayn which explain the failure of this book.

The first is that this book is the consequence of a shambles - Frayn's mulling over the world for a great many years. So when, for example, he discusses some point of AI which has been obsolete for decades, or a Chomsky theory which he himself abandoned before the old queen died, this is, I suspect, because that his ideas came from that period. We happen to be reading them now.

The second is that this book undoubtedly reflects something Frayn talks about in Stage Directions - he found it very hard to go back to novels after working as a dramatist for a long period because writing plays was writing in a highly disciplined limited way, whereas novel writing was like open countryside compared with the city. Limitless. He found it necessary to create ways to give the novel limits. One can see that, for example, in one of my favourites, The Trick of It. In this context, what could be more unbounded, less able to be disciplined, than the subject of The Human Touch?

The third is that Frayn - and again this comes from reading Stage Directions - is obsessed with the notion of the audience and in particular with is ability to change the thing it is watching. Nothing is objective. The meaning of everything and anything comes from its audience.

Rest is here:


http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-human-touch-by-michael...

I can't imagine reading this book, having lived through Manny's reading of it. It was awful, having to listen to him talk about how completely Frayn had misunderstood everything in science and philosophy he talked about. When he did come to actual interesting content by Frayn he couldn't stand the round about, waffling way in which he wrote, peppering everything with asides which were sometimes entertaining and generally irrelevant. Somehow Bill Bryson writing mostly of irrelevancies is okay, but not Frayn. Maybe he isn't good enough a writer.

Having started this book some years ago, I am certainly never going to read it now. I don't have the discerning eye resulting from knowledge of the fields to be able to read it in a discriminating way. But I want to make a few points which come from my understanding of Frayn which explain the failure of this book.

The first is that this book is the consequence of a shambles - Frayn's mulling over the world for a great many years. So when, for example, he discusses some point of AI which has been obsolete for decades, or a Chomsky theory which he himself abandoned before the old queen died, this is, I suspect, because that his ideas came from that period. We happen to be reading them now.

The second is that this book undoubtedly reflects something Frayn talks about in Stage Directions - he found it very hard to go back to novels after working as a dramatist for a long period because writing plays was writing in a highly disciplined limited way, whereas novel writing was like open countryside compared with the city. Limitless. He found it necessary to create ways to give the novel limits. One can see that, for example, in one of my favourites, The Trick of It. In this context, what could be more unbounded, less able to be disciplined, than the subject of The Human Touch?

The third is that Frayn - and again this comes from reading Stage Directions - is obsessed with the notion of the audience and in particular with is ability to change the thing it is watching. Nothing is objective. The meaning of everything and anything comes from its audience.

Rest is here:


http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-human-touch-by-michael...

I enjoyed the beginning of this more than the end. He starts out by giving a very understandable critique of modern physics. What it's about, where it seems to be going, and whether it makes any difference to the rest of us. It was clear to me that he follows physics better than I do, although I do try to read about advances.

Eventually he moves into the area of language. Here I can follow him more knowledgeably, and agree with most of his points. I wish he had wasted less time disagreeing with Chomsky. I first read Chomsky several decades ago, and quickly came to the same conclusions Frayn does - There is no way of proving it one way or the other, and even if we could prove it true, it only moves the problem one stage further away. So say that once or twice, and then ignore him. Other than that I enjoyed listening to someone with wonderful language skills thinking about language.

Finally he moves to the area of 'self'. Here he gives a good description of the problem, but as he has no answer, he could have stopped at that and left a better impression on the reader. The last few chapters are just painful repetition.

It does occur to me that the whole point of Copenhagen was repetition. He got away with it there, brilliantly. But here it doesn't work. ( )