Manny RaynerRecensioni

I once read a book of reviews of imaginary books. It was undoubtedly a weird idea but was worthwhile so far as I remember it - very philosophical. I think it was by [a:Stanislaw Lem|7132279|Stanislaw Lem|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66-251a730d696018971ef4a443cdeaae05.jpg].

What I'm about to do seems a lot weirder, though: Review on Goodreads a book of Goodreads reviews (of real books). I should say I was offered a free copy by the author who, according to the foreword thinks I'm "wonderful" despite the fact that our primary mode of interaction is arguing about such nonsense as the Strong Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design, Mathematical Platonism and the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics where-in I take a robust scientific position and the author has a bad habit of sloping off to a Solipsist position when he's losing... It should also be noted that the author also takes perverse pleasure in quoting negative and insulting portions of people's reviews of his review collections...

So on to the book, which is divided into themed sections. My favourite was "Life on Goodreads" where-in gentle fun is poked at the foibles of Goodreaders; foibles that I would really like to say I'm not guilty of. I'd be lying if I did, though...

Also on display are many reviews that consist of more or less bizarre and fanciful pastiches of the books they purport to review. These can be entertainingly witty but also tend to be incomprehensible if one has not actually read the book in question. All the "Life on Goodreads" reviews are also pretty much useless for conventional purposes i.e. helping people decide if they want to read the book under review. Some reviews are at best tangentially relevant anecdotes about the author's life. Given the popularity of Rayner on Goodreads, it is therefore abundantly clear that this conventional type of review is not the only kind that Goodreaders appreciate.

Why would anyone (pay to) read this book? Well it used to be that they were all available for free on Goodreads so the only answers would be because either 1) you expect to be web-challenged for a time and need to feed your addiction or 2) you are blatantly stupid. The author has, however, now truncated these reviews on the website thus forcing those nutty enough to buy a copy of the book. I think this is known as "Marketing."

Rayner, when he offered me a copy, expressed interest in my views on the "Science" section, which focuses on cosmology/astronomy/fundamental physics and the relationship between science and religion, and suggested I might perceive a pattern. Well I noted two things, neither of which are what I was supposed to, I expect. The first is that Rayner clearly knew more at the end of the section than at the beginning, the reviews being set in chronological order of reading by the reviewer. The second is much more important (and something I had already concluded): Pop science books are almost all rubbish. Expanding on this, I believe the following:

Many of the better ones are in fact history books and don't try to tackle cutting edge science. Most of the best pop science books are written by genuine scientists but this is no guarantee of quality. The average standard of pop science book has deteriorated over time. Most contemporary pop science books show an alarming lack of impartiality, self criticality or even distinction between what is hypothesis and what is theory and what is controvercial and what is not. Many of the authors of them couldn't explain clearly the sum of 1 and 1, let alone cutting edge scientific concepts.

Now, given that I say that Rayner knew more at the end than the beginning how can I be claiming all this? Well, because he has read widely not just one book and has read critically, i.e. noting contradictions, logical flaws, weight of evidence presented and so forth. This is the only way to do it and applies just as much to actual scientists in professional life as to anyone else.

A phenomenon well known to psychologists is that people tend to believe the first thing they hear about a topic, so if you read Dawkins' Selfish Gene you are very likely to believe Dawkins when some-one presents counter arguments. On the other hand if you'd read Eldredge's Re-inventing Darwin you'd be more likely to believe the Gould-Eldredge camp. This is a difficult problem to overcome, as can be seen easily on Goodreads where numerous ill-informed people who've read (only) one book on a subject take it as some kind of Divine Revelation that is Obviously and In-arguably True. How to overcome this problem? Never buy pop science books one at a time; always take the time to find two books with contrasting views and read them back-to-back. That'll help but don't stop there; read widely on the subject, as Rayner has. Make a conscious effort to keep an open mind and find the flaws on both sides of the argument. Put the effort in - it's unavoidable if you want to be respected by others when discussing the subject - whatever it might be - because the above doesn't just apply to one area of science publishing - it applies to every area I've read myself.

