The brief overview that it gave to most disciplines in Science was appreciated - even how Bynum chose to visit dark chapters in Science History such as eugenics. It left me wanting to know more about the men and women who dedicated their life to asking the basic questions of our natural world.
How the Ancients held such an incredible view of our world and universe without the aid of modern technology. I also loved how they established so many foundational truths for others to build on - as Newton said "standing on the shoulders of giants."
The British accent helped provide a little sophistication to the reading.
No extreme reactions - just an even deeper appreciation for mankind's journey through science.
As the title suggests - and which is of no surprise - this book provides an excellent, but brief overview of the history of science. After reading other reviews, I noticed many people were unhappy with the length or subject matter so I guess I went into this one with lower expectations.
My background is in biology, so naturally I'd prefer to read more about the history of life sciences, but I thought Bynum did a fair job of mixing the physical and life sciences together. I was a bit surprised that he didn't go into much detail with geology, but I think in all fairness he wanted to stick to the general themes within physical and life sciences, including medicine.
My only complaint was that he didn't go too far into the golden age of microbiology. Naturally, by having a greater interest in the life sciences, I was eager to know more about the history and figures of that era. Bynum briefly mentioned spontaneous generation and I was let down that he never mentioned Francesco Redi's meat jar experiments. Instead he discussed Pasteur's broth/flask experiments, which became the final 'kick in the pants' to spontaneous generation.
Altogether, if Bynum would have wrote more about what everyone complained about leaving out, this quick read would've turned into a lengthy text book - giving people something else to complain about. I think this book served a great purpose.
Pros: a great overview of mankind's journey through science and why it is important.
Cons: a "for more reading on this topic" section after each chapter would've been nice.
Bottom line: a great read for anyone interested in getting the 10,000 foot perspective of science.
As for audiobook, maybe top twenty. The story was great, but the performance was a bit off. When the reader did the voice of Flagg he'd get real quiet and it would be hard to hear at times.
Probably one of the more obvious choices: Peter. He was obviously the hero of the story and underwent the classic movie plot where you love the lead, something happens to out the lead in detriment, the climax rises to the lead confronting those that did him in, and eventually coming out on top.
Stephen King wrote Peter in a very good light and made him enjoyable to have as a lead character.
I thought the performance was okay. There wasn't anything that I truly liked about it, but I did dislike his voice as Flagg. When he got real low into a whisper-like tone it made it difficult to hear what was being said.
Not really, but I guess in theory you could since it's only 10 hours. I don't have time to sit and listen to anything for 10 hours straight.
Excellent read - not too lengthy and was a self-contained story, even in Stephen King standards. Had I not known King wrote this story, I wouldn't have necessarily associated with his work. With that being said, I greatly enjoyed his refrain of nudity and cursing. I tend to find these things distracting in his other works.
Overall, I thought King's medieval take on a king's family and fight for the throne was well thought out, well written, and enjoyable. The characters were developed just enough to either love or loathe them and the plot was constructed in a way that made sense and kept the reader engaged.
I also enjoyed having Flagg as a primary character. Being a fan of King's Dark Tower series and also The Stand, it was great having the overlap. Also having the story set in Delain, which is set within the DT series was a nice touch.
My only complaint with the book would have to be how the 'narrator' keeps speaking to the reader. Things like "As I've already told you" or "I could keep going, but it is none of my business to tell" and the like. It was okay in different places, but at times just seemed a bit overkill and awkward.
Pros: Quick read and enjoyable.
Cons: The narrator's dialogue to the reader - could've done with out.
Bottom line: Fans of the DT would enjoy reading this story before The Gunslinger (DT Book I).
Yes - take out the elderly psychic vampires. Lose the vampires, or at least change them and the rest of the book is great.
I was left very pleased with the ending, and without going into details (or spoilers), it was a satisfying ending.
