Ian C Robertson

Until relatively recently (the last decade, say) I thought that the only entertaining science was Science Fiction. Dawkins proved to me (yet again) that the best of fact is so much better than most of fiction. Of course, like any argument, one doesn't have to accept the conclusion to recognise a good argument. That I do accept the conclusion probably helped me enjoy this work, but I could have been the Bishop of Birmingham and, I hope, still have recognised a well structured, logical and persuasively argued thesis when heard this one.

The argument is presented so that you don't need to understand all the science to enjoy the cut and thrust. And cut and thrust there most surely is! Dawkins is not afraid to tilt at apparently well respected opinion and, generally, he doesn't mince his words. I found this occasionally annoying when it seemed a bit mean spirited and an immediate reposte was not available from the butt of the comment, but I was able to get online and see if there was a response from, say, Gould to the criticism and this helped weather the frustration. That said, these flourishes were few and far between. Most of the criticism was obviously carefully considered and well reasoned. I particularly liked the examples. The bat was my favourite, and I did enjoy the bat with angel wings paradoy (even though I had to play it a few times to get the nuance - as I would have had to if I'd read it and had to re-read). Even though the paradoy wasa bit of a flourish, it wasn't personal (or it didn't appear to be so to me).

As for the performance, I was abit apprehensive at first about Lalla Ward's role. Of course she is Dawkins wife, but I just wasn't sure a second voice was necessary, except to highlight quotations and examples. As the performance proceeded, I changed my mind. The change of reader added interest and, after all, Ms Ward has a wonderful voice. As for Dawkins, his infectious enthusiasm is literally bubbling up in his voice. I will never forget the fantastic end to Chapter 10 as a consequence. I am looking forward to listening to him read his Selfesh Gene (one of the first books that opened my mind to Science Faction).

I confess that I selected this book because I thought it was more about genetics than it is. In truth, it barely touches upon the topic, and then principally from a group selection perspective which the author correctly acknowledges is out of vogue. Having said that, I was moderately interested in the content.
It is far from revolutionary. Different people are differently disposed to think in different ways. This means that each of us has our own in-built bias. That bias makes us prefer certain things over others. It predisposes us to accept certain arguments and it might enable us to accept as true that which is objectively false. None of this is new. Applying it to political psychology might be new, but it is hardly surprising.
Some of the studies are interesting, but without the detail of the testing it is hard to gauge their objective application beyond the test circumstance. And I say all of this as a self confessed "small l, liberal". Does this make me a contrarian or a paradigm liberal? I don't know. I suspect that the psychology of pigeon-holing people doesn't help make that judgment any easier; merely easier for the examiner to analyse.
I stopped worrying about the psychology of what I do a long time ago. Maybe that makes me a conservative. I work in the law. Perhaps that makes me authoritarian. I think I am a lot of many things and made up of many personality traits. That's what makes me human.
I think there is a worthwhile message in this book. Unfortunately, despite a concerted attempt to be balanced, the title is a real set-back. It looks like a device to sell books, and it is not the message of the book. The language is unnecessarily pejorative. The book is better than that and it would have benefited from omitting the rhetoric. This is most correct of the conclusion which even the author recognises as "kum ba yah".
Of course, I am not living in the USA. Politics in Australia is marked by a sameness (nearly everyone, on both sides of the political divide, is a moderate by US standards). There are the truth deniers, but generally we shake our heads and ignore them so they can follow their own truth. We have a Christian Right, but it does not come close to the US, and we have no equivalent to the Tea Party. All of this allows me to be immediately more complacent even though I know that in 15 years we will have what the US has now. I lament that happening, but I remain a true liberal to the extent that I continue to believe that good argument usually wins. Good argument does not equal truth. Maybe you have to be a lawyer to accept this conundrum. I don't know the answers, but I don't think reading this will hurt your chance at understanding. Just suspend your judgment, bite your annoyance down from time to time and it is a worthwhile listen. No complaints about the performance.

John Donne, amongst others, wrote that comparisons are odious. My experience of Scott Turow's recollections of his first year at Harvard Law School suggests that this is not always true.
I went to Law School in Australia in the early 80's. My first two years (here we once split the first year of law over two years in combination with part of a sympathetic second degree, in my case Commerce) bore very little resemblance to his. In some ways heading his memoir I felt like I'd been deprived the trial by ordeal that he endured. Like all competitive people I suspect, I am not sure whether I am glad or disappointed by this. Having said that, some of the themes he described were common; the bright eyed wonder when I actually enjoyed it, the searching for relevance and the diametric pull between the lure of the dollar and the demands of a system intended to promote a just result. Overall I found his insight rivetingly interesting and I paused to wonder at his maturity at 26 to write an account which is as profound as I regard it to be.
Holter Graham's performance was good too. He delivered it convincingly and consistently with the young Turow's emotions laid bare on the page. In a work of this sort I wanted him to be the vehicle for the words, which is what he was. He could have lost the listener if it became about him, but he did not allow this to occur.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to note the lengthy postscript that Turow adds at the end of the audio. It added appreciably to my enjoyment of the original text. The audio interview was so-so, but Turow's own observations on being a lawyer rang a strong and resonant chord with me. I personally endorse what he says about the role of the practice of the law and its continuing disconnect with the way young lawyers are taught.