Here are two examples of pop science done well; neither is an easy read and one of them is extremely tough going but both show how it should be done, bending over backwards to be fair to opposing views and pointing out all the flaws in their own theories:

[b:The Origin of Species|22463|The Origin of Species|Charles Darwin|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1298417570s/22463.jpg|481941]
[b:The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe|10638|The Road to Reality A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe|Roger Penrose|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320528862s/10638.jpg|1077395]

Mainly I wish to apologise to the author for my failure to get publishers to take this up. It deserves better, but publishers these days are scaredy cats.

To be fair, so are readers. The publisher and their target customer both want books that have a hashsign on the front cover. The Adventures of Something #8. Ugggh.

Unfortunately the author has decided to turn this into an ebook. Evidently one in ten or so copies of ebooks are bought and the rest are taken without being paid for, let's call that theft. That being the case, I can only hope that nine million copies of it are stolen.

The completely disinterested opinion of the proofreader.

Not.

**********

In case anybody other than me is interested in the production process, a few comments on what you get from Lulu.

I was expecting something rather amateurish that looked like it had been done in somebody's back room. But leaving aside the fact that you can't get section sewn books, which is my strong preference, the finished product is excellent. You never know with perfect bound books, the name belies the facts, sometimes they fall apart instantaneously, sometimes they last 'for ever'. Having looked now at a few samples for proofing purposes, I'd say these will last quite well.

They have printing facilities in the US, the UK, Australia and France, so their shipping charges are local for the major English speaking parts of the world and this means it is quite quick to get copies. Oddly, ordering from Switzerland, the copies came from the US.

It is incredibly convenient, of course, only having to print copies to order. Of the many books I've seen through the production process, only one of mine ended up in my back room and luckily it sold out very quickly. Otherwise it is an expensive investment on the way in and soul-destroying on the way out to do economical print runs.

On the other hand. The per unit print price of a book like this, if a real printer did, say, 1000 copies would be $3. At Lulu, the print price is about $12. That seems like it doesn't leave so much for the author, but don't forget, generally if your book is printed by a real printer, it has had a real publisher and the author will only get about 5% of the retail price of the book as his payment. So even at Lulu the author is still doing better than with a publisher middleman.

I think that there are some fantastic reviewers on goodreads and their work merits publishing. You are all writing about books all the time. If this material doesn't warrant finding its way into book form, I'd like to know why!

Thoughts while reading this.

p. 3 Well, I've been getting the smallest idea of SLT over the last months, but I mean small. I only just know where the on/off switch is on my computer, so my perspective is of somebody completely ignorant.

The first thing that comes to mind, reading the introduction, is what an incredibly difficult, ambitious thing it is, SLT. I'm sure the authors do not oversell it when they say, p. 2 that if it could fulfill all its aims it would transform human society.

The second thing is that this book was written in 2000 and, as far as I can see, not revised for the 2007 edition. Surely much must have changed. And surely the resources of larger computers make an ongoing difference?

It must be incredibly frustrating to be in fields where one is waiting, waiting, waiting for what is ongoingly inevitable, the increasing power of computers that will permit progress. To have to wait for technology to catch up with ideas. Oh dear.

The next thing I find myself thinking, when the authors discuss the need for accuracy, is the difference between a human translator and a computer. I wonder if an important aspect of intelligent translation is that a human, having made a mistake, may well soon enough recognise and correct it in whatever way might be appropriate.

Can SLT do that? Is this something it would need deep reasoning capability to achieve? Is it possible? It seems to me that however accurate one hopes to make the system, the possibility of being able to recognise mistakes would be a great asset.

Well. Food for thought as I cook dinner. All my technology is up to the task, I'm so lucky.

A couple of days later...