Will Patton did an okay/decent job. I felt like his voice was a bit old for what Danny's voice should've been. I'm guessing he was picked for the narration because he has a scruffy, ragged element to his voice that sounds like a recovering alcoholic; however I thought Danny's voice would've sounded about 20 years younger.
I did not like Patton's dialect for the grandmother. It wasn't very consistent and became distracting. He did the other female voices just fine - light and airy. He also did a good job when switching to the vampires, which is admirable that you can tell the POV just on the tone of his voice.
Yeah, I suppose. Matthew Broderick would probably be a pretty good Dan Torrence. I couldn't get a feel for how the vampires looked - most are all senior citizens, but the leader - Rose, was kinda hard to tell.
I wouldn't say King knocked it out of the park with "Doctor Sleep" but he certainly had a few base runs. I went into DS with high expectations after re-reading "The Shining" and unfortunately my hopes of this sequel slowly slid downhill.
To start of with the things I liked about DS, the first part of the book was riveting and held my attention. King did an excellent job bridging the events and time over from TS into DS. Daniel "Danny" Torrence was well developed and his story kept the reader engaged. I would even be willing to say the first half was very well done as we followed Danny around. It was up to the point where the psychic vampires were introduced where I began to lose interest and groan.
Going into the parts of the book I didn't like, I'll stick with information provided in any synopsis provided and steer clear of spoilers. Just by reading the dust jacket, you'll learn that Danny is contacted by a young girl that is being chased, or rather threatened by psychic vampires. That's right: psychic. vampires. Trust me, it's as lame as it sounds.
This group of psychic vampires also had a mix of X-Men quality super powers like the amazing ability to...wait for it...put people to sleep...hack the internet...sense and locate others. My only suggestion: if you're going to give psychic vampires super powers, why not throw in lasers shooting out of their eyeballs, controlling the weather - heck, even levitation and flying - at least that one would've been plausible when writing about vampires...I suppose. Then again we're talking about psychic vampires. Did I mention they're all senior citizens? That's right - they're old, mind reading vampires that travel the country in RV's sucking the steam out of children who also have psychic abilities...and yes, you read that correct - they suck steam, not blood. This is probably the lamest group of vampires I've ever read. They're even worse than Guillermo del Toro & Chuck Hogan's vampires in "The Strain" trilogy. Anyways, back to DS...
The leader of the pack walks around with a top hat, which I felt was out of place. Maybe it's a nod to the Bram Stocker era of vampires...I don't know. I thought the hat was stupid. King spent time describing a stupid top hat that sat at an odd angle on top of the leader's head which left me just as uninterested as before I knew she was wearing a top hat. If anything I was slightly annoyed because now they character just looked ridiculous. Then again we're talking about elderly, psychic vampires.
Another thing I didn't care for was a (light) twist near the end. I won't go into details and avoid any spoiler, but for some unknown reason I think King tossed it in thinking "They'll never see this coming" which just seemed strange. Maybe I overlooked a subtle point he was trying to make, and if so I apologize for ripping on his twist.
Back to another item I liked about the book - the little girl seeking Danny's help, Abra. As dumb as the name sounds (actually a name deserving of a character walking around in a stupid top hat), the character was excellent. She was likable, well-written, and one of the best parts of the story.
To wrap it up, I'd say the biggest feature of DS was King's plot device of psychic ability. If you read TS, you know that Danny's "shining" was a part of the book and not the full focus. On the flip side, DS exhaustively explores psychosis. If that sparks any interest, then you'll love DS. The best thing about TS for me was the ghosts, which DS was lacking.
I found it extremely interesting, too that King decided to tie TS & DS to his Dark Tower series. I didn't know that going into it, and as any King or DT fan will know, TS has never been directly linked to DT (although assumptions can be drawn in any of his books that they are related in some way). In DS, being a sequel to TS, King lays down a couple of threads that tie it to the DT universe. I thought that was very cool.
