Comment This book is not worth reading (Score 1) 68
It appears I am the lone dissenter. But, I read this book about 2 months ago - and then immediately re-read it (to give it another chance) and it sucked both times!
Let me explain (this is going to be a longish post).
As fiction:
1) The plot twists are contrived. They detract from the force of the book which seemed to me to be the treament of various themes (love, success, family) from the particular vantage point academic physics. A noble intention, that we cannot focus on because Goldstein thinks physics is not interesting enough. She has to ply us w/ rhetorical tricks (like mysteries) to keep our interest. Pissed me off!
play w/ form and content - that is great - but don't cheapen it by making it some sort of mystery. Discuss it - analysize - this book obviously is trying to be postmodern - go whole hog!
Want to read a good book that integrates form w/ content a la QM go to Schrodinger's Cat (Robert Anton Wilson, although really does not give much an account of the physics). OR see Copenhagen (Frayn sp?) - the choregraphy and light effects is one of the most elegent treatments of form and content relationships I have seen.
2) The male protagonist (Justin Childs) is one dimentional. If I have to read one more book about immature, solopistic, geeky X (where X is a thoughtful person) I am going to be ill! (and that Childs is unknowingly handsome does not help - lots of geeks are attrative, here it seem, though, to be Goldstein's fantasy man). In support of Goldstein I will say that the supporting characters (in particular Child's parents) were facinating thumbnails.
As physics:
What Physics???
1) Really, aside from a cursory discussion of the problems w/ QM and Relativity, there was not much physics here. How disappointing. Example - psi: she begins the olympia physics prof asking what psi (see jon katz's intro) She does not give this question any meaning though. She does not discuss the actual scientific problem w/ interpreting psi as energy or probability. The notion of waves and encoding information (quantum computing)- the distinction between the formality of mathematics and the possible content filled world of QM (Childs is a mathematical physist). Don't get excited Goldstein does none of this.
In her hands physics is shallow and meaningless.
The reader is tempted to disregard the olympia prof as a one-dimentional (again) quack. Which seems to be Goldstein's intention, but based on false information she has provided (or concealed). The Olympia prof is disucssing a real physics problem, or even a real new age mumbo jumbo problem. We experience none of this however. Goldstein cannot illustrate that perhaps he is a physicist interested in the cosmic mysteries where as Childs is interested in the mathematical certainties.Why Not!??
One more point - Goldstein could discuss the mystical connotations of psi as well -psychic ability etc... or the etomological contructions of psi - leading to an interesting investigation of Eros and Psyche (see greek mythology)
This is just one example of the many facinating topics that Goldstein introduces, but does not elaborate on - What a tease!
She is just name dropping.
There are good books fiction books on physics - Einstein's Dreams is fascenating and riviting (Alan Lightman) - 'Properties of Light' is not.
So what was Goldstein trying to do? I don't know
perhaps illustrate that physists can love (have passion) too. (being snide) or sort of illustrate life as a gifted physicist - ok. But, this fails because she does not give any substative treatment of the physics she is using as a plot device.
Goldstein is a smart woman and qualified woman - Princeton PhD, macarthur grant - but does not manifest it in this book.
What ever she does - or thinks she is doing - she is not writing a good book. Don't waste your time or your shelf space.
And that is all I have to say about that.
MNF
Let me explain (this is going to be a longish post).
As fiction:
1) The plot twists are contrived. They detract from the force of the book which seemed to me to be the treament of various themes (love, success, family) from the particular vantage point academic physics. A noble intention, that we cannot focus on because Goldstein thinks physics is not interesting enough. She has to ply us w/ rhetorical tricks (like mysteries) to keep our interest. Pissed me off!
play w/ form and content - that is great - but don't cheapen it by making it some sort of mystery. Discuss it - analysize - this book obviously is trying to be postmodern - go whole hog!
Want to read a good book that integrates form w/ content a la QM go to Schrodinger's Cat (Robert Anton Wilson, although really does not give much an account of the physics). OR see Copenhagen (Frayn sp?) - the choregraphy and light effects is one of the most elegent treatments of form and content relationships I have seen.
2) The male protagonist (Justin Childs) is one dimentional. If I have to read one more book about immature, solopistic, geeky X (where X is a thoughtful person) I am going to be ill! (and that Childs is unknowingly handsome does not help - lots of geeks are attrative, here it seem, though, to be Goldstein's fantasy man). In support of Goldstein I will say that the supporting characters (in particular Child's parents) were facinating thumbnails.
As physics:
What Physics???
1) Really, aside from a cursory discussion of the problems w/ QM and Relativity, there was not much physics here. How disappointing. Example - psi: she begins the olympia physics prof asking what psi (see jon katz's intro) She does not give this question any meaning though. She does not discuss the actual scientific problem w/ interpreting psi as energy or probability. The notion of waves and encoding information (quantum computing)- the distinction between the formality of mathematics and the possible content filled world of QM (Childs is a mathematical physist). Don't get excited Goldstein does none of this.
In her hands physics is shallow and meaningless.
The reader is tempted to disregard the olympia prof as a one-dimentional (again) quack. Which seems to be Goldstein's intention, but based on false information she has provided (or concealed). The Olympia prof is disucssing a real physics problem, or even a real new age mumbo jumbo problem. We experience none of this however. Goldstein cannot illustrate that perhaps he is a physicist interested in the cosmic mysteries where as Childs is interested in the mathematical certainties.Why Not!??
One more point - Goldstein could discuss the mystical connotations of psi as well -psychic ability etc... or the etomological contructions of psi - leading to an interesting investigation of Eros and Psyche (see greek mythology)
This is just one example of the many facinating topics that Goldstein introduces, but does not elaborate on - What a tease!
She is just name dropping.
There are good books fiction books on physics - Einstein's Dreams is fascenating and riviting (Alan Lightman) - 'Properties of Light' is not.
So what was Goldstein trying to do? I don't know
perhaps illustrate that physists can love (have passion) too. (being snide) or sort of illustrate life as a gifted physicist - ok. But, this fails because she does not give any substative treatment of the physics she is using as a plot device.
Goldstein is a smart woman and qualified woman - Princeton PhD, macarthur grant - but does not manifest it in this book.
What ever she does - or thinks she is doing - she is not writing a good book. Don't waste your time or your shelf space.
And that is all I have to say about that.
MNF