By p. 6 (!) I thought I was on a roll....but suddenly, as you read p. 6, your eyes are disconcertingly drawn to p. 7. They hit you with something that made me get out my garlic necklace, worn as a rule only when reading Manny's Stephanie Meyer reviews. Little did I know it would come in handy for a science text book. So, I put on my garlic necklace and anything else I hope will ward off evil. Dear reader, you are probably already thinking 'oh no, not -' Yes, I'm afraid so. It's a flow chart. My eyes glaze over and I dare say yours too.

Now, my attitude when I picked up this book was to do it properly. The authors wanted me to read a flow chart, I'd damn well read it, if it killed me. Back in a bit.

8 hours, 16 cups of tea and 5 scones later, I have a pain in my stomach. It's this $%#&@ chart. So, I've tried. Honestly I tried. But it is time to move on. And then I discover something that wll make life easier for the rest of you. The flow chart is explained in words. Ladies and gentlemen, I am back in business.

This is a terrible book and you shouldn’t buy it.

Did you know the author eats his snot with orange jelly?

Ugggh. That is so disgusting.

Who eats orange jelly?

Anyway, if you do decide to buy his book, don’t get the signed copies. The unsigned ones come straight from Lulu. Or, if you HAVE to have a signed copy, make a note in your order that you want it signed by somebody else.

He doesn’t wash his hands properly if you ask me either.

Update:

The reason you missed this review when it first came out was that Manny who lives on goodreads, probably because the sex is no good at home, immediately flagged it on grounds of inaccurate information about the author. He told them he’d given up eating orange jelly.

It’s not true. He does so still.

So I’m putting this back up and I suggest you all read it and vote for it as soon as you can, before he flags it and it is taken down again. Surely Manny should get more votes than David Irving. Especially now that you have discovered the truth about him.

NGE: Fearlessly fighting for free speech on goodreads. Somebody has to do it properly.

---------------------

Oh. There is this too.

http://pioneerbooks.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/writing-the-book-publishing-the-mod...

My review follows.

This is a terrible book and you shouldn’t buy it.

Did you know the author eats his snot with orange jelly?

Ugggh. That is so disgusting.

Who eats orange jelly?

Anyway, if you do decide to buy his book, don’t get the signed copies. The unsigned ones come straight from Lulu. Or, if you HAVE to have a signed copy, make a note in your order that you want it signed by somebody else.

He doesn’t wash his hands properly if you ask me either.

Update:

The reason you missed this review when it first came out was that Manny who lives on goodreads, probably because the sex is no good at home, immediately flagged it on grounds of inaccurate information about the author. He told them he’d given up eating orange jelly.

It’s not true. He does so still.

So I’m putting this back up and I suggest you all read it and vote for it as soon as you can, before he flags it and it is taken down again. Surely Manny should get more votes than David Irving. Especially now that you have discovered the truth about him.

NGE: Fearlessly fighting for free speech on goodreads. Somebody has to do it properly.

---------------------

Oh. There is this too.

http://pioneerbooks.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/writing-the-book-publishing-the-mod...

My review follows.

With The New Adventures of Socrates - An Extravagance, Manny Rayer lights a fire for bold seekers of Beauty, Truth and Virture by reinvigorating Plato's dialogues with interlocutors such as Isaac Asimov, Kurt Gödel, Richard Dawkins, John Cleese, Willy Wonka, Madonna and George W. Bush.

Here's the framework: each chapter offers a snatch of reworked Platonic dialogue hitting a theme or two or three featuring a number of those new interlocutors - Bertrand Russell, Hugh Hefner, David Hume and other well-knowns. Then Manny steps back and shares a quick “But seriously” paragraph, observing how we as readers might question the line of reasoning presented in the dialogue. Twenty-two of Plato's dialogues are handled thusly within three main branches of Western Philosophy: 1) Beauty: Ion, Charmides, Lysis, Phaedrus, The Symposium 2) Truth: Euthydemus, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Timaeus, Critias, Parmenides, Sophist 3) Virtue: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthyphro, Gorgias, The Republic, Philebus, Statesman, Apology, Laws. Also sprinkled throughout the pages are a batch of amusing illustrations created by a first-rate artist who has chosen to remain anonymous. Drats! I wish I had this insightful little book back when I was in college studying philosophy. Such a perfect resource to accompany Plato's actual words.