Pros: Getting to see how Danny turned our after the events at the Overlook Hotel in TS.
Cons: You probably guessed it - psychic, senior citizen vampires. The book would've been so much better without these characters.
Bottom line: Still a decent read if you've read and enjoyed "The Shining". Even if you hated "The Shining", you still might enjoy "Doctor Sleep" since it's almost a different kind of book. I also greatly appreciated the Dark Tower reference that has now tied both books to the DT universe.
Yes - excellent character development (and degeneration) and in my opinion one of the few titles that earned Stephen King the title of being a "horror writer." The book is a great length, where it never feels too short or too lengthy.
The gradual degradation of Jack Torrence and how the hotel sucked him in.
He did a great Jack Torrence, but not so good on his wife Wendy or Dick. He also did a pretty good job on Danny and Tony.
I'd probably take Dick Holleran since he was probably the most enjoyable, laid back character. I've known people like him growing up.
Probably one of the best works by Stephen King. In my opinion "The Shining" is one of the few books that gave King the title of being a "horror writer". I feel that most of King's books are actually more science fiction than horror; however others may disagree.
Many of the elements from "The Shining" are executed very well, such as the ghouls that haunt the Overlook hotel, Jack Torrence's degeneration, and the general fears that come with being a small child in an unruly family.
King does an excellent job blending the ghost encounters with Jack's reality. I also think the horror pieces such as the ghouls, hedge animals, and gore were done very well. They were done so well, I wish King would gravitate towards them more often rather than focus on sci-fi plot devices such as telepathy and time travel for starters.
"The Shining" is a piece of work that readers can visit time and time again and never get tired of reading. The length is perfect and the characters are consistently developed.
Pros: One of King's best pieces being nothing more than a family trying to survive in a haunted hotel.
Cons: King tended to reach far, far back into the character's life experiences which could have been abbreviated.
Bottom line: Excellent read and chilling.
Probably not...William Hurt is a great actor; however the production of "Hearts In Atlantis" was not good. I've listened to other books read by Stephen King and I felt that his performance of the other short stories was better than that of William Hurt.
Let Stephen King read the whole thing, or do a better production job of William Hurt reading the entire story.
The only story elements I would've changed would be to take the short story "Hearts In Atlantis" and make it third person rather than first person. The first person narrative made it feel more like a college kid's journal rather than a good story.
William Hurt's reading was distracting in many ways:
1. You could hear him breathing.
2. You could hear him breath in through his nose before starting new sections.
3. You could hear him start to run out of steam has he read through lines of sentences and then bumble along the next few words.
4. Sometimes it sound like spit was forming at the corners of his mouth and he'd have to wipe them away to keep reading.
5. He had awkward pauses at random places in the story.
6. It seemed like sometimes he'd have to lick his lips in between reading, which didn't help the story flow very well.
I don't know who to blame on that one, but it was very disappointing.
Um, I'm pretty sure they made a movie out of "Hearts In Atlantis" starring Anthony Hopkins, which was adapted from "Low Men In Yellow Coats."
Overall, I thought “Hearts In Atlantis” was okay. Being a collection of short-stories, it is easy to pick the ones that I liked and the ones that I didn’t. I did not grow in the sixties or Vietnam-era, so I think much of the ‘haunting, political’ aspects were lost on me. For example, two of the short stories deal directly with guys who came back from Vietnam and another short story deals with kids in college right as the Vietnam War was getting started. I probably would’ve appreciated much of the elements King played to in these short stories had I grown up in the 1960s.
Rather than give “Hearts In Atlantis” and overall rating, I’d rather treat each story on it’s own merits:
“Low Men In Yellow Coats” – excellent story! The characters were layered very well and the dialogue was great. Ted Brautigan was an interesting and original character that was fun to read about and enjoyable. The interactions between Ted and the story’s main character – Bobby Garfield – was incredibly structured, thought-out, and had a nice pace to it. Nothing seemed forced or unnatural between the two of them, which could be tricky when writing about the relationship between a boy and an old man without it coming off as being creepy. This was an excellent story and worth reading again.