My time at law school was punctuated most Sunday nights by another installment in the life of this less than glamorous, ever so cynical and brilliant Old Bailey "hack". I recall him being disparaged by many of my lecturers, many of whom had never steeped foot in a Courtroom save for the day they were Admitted. I laughed then as I laughed these last two days listening to the lovable old rogue weave his magic over juries and judges alike. Now a full quarter century later I can only marvel at the accuracy of the atmosphere Mortimer captures between the covers of these wonderfully entertaining books. I should not be suprised given Mortimer's pedigree (he was a Queer Customer after all, and it wasn't one gifted from the bottom of a Corn flakes packet). This was a perfect antidote for being banged up sick for two weeks. It filled the emptiness of being out of a Courtroom where I have spent half my life. I enjoyed it all over again, as I am sure that any person who has grown up in the common law system will, too. If you're in the US, then some of the niceties might strike you as odd. I confess that some of them strike me as odd, and I have practiced in a British-like system for nearly my whole life. Persevere with it, please. It is worth the effort.
Robert Hardy is an accomplished actor. He brought to the re-telling all that can be expected. There were occasions when I thought he was Hilda (SWMBO)! Of course he cannot truly be Rumpole because there was but one of him (Leo McKern), but he is a very suitable Junior indeed. It's hard to recall when a book made me smile and laugh out loud on such a regular basis. I recommend it to all, but particularly if you have a familiarity with the law (either side of it).

I found this novel by searching under the "legal thriller" menu in the Audible Shop. Along with the Grishams, Patersons and others this lovely re-imagination of the life of the great orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, was thrown up.
The plot follows the story as told by Tiro, Cicero's secretary, the reputed creator of shorthand notation. It traces the years from Cicero's famous prosecution of Verres, the murderous and corrupt Governor of Sicily (then a vassal of Rome), to his popular defence of the former Governor of Further Gaul on similar charges to Verres (in the true traditions of the Bar and to prove that he was as patriotic as the next Roman). It concludes with his electoral race to the Consulate. All of this is punctuated by the now familiar trappings of power; the small deceits, the large manoeuvrings and the selling of principles to win the political race for Imperium, or political power. Firmly fixed in the language of the 20th and 21st Centuries, this entertaining story casts a more than interesting light on the birth place of modern politics amongst the Forum, upon the Rostra and amidst the Curia (Senate). It suggests that the old adage that there is nothing new in politics is correct.
One example will suffice to illustrate the adage. The device is to arrest power by the device of introducing "necessary" legislation. In Rome, at the time in question, the "stateless" terrorists were pirates. They owed allegiance to no single state, but they were determined to hold Rome and Romans to ransom. To combat them the titular military commander, Pompey the Great, proposed, by a conduit, to introduce the lex Gabinia. This law would give the "Commissioner" (intended to be and in fact confirmed to be Pompey) un-reviewable power to combat terrorism. It removed from a citizen the protection of the Courts (a right asserted by the call, "I am a Roman citizen". Ironically, it was Cicero, who made the right famous in his well known speech at the close of the Verres prosecution, who contrived to make the lex Gabina law to curry favour with Pompey). The parallels with the passing of the Patriot Act (and like legislation in other Western countries) is astounding. It remind me that Cicero was right to observe that a man who does not know his history is as a child who must repeat the mistakes of history.
As a lawyer, I found the text entertaining. I had my Plutarch and Speeches out along with my maps of old Rome. I say this because I'm not sure the text will have the same attraction to a non-lawyer. However, history buffs will appreciate the work that his gone into garnering together this factitious account.
As for Bill Wallis, I thought his performance to be exemplary. He reminded me of the first narrator I listed to on Audible, Charlie Simpson, who read Rosemary Sutcliff's "Eagle of the Ninth". I loved that too. Both are well paced and I thought the adoption of English accents (Cockney, Westland, etc.) was an appropriate metaphor for their Roman equivalents. That said however, an American audience might prefer an American metaphor.
Overall, I think this is a 3.5. I enjoyed it and will certainly listen to the sequel, "Lustrum".

I am a fan of Ian McEwan's works, but you wouldn't know that from the title to this review. I loved Amsterdam and Atonement, of course. However, I regret to write that title is unfortunately accurate.
I have been resisting the steadily increasing number of my friends who also liked Atonement, but who are now complaining about the quality of recent works (Saturday and Solar, for example). To them, I have staunchly defended McEwan's wit, intelligence and style. Alas, I can't manage that defence for Sweet Tooth.
Having said that, this is not a "bad" book; it's just not up to McEwan standard. The language is still good and his trademark character introspection is still there. However, the story is just plain bland. I disagree with those reviews that thought the "twist" was surprising. McEwan tried to give it away in the second Chapter and, by mid way through the book when he extemporises the evil of an unscrupulous ending, it is plain that is not what was going to happen here. By Chapter 19 (of 22) the "twist" was so obvious I could barely be bothered to listen to the last two Chapters. For all that, I won't give the ending away, except to say that the publishers' blurb is all you need to know about the plot. Those who care to listen can judge for themselves.
As for the lovely Juliet Stevenson, she gives a wasted, but accomplished performance, as one would expect. The truth is that I was reluctant to pick up this book because of the last few from McEwan, but the narrator's credentials convinced me otherwise. She at least, was not a disappointment.
A fair review would give this 2.5 stars overall, but because I can't do that, I've rounded it up, for old times sake.

