<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: ignorant, vile, and deeply flawed attack on sociobiology
Review: Full disclosure: I made it halfway through the book before I couldn't take any more (this after a very well-written and encouraging Introduction).Robinson has an axe to grind, and she conjures up a straw man idea called "Darwinists". These unnamed Darwinists are claimed to believe certain things, mostly outrageous, and without a footnote or even bibliographical reference to be seen. This Darwinist she conjures is in fact based on leftist and behaviorist mythology. To take one quote - "Characteristically, however, Darwinists, like primitive economists [another straw man -SC] assume that what is humane [in short, altruism - SC] is unnatural, and therefore wrong". Unfortunately Robinson is the only one falling into the naturalistic fallacy trap (which she uses to slander her imagined foes) - that what is natural must be good. Please present me one respected biologist or economist who thinks this way. They categorically do not exist. In fact if you pick up any Dawkins, EO Wilson, Robert Wright, Pinker, etc etc - all are very careful (due to straw men like Robinson's, no doubt), to spell out that one should not draw the conclusion that what is natural is good. I.e. don't confuse "is" with "ought". And don't draw the conclusion that just because something is made statisically more likely by genetic influence, that it's 100% inevitable, or that it in any way justifies or removes responsibility from actual behavior. Evolved tendency to rape is a good example - yes this is likely to be part of the genome, however actually carrying out the act in the face of strong cultural rules and the brain's built-in prudence mechanism in no way removes individual responsibility for the act. Appreciating the facts and likelihoods, whether positive or negative, can shed insight into human behavior, social problems, and public policy. I don't see what's so bad about that. Robinson continues her argument. She almost exclusively uses Darwin's Origin of Species (which I suspect is all she's read, though again we really don't know due to the absence of bibliography). Her arguments against the theory are embarrasingly wrong and uninformed. For instance she says the theory can't account for social behavior among animals - a common mistake of novices (see kin selection, reciprocal altrusim). She repeatedly tries to discredit the theory using guilt by association. Associated with social darwinism, eugenics, Hitler. No doubt this is the motivation for her diatribe in the first place. Robinson apparently doesn't like the idea of darwinian selection, and its parallels in economic competition. She sees it as celebrating the selfish - selfish genes are a fact, but no scientist or economist to my knowledge has interpreted this to be therefore a moral virtue (in fact the opposite is true - many of them view it as something close to evil). But given all that, what does she expect scientists to do? Because they unearth evidence that selection didn't always favor that which is virtuous, they ought to pretend like the science is wrong? Ulimately, rhetorical, citation-free attack on science isn't worth much, and it's probably my fault for even indulging her a for a few chapters. If you have any comments, please email me at sgcjr at yahoo dot com. I just hope no one who's genuinely open-minded draws any conclusions about the state of biology based on this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful
Review: I found the book remarkable, and I am not now religiously observant in the least. Wonderful, clear prose. Sensible. Modulated. A word of caution:
Do NOT lend this book to anyone. You will never get it back.
Rating:
Summary: Marilynne Robinson is brilliant
Review: If you've been wondering what Sylvie has been up to these many years, wonder no more. The introduction alone is worth the price of the book--a humbling lesson in how much care is needed in using a language.
Rating:
Summary: Still Reeling
Review: My girlfriend loved Housekeeping (I never read it or even heard of it until recently) so I bought this to please her and because it looked interesting. I finished it two days ago, blown away, still reeling from the powerful intellect and moral arguments and passion Robinson brings to all her essays. She is at once fresh, direct, brilliant, dismissive of commonly accepted notions (and a helluva lot of other things), persuasive, thorough in her reasoning, a painter of dark times, and a light that shines through the dangerous triviality that pervades our global culture. I can't say enough about this book and, quite frankly, it's changing me even as I write this, as I know I need to react to it in an immediate way, but am as yet unsure how to do so. It's a highly "christian" book in many ways, at times heavily so, not in a doctrineaire way, but as the history of this country, the history of John Calvin (Jean Cauvin), the history of abolitionists and the opposition church of Nazi Germany, as moral/philosophical ethic. Her critique of "Darwinism" (and Nietzche and Freud) is both fascinating and chilling, and incredibly brilliant. (Her discussion of the Scopes trial is worth the price of the book alone.) Her dismissive put-downs of contemporary scholarship is witty, poignant and devastating, and when she gets too high on her high horse, she cuts herself down with a similarly poignant, self-depracating, remark. She often paints a bleak picture of today's world as it heads inevitably towards calamity and horrific climax, but the truth of her thought and writing creates just enough optimism so you don't end up feeling complete despair. I did find myself wishing she had written an essay or two of ideas on how to head out of our both individual and collective mess, if only because she comes across as so thoughtful, intelligent and possessive of grace that I would appreciate listening to them. I think, ultimately, any ideas about genuine alternative possibilities to the "global economic" cultural road we head down each and every day are tied up with her example - her approach to history, the directness, forcefulness and moral passion of her writing, and her belief in a moral ethic, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. An incredible book. Anyone who is remotely a serious thinker and wants some fresh ideas, buy this one. You may not be interested in all her topics, but you'll be in the grip of a terrific thinker, scholar and writer, and you will have discovered a real gem. I will reread this book and its various essays numerous times as I try to find a moral compass to guide myself in this world, and to give myself strength in facing our mass culture inanity as it spirals towards Lord knows where.
Rating:
Summary: A Presbyterian Summa
Review: This book reminds me of two of my favorite films.
First, the world of "A River Runs through It"...
Robinson writes, "The families of both my parents settled and established themselves in the northern mountains, where there is a special sweetness in the light..."
Second, the protagonist of "True Grit"...
Robinson writes, "There were people whose loss could hardly be borne no matter the years that passed, and whose names were spoken rarely, and then softly, with rue and grief -- Steven and Lewis and the precious Virgie, a woman or girl I have mourned my whole life in the absence of all particulars, just for the way they said her name."
Change "Virgie" to "Mattie" here and you have "True Grit" -- two words that summarize Presbyterian values.
<< 1 >>
| 