“Hearts In Atlantis” – way too long and undeserving of carrying the book’s title. This short story was nothing more than reading a college kid’s journal, and not even the cool kid. This was the kid that retreated to his dorm room to play games with his small circle of friends. Maybe King was writing more from personal experience on this one, but I was bored getting through this story. Maybe it was the first person perspective telling the story, or just too long – either way I wasn’t a fan.
“Blind Willie” – this story was a bit confusing to get into since the character’s blindness comes and goes. All of the multiple personalities was a bit difficult to keep up with as well.
“Why We’re In Vietnam” – this story was lost on me as well, dealing with Vietnam veterans and playing back the war-time events. Even the ghost “mama-san” was a bit strange to me. This story was okay, I guess, but certainly no jewel.
“Heavenly Shades of Night are Falling” – bringing closure to “Low Men In Yellow Coats”, I thought this story ended the book quite nicely. It felt more like an epilogue, so the length and quality of story was nicely done.
I’m a huge fan of the Dark Tower series, so the DT elements were greatly appreciated – especially with “Low Men In Yellow Coats”. I’m glad King dedicated a good piece of DT to this short story without it being distracting, but just enough to hold ones interest.
Pros: Low Men In Yellow Coats is worth the read, even if you don’t finish the whole book, plus any fan to the Dark Tower series will appreciate it.
Cons: The remaining short stories dealing with Vietnam-era ideas, attitudes, and elements did not translate very well to someone who did not grow up at that time.
Bottom Line: The good thing about short story collections is that you can easily pick and choose which stories you’d like to re-read and skip over the less interesting ones.
Yes - only because reading a book like this may bring on napping whereas listening to this book on the road made it easy to follow.
Probably "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Kevin Dutton. Raine's "Anatomy of Violence" was clearly more exhaustive; however "Wisdom of Psychopaths" was an easier read. Both books do an excellent job reviewing psychopathy and disorders in the brain.
He was the narrator and did not perform any characters.
Yes - Raine provided a case where a large African American man broke into a young Caucasian woman's apartment and brutally raped her repeatedly, beat her to a pulp, and then slit her throat. It was extremely graphic and made me feel dirty; however the questions posed by the case and the points Raine was trying to make really stuck with me.
Excellent and exhaustive look at the neuroscience of violence! Raine did an incredible job compiling his research, along with others in the field, and presenting it in a reasonable and topical format.
"The Anatomy of Violence" spends a majority of the time examining aspects and structures of the brain that are correlated with violence; however Raine takes it a step further to examine the heart, sweat glands, and other minor organs of offenders to look for correlations and patterns.
Raine also spends time looking at socio-economic factors and family influences to finally bridge the gap of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. Most of his examples and case studies were well picked and referenced to illustrate many of his points.
The only low point of the book was when he offers a hypothetical world and society in 2034. I'm not a fan of hypothetical's, but Raine did a great job using the hypothetical "future" to address philosophical and ethical questions to the reader. I've rarely read other non-fiction works that pose questions back to the reader, so I found this very engaging and impressive.
Pros: Comprehensive and organized look at the external and internal forces that produce violence in humans.
Cons: More case studies and criminal interviews would've been nice, but there were no major cons.
Bottom line: Excellent for anyone interested in crime and how alterations in the brain can affect behavior.
I already did - The Talisman and Dark Tower Books
I listened to The Talisman and I thought Black House was a little better, but not by much. Only because with the main character being an adult rather than a child, I think King/Straub could utilize mature themes.
Probably the hedge clipper scene at the retirement home.
“Black House” seemed to be a very different kind of story than “The Talisman”. In some ways I probably preferred BH over Talisman, but overall I was pretty underwhelmed by both stories. Obviously the only common denominator between the two was the main character – Jack Sawyer, only in BH Jack is an adult rather than a child which I think enabled the writers to bring mature elements into the story.