Turning to the individual dialogues, let’s take a look at Ion, the first of Plato's works covered in the book. Here we have a short piece where Socrates probes the nature of the arts by asking a reciter of Homer if his skill derives from sound knowledge based on reason or if it is more a matter of divine possession. The young rhapsode flounders from beginning to end and admits to Socrates he doesn’t really have a clue about the subjects covered by Homer and his love of the poet is a kind of madness.

Manny’s Ion is round two where the rhapsode revisits the subject after speaking with an expert of the novels written by J. K. Rowling. He tells Socrates his knowledge of Homer, like his friend’s knowledge of Harry Potter, is within the realm of fiction and has nothing to do with the actual nuts-and-bolts of things like shipbuilding or weaponry or battle strategy, topics contained within Homer’s poetry.

Manny expands on this point, how Plato’s position in the short dialogue speaks of his general distrust of poets and artists since the foundation of their knowledge refuses to be boiled down into clear categories of logic and reason. Thus, as elaborated in both the Republic and Laws, Plato wants the arts, especially things like poetry and tragedy, to be tightly controlled. Considering, for example, all the ultra-violent films churned out in an ultra-violent country like the United States, questions of control and censorship of the arts are as alive today as they were back in ancient Greece.

With The Symposium (translated into English as the drinking party), we are treated to an Oprah show when she invites Socrates and Jesus along with five panelists to vote on the most spiritual book of all time, either Plato’s famous dialogue or The Sermon on the Mount. Among the panelists are Paul McCartney (All You Need is Love), Richard Dawkins (love is the concrete expression of a negative feedback loop) and Sarah Palin making about as much sense a Sarah usually makes. As per Manny:

“PALIN: Well Oprah. I’m afraid I’m not as imaginative as Richard. I’m just a regular small-town girl with regular small town values, and I was brought up readin’ the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye when men shall revile, you, smaller government, lower taxes, support Israel, no to-
OPRAH: Is that all in the Sermon on the Mount, Sarah?
PALIN: Maybe not in those exact words. But it’s there. And you can bet your boots I’m not votin’ for a liberal type who hangs around with a bunch of guys what’re openly tryin’ to get into his--"

Manny’s version follows the same format as The Symposium, different participants sit around and share their views on the nature of love, but alas, those ancient Greeks didn’t have the advantage of someone like Sarah Palin since, as a first step to serious philosophizing, they sent all the women off to play flutes. Incidentally, I see absolutely no common ground between Sarah's piffling poopstickery and Diotima's graceful observations on the nature of love.

As Manny points out, Timaeus was the most influential of Plato’s texts all through the medieval period. Unlike other Platonic dialogues where Socrates interrupts speakers to ask questions, Timaeus is, in effect, an extended lecture by the mathematician Timaeus on the structure of the universe. Perhaps predictably, since Timaeus based his knowledge not on scientific observation (information from our senses is unreliable) but on abstract reasoning, nearly everything he says has turned out to be wrong.

But have no fear – in Manny’s reworked dialogue the ancient mathematician presents the updated, second edition of his mapping out the structure of the universe after conversing with experts in the philosophy of science. Timaeus appears on TED talk with none other than Leonard Susskind, a prominent American physicist at the forefront of string theory. Now Timaeus, still confident in the superiority of abstract reasoning over the examination of actual physical evidence, maintains perfection is not to be found in the sphere as he once thought, but in “Nothing.” He goes on to cite how Leonard Susskind and other string theorists agree the eye of the mind has it all over the messy evidence of the senses. Do you sense a little Manny Rayner irony here?

Manny’s rendition of Laches, the Platonic dialogue addressing the nature of courage features Socrates discussing this important subject with none other than that Yale educated Texas intellectual George W. Bush. Each exchange is laugh-out-loud funny, considering how W. assumes as both a Texan and former commander-in-chief he is, by definition, always 100% right. And a non-Texan who would stuff his head with a lowly subject like philosophy can only be a dunce, miles away from Texas truth.