The supporting cast was better in BH, only because they didn’t seem like cartoon characters or even characterchures like in Talisman. I also like the fact that King & Straub steered clear of the animal-characters, which was something I didn’t care for in Talisman.
The plot of the book was enjoyable, taking more of a mystery approach rather than sci-fi; however once the sci-fi elements were introduced, the mystery vibe began to lose it’s appeal – almost surrendering the credibility of the overall story. I liked that BH had more gore and the subject matter was adult orientated.
My main complaint of BH was probably the narrative and delivery approach for how the story was told. I did not like to "float over here" and "let us drift away from there". I also found it hard to believe that a group of "hard core bikers" (one of which is a former surgeon, because there's so many surgeons that leave the medical field to pursue a life of biker-ing, right?) would immediately befriend an out-of-town cop to help solve a series of murders. The romance between Jack and Sophie seemed a little out-of-place as well, if not forced. Maybe it was an after thought that randomly made it's way into the story...who knows?
Altogether BH was worth reading if you’ve already read the Talisman; however I doubt I’d revisit either book again. I was not impressed or greatly entertained by BH; however it’s worth a read if you’re a fan of King’s Dark Tower books. There are a few bread crumbs in BH that DT fans will enjoy, but I’m not sure that it added a whole lot to the DT universe.
Pros: Dark Tower elements and a decent mystery story (less the sci-fi elements).
Cons: Clear motives for the killer would’ve been nice and the friendship between Henry & Jack should’ve been better organized and developed, as well as the romance between Jack & Sophie.
Bottom line: So-so story, not too bad but not too great.
I already did - Black House.
Not really as I'm a sucker for Stephen King books.
Frank Muller has an incredible voice that creates a natural, esoteric vibe that other narrators cannot pull off.
Maybe I had too high of expectations, but I can’t say that I was overly impressed by “The Talisman”. From the very beginning of the story, I could not get into the plot or even any of the plot devices. It wasn’t that the story was hard to believe, and I don’t have a problem with fantasy, it’s just that the execution and premise of the story was really hard to get in to.
Overall, it felt like a patch-work quilt where a collection of short-story adventures were sewn together with 12-year old Jack Sawyer being the single thread. My main problem with the story could be summed up with the following points: **SPOILERS AHEAD**
1. Jack’s Mother: The premise of Jack’s mom dying of cancer and letting him leave and travel the country seems a bit far-fetched. If Jack’s mother was near-death and dying of cancer, why would she travel up to a beach house rather than seek medical treatment? I never really got this angle, yet most of the story hinged on Jack leaving his mother to find the Talisman to cure her.
2. It seems convenient that it takes 90% of the book for Jack to reach the west coast, and on the way back he gets a car ride that takes a couple of pages. It reminds me of the Eagles from Lord of the Rings which begs the question: why does an adventure story take pages upon pages to tell the quest of a journey, yet the return home has a means that makes it convenient for the characters to reduce travel time by a fraction? Why wouldn't that have been your first option?!
3. I didn’t care for Wolf. Seems lazy to have a werewolf as a secondary character and simply name him “Wolf.”
4. Speaking of Wolf, King/Straub took lengths to describe Wolf’s fear of driving in a car yet at the end of the tale his litter brother is a chauffeur.
5. I could’ve done without the sexual references. When characters are described as having foreskin, erections, and jewelry for their genitals, I really don’t understand how that adds to the story. If anything, I’m distracted and disgusted.
6. The main villains – Morgan Sloat/Morgan of Orris and Robert "Sunlight" Gardner/Osmond – were not as villainous as expected. They seemed very cookie-cutter and stereotypical.
7. Speedy Parker/Parkus was a bit of a confusing character. It was never well explained how he was able to pop-up in random places, yet Jack’s got to travel on foot everywhere he goes. I guess Jack isn’t so special after all. Maybe I missed something in the book, I but it was unclear to me how Speedy was able to show up in all the right places at all the random times.
I feel like maybe I am being a bit harsh with “The Talisman” but after reading The Dark Tower series I end up comparing all of Stephen King’s work to the DT. His DT series was such an epic piece of work that it really set the bar for any of King’s other fantasy/sci-fi stories.
Pros: Not many…maybe the sequel will be better.
Cons: Too many…the single most being that it’s hard to believe a single, dying mother would let her 12-year old son disappear for an unknown amount of time to an unknown location.
Bottom line: Not the best of King and maybe not the worst, but I probably wouldn’t read this one a second time.
Organized Strong Apologetic
There are no characters in Mere Christianity that come to mind
Something about British accents seem to make things sound more sophistocated.
Many - Lewis does a great job illustrating topics that have been relevent for over 50 years.
Pros: Great apologetic and introduction to the Christian faith for believers and non-believers.
Cons: Due to the time period (1940's) there are a few references that do no translate well.
Bottom Line: A must read for Christians and highly suggested for those who have questions about the Christian faith.
I really enjoy creation/evolution topics. I consider "science" in the noun form as one of my hobbies, and as a Christian I find great enjoyment analyzing creationist and evolutionist arguements.
I can't really think of book to compare The Case for a Creator to; however I would be willing to say that it serves as a great transcript to the Discovery Institute's "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" and "Privileged Planet" videos.
I do not have a strong background in physics, so the discussions on astronomy and cosmology was pretty fascinating. My strength is in biology and life sciences and there were minor errors which I found distracting.
Not really - I have a great familiarity with creationist topics, so I already know what to expect.
I really enjoy apologetic reads and am quite aware of the ID movement; however I didn't know that Strobel's book was ID in disguise, which didn't disappoint or stop me from finishing the book.
Overall, I think the ID movement has been quite aggressive in trying to work their way into the classrooms, almost as 'cloaked creationism.' I have to say that my only complaint with ID is that they refuse to call it for what it is: the scientific search for God's presence within natural systems. Atheists and the like get wound up with ID for this very reason, in my opinion.
The good aspects of "Case for a Creator" was how Strobel brought in ID proponents found in various disciplines, such as astrology, biology, and cosmology. He basically interviewed the cast from the Discovery Institute's pro-ID/anti-evolution films "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" from 2002, as well as "The Privileged Planet" released in 2004.
Before moving on to the parts of the book that I had issues with, I need to preface that I have a strong background in biology. The biological features of ID are interesting to me; however I do my best to be skeptical (not in an apologetic sense, due to the negative connotations that the word carries) and seek out information from the scientific community on my own.
Now for the weaker aspects of "Case for a Creator":
1. Michael Behe. I regard Michael Behe as probably the 'black sheep' of the ID movement. He was bold enough to promote his ideas of 'irreducibly complex' biological systems; however his ideas do not stand up in the scientific community.
The best example of illustrating the scientific community is to think of medicine. Medical doctors must complete exhaustive research before publishing to the community where the research is reviewed by peers in the community. Upon peer review, the article can be submitted for corrections or amendments and then published at large in scientific journals. Behe is a highly educated individual and knows how the peer review system works. Unfortunately (for Behe), his idea of irreducible complexity has not been able to withstand peer review or publication in any scientific journal. Matter-of-fact, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a judge ruled that irreducible complexity is not science (making it pseudoscience). I don't know if it's to save face or what, but Behe will not back down from his idea or even attempt to modify his idea that would withstand peer review and be recognized within the community.
2. Seeded questions. Some of Strobel's questions seemed a little too coincidental and planted. For example, one of Behe's most popular examples of irreducible complexity is the blood clotting mechanism. Strobel happened to have a band aid on his finger to conveniently allow Behe to illustrate his point of the clotting mechanism.