But seriously, Manny leans on his experience as a seasoned chess player that what might be judged a courageous action is not necessarily all that clear cut. There are times when boldly forging ahead, launching an attack or counterattack is exactly the wrong thing to do. Such is the complexity of both life and chess – just ask the many intermediate chess players lured into attacking only to find the master has set a trap resulting in a quick checkmate.

I’ve touched on only a few dialogue to give readers a brief glimpse of what gems they will uncover here. Again, Manny’s little book would be the perfect companion for students taking their first philosophy course or those folks with a bit more background in the subject. Either way, an enlightening, engaging and entertaining read.


Manny Rayner, Born 1958

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
Cervantes said to be is to do
Descartes said to do is to be
Manny à la Sinatra said 'Doo be doo be doo'

All alehouses - not good for the tadpoles !

There is a skill to thinking (and writing) in accordance with philosophical principles. Aristotle was correct; it is a universal interest and people philosophise, often elegantly and with complexity all the time; it's just the language they use to describe it isn't the philosophical jargon of a lecture hall, and it is in fact expressed through (and disguised in) the things we call sex and gossip.

I had a teacher in college who used to say: "Filosofia é algo que fazemos quando nos fartámos da fatiga dos especialistas" (Philosophy is something you do when you have tired of expert fatigue.) Does "The New Adventures of Socrates" teach you about Utilitarianism (share the sandwiches around), or about Epicureanism (don't fear the exams), or about Stoicism (put up with poor teaching), or Existentialism (do your own thing), or Postmodern philosophy (this lesson isn't real)? Nope. A la Schopenhauer it implies (my reading): "Forget the sandwiches, exams, and lesson, 'cos we're all doomed anyway."

I like the part where he applies to be the Advertising Sales Director for Goodreads.

MANNY IS A FUCKING VOTE WHORE!!!!!!!

THERE! I SAID IT!!!!!

Never in my life I seen a more desperate attempt to get votes!!!!


He took vote whoring to a whole new level!!! He wrote a book to take you from the real world and drag you to the online world and vote for him!!!!!! What a bitch!!!!




Little known fact! Do any of ya’ll know that I’m forbidden to mass vote for Manny! One at the time it’s cool! But no mass voting!!! it has never bother me! Cuz fuck! The day I was about to mass vote his ass and drop a few thousand bounds on him I was asked by a friend not to! And the friend is cool people! So I promised not to ever ever do so!


It always made me wonder tho… why people hate Manny so much!???? And I*
Finally figured out why! Because he smarter than us!


GOD DAMN!!!!! THIS MOTHER FUCKER IS A NERD!!!!!!!!


I have never in my life seen such level of devotion to the little details that make a book a book! I’m not going to hide behind my usual wall of “I don’t know how to express myself” today! It is really simple! The level of nerd love that Manny drops on his parodies makes me think of a Simon Pegg movie! Or Seth Green and Matthew Senreich work on Robot Chicken! There is no other way to describe it! Its fun! Its smart! Its sexy! It takes pop cultural elements and make fun of them in a non-crude/mean manner! This part its going to be hard to explain! But I’ma try!!!!


I FUCKING LOVE MANNY’S PARODIES!!! The way he interacts with the characters and writers! The way he plays around with the plot elements and writing styles! His fictional discussion between crappy authors and good authors that said crappy authors think they honoring in their writing… the way he don’t seen to be taking himself so seriously! How he recognize his vote addiction and its not afraid to show it! His love for chess!!! His lack of understanding of the gamer mind! The way he even have his own fictional creation pawn his ass on a discussion almost made me fall of my chair laughing! His plays are fucking brilliant too!!!! Yo Manny! Remember your stuff white people like!? Turns out I ain’t white!!! You think that’s why I oppose the voting system the way I do!?

Still! Back to the book!!!