3. Minor, but critical errors. At one point when, I believe when Strobel is interviewing Stephen Meyer or it might have been Jonathan Wells, Strobel references 'ribosomal DNA' which is not used in the correct context. The point that Strobel was trying to make was the structure of phylogentic trees. Carl Woese has recognized a means to construct phylogentic trees among species using rRNA, not rDNA. This seems to be only a minor typo; however there is a big difference in functionality between rDNA and rRNA and have different definitions to a biologist.
Another error was when Behe referred to the tail of a sperm cell as 'cilia' when in-fact it is more commonly recognized as flagellum. Again, not major but enough to make a biologist cringe.
4. Case for Consciousness. In the final section, Strobel interviewed a specialist to discuss consciousness and self awareness. Part of me felt like this section wasn't really needed and as far as I can tell has never been a big part of ID. The person interviewed for consciousness went on to say that because we experience feelings and such, then it must be tied to a soul. That train of thought went on to discuss how animals have souls as well, but since they were not made in the image of God then their soul is not eternal. Once the animal dies, then their soul ends as well; however humans made in the image of God will have an eternal soul that lives on. Strobel quickly moves on, but that point did not sit well with me.
5. Geologic Time. The ID platform tends to stretch across Young to Old Earth Creationist, so for I guess for this reason Strobel chose not to address geologic time. I think this is an interesting debate, even among creationists, so I was a little disappointed he did not go into geology. He did reference millions/billions of years when discussing fossils and cosmology & astrology, but he steered away from the issue of time itself.
6. Archaeopteryx. In his interview with Jonathan Wells, Strobel has him go into details regarding the Acrchaeopteryx. My primary issue with Wells is that he described the ancient transitional fossil as a "bird with modern feathers." It is widely accepted by people who dedicate their lives to understanding birds and reptiles that if anything Archaeopteryx is more reptile than bird. I think it's dangerous for Wells to call Archaeopteryx a reptile because of the features shared between both classes. The heavy/solid bone structure, body plan, teeth, etc all point to it being more reptile in nature than birds. Even today these fossils are hotly debated; however I'm not convinced that Archaeopteryx is a bird with modern feathers.
Altogether, "Case for a Creator" was a good summary for ID and as the title suggests it was "for" a Creator and not "against." I think it's important for people to know both sides of any story, so I would be careful before using ID arguments to go and pick a fight with an atheist.
Pros: great summary of the ID movement capturing everything from the tiniest atoms within a cell to the most distant stars of the universe.
Cons: did not need the chapter on consciousness and I wish ID would drop the irreducible complexity argument.
Bottom line: good read for anyone interested in Creationism/Evolution topics. Maybe one day we'll all be friends and realize that in most cases perspective and understanding can be governed by personal belief.
Absolutely - as the title suggests, there are traits found within a serial killer's psyche that suggests we all have something to learn from the way their brains are wired.
The examples and cases provided by Sutton.
It was clean and easy to follow.
No extreme reaction - just really enjoyed it.
Excellent read! This book was a quick and easy read for anyone interested in the fine line that separates psychopaths from heroes. Dutton does a great job outlining the traits that people attribute to psychopaths in an attempt to correlate those qualities with everyday, successful folks.
Dutton also does a good job keeping the topics concise and clear, rather than cluttering each topic with terms and theories that require a few psychology classes to understand. Aside from the format, the subject matter is really interesting to me and I appreciate the length and depth that was taken in this book.
I'll probably read this book a second and third time.
Pros: Great length and fascinating topics.
Cons: Could have used more insight to altruists; however I understand that altruism rests on the opposite side of the spectrum to psychopathy. The overlap that Dutton provided served as a great opportunity to go a little more into altruism to really appreciate the entire scope.
Bottom line: Highly recommended to anyone interested the dynamic between heroes and villains.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.