This is a must read!!!! And yet it promotes something I fucking hate!!! The goodreads voting system (which I have tried to destroy in several ocations!) now I find myself in the middle of fucked up paradox!!! I want to go find some of the reviews and vote for them and discuss them with Manny! But I hate the voting system! I want to make some reviews inspired by his parodies! But I hate getting votes!!! I want to go vote for him in mass! But there in a oath in the middle!!!! Dear god! My life is so sad!!!!!!


Still! Manny! My brother from another mother!!!!!! Thank you so much for this book! I honestly enjoyed to no end!


Also! It turns out that creating a different person inside your head and talking with it and losing arguments to it its not normal… either that or everyone I asked is laying to me!!!! And you and I are the only ones who do it!!!



*and by “I” I mean Esteban told me!

Goodreads, and GRers themselves, fundamentally inspire the reading of books and the writing of reviews and the interactions that occur as a result of the collisions of both. The variations that inspiration engenders could probably be calculated using non-linear mathematics by the author of this speculative fiction piece given his prodigious applied and theoretical background in computing science, his achievements in chess, and his other publications.

This collection of reviews is, in part, the author's attempt to demonstrate concretely the reviewing styles available to the reader, should he or she choose to depart from the orthodoxy. While it is not a how-to Emannuel per se, it does contain explicit examples of the more popular adumbrations that abound. However, the author has failed to incorporate an increasingly popular trend emerging from various regions which employs the counterbalance of adopted melodies to emphasise, or even explicate, the value of the work being appraised. This should not detract either the casual observer or the interested scholar from approaching Pooh as a useful tool in self-expression; on the contrary, it can aid in both the germination and release of new ideas, methodologies for analysis, and general pontification on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

In summary:

THE EURHYTHMICS: Love is a Stranger*

Reviews like a stranger in the world of books
To tempt you in and lead you far away
Reviews like a stranger in the world of books
To tempt you in and whirl you far away

And you read them, and you read them, and you read them here's a confession
And you read them, and you read them, and you read them it's an obsession

Reviews are a danger of a viral kind
To seduce your senses and manipulate your mind
And books, books, books are a dangerous drug
You have to imbibe them and you still can't to-be-read enough

They're savage and they're cruel and they shine like destruction
They're an inferno and a deluge and they create their own religion
They're noble and they're brutal, they distort and derange
They drench you in thought and leave you in carnage.

And you read them, and you read them, and you read them it's an obsession

Reviews guilt edged, glamorous and sleek by design
Reviewers fabulous by nature, riotous and wild
They dazzle and they drain you and it's totally cruel
They touch you and tease as you wander through the melee.

And you read them, and you read them, and you read them here's a confession
And you read them, and you read them, and you read them it's an obsession.

*source material

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this review, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

My fellow CCLaP book reviewer Karl Wolff and I were having a discussion just the other day about the following subject -- that given what a wealth of original critical writing is being generated on a daily basis these days from pro-am critics at places like Amazon, Shelfari, LibraryThing, Netflix and IMDB, it's perplexing that more people aren't collecting up their essays in smart ways and releasing them as books, and trying to monetize a little all that effort they put into their online reviews throughout the year, in a way that's a lot more satisfying than simply rattling a virtual tip jar at every opportunity. Take for example ultra-popular Goodreads.com member Manny Rayner, who recently decided to do just that, gather up his hundred or so most popular write-ups based around such section topics as children's lit, foreign language, classics, experimental, etc., and release it as an ebook and print-on-demand paper volume at Amazon, since it costs literally no upfront money at all to do either. And the result is the delightful What Pooh Might Have Said to Dante, exactly what you expect it to be, a fun and smart callback to the days in the '70s when Pauline Kael and Fran Liebowitz were cranking out full-length books of their erudite reviews once a year as well, nothing essential for one's library but a great little collection to own, especially (forgive me, Manny) as a particularly well-timed bathroom book for hipster intellectuals. I think more online critics should be releasing books just like this one, so let Rayner's success be an object lesson for you all, that there are ways to potentially make a few hundred dollars a year from something you're doing for free already, without having to constantly beg for donations.

Out of 10: 9.0