I apologise if you've read my previous review of the William Hope production, but what follows is essentially the same down to the Performance. Skip to there is you've read the other review.

The Book
What can I say? It is one of the best known plots of modern times. It is regarded as a modern American classic, alongside "Grapes of Wrath", Huck Finn's Adventures and Scout's wondering at her father's integrity. But for me, it has always been missing something. I know it's about soulless people for whom, what it looks like is more important than what it is. So of course it is missing something. That's the point! But still, there's something I can't put my finger on that separates this from the true "Greats".
I just read Melinda's review (which I always read with interest). She gets it, but I don't. For me Fitzgerald has so successfully dismissed these glitzy cut-out figures, that I have no empathy for any of them, not even Dan. That leaves me this: awed by the language, but not so hot about the story. And, isn't it all about the story? Anyway, who am I to criticise the book. It can't have been too bad because I listened to two versions of it over a day!
Overall, I think my prejudice is not a good guide. I love the language, but I could easily never read this again. I wouldn't say the same for Wrath, Mockingbird or Finn, and certainly I will read Of Mice and Men again, hopefully many times.

The Performance
I listened to this version of the tale second. I started with the William Hope version, then saw the Jake Gyllenhaal one advertised. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying Hope's performance, because I listened to both from "cover to cover". However, maybe because I was looking for something more, I thought I would listen to this production, too, It had the redeeming feature of being an hour shorter, but I can't work out why that is. Certainly Gyllenhaal didn't read too quickly. To the contrary, I found his easy pace much more endearing that Hope's dramatisation, although I found Hope's characterisation better, overall. Also, I was driven to the hard copy with Gyllenhaal's telling because he punctuated it where he wanted to, not where the text does. On some occasions this changed the meaning of the language. I liked both versions and I can recommend both, but if forced to choose, I would opt for the more accurate reading (ie, Hope's) because I thing the language, including the punctuation, is the best of this book.

The Book
What can I say? It is one of the best known plots of modern times. It is regarded as a modern American classic, alongside "Grapes of Wrath", Huck Finn's Adventures and Scout's wondering at her father's integrity. But for me, it has always been missing something. I know it's about soulless people for whom, what it looks like is more important than what it is. So of course it is missing something. That's the point! But still, there's something I can't put my finger on that separates this from the true "Greats".
I just read Melinda's review (which I always read with interest). She gets it, but I don't. For me Fitzgerald has so successfully dismissed these glitzy cut-out figures, that I have no empathy for any of them, not even Dan. That leaves me this: awed by the language, but not so hot about the story. And, isn't it all about the story? Anyway, who am I to criticise the book. It can't have been too bad because I listened to two versions of it over a day!
Overall, I think my prejudice is not a good guide. I love the language, but I could easily never read this again. I wouldn't say the same for Wrath, Mockingbird or Finn, and certainly I will read Of Mice and Men again, hopefully many times.

The Performance
As mentioned, I listened to two versions of this tale. I started with this one, then saw the Jake Gyllenhaal one advertised. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying William Hope's performance, because I listened to both from "cover to cover". However, I found it a bit over dramatic, although that sense of avarice has its place within this book. Also, I wanted to understand why this is an hour longer than the Gyllenhaal version. I never got to the bottom of that. I liked his (Hope's) characterisation (especially of Daisy and Gatsby) more than the other version, but I didn't like the "sing-song" aspect of some of the narrative. Still the performance was good and didn't detract from the book, and it's all about the book.

After I finished reading Wolf Hall I had to deliberately stop myself from simply reading this sequel. Perhaps that was a bit indulgent, but it did mean that I was looking forward to this with great anticipation - all positive. I guess I was a bit disappointed when I began to listen.
In part it was because Simon Vance was different in his reading of Cromwell. Henry's voice too had changed. Queen Anne's accent had changed. What was going on? Vance is better than that, I thought. I can be a bit slow sometimes. Then it dawned on me! Of course the voices were different. The characters were different, so why wouldn't the voices be different.
This is a different Cromwell from the one of humble beginnings as a blacksmith's son and then climbing the greasy power pole. Here, he is almost atop of the pole; at the height of his persuasive powers. Mocking Machiavelli as an amateur, avenging his patron and mentor's tormentors; reaping the ultimate revenge on each of the "four paws"and repaying the Queen's jealous dismissal of him in cold,calculating steel. Here is a man, a lawyer, a statesman to be reckoned with. And with that reckoning comes a new surety. He is starting to sound a bit more like Thomas More. He is behaving a bit more like a king. The stage is set now for the ultimate confrontation - king against king-maker. I really can't wait for the final chapter.
I loved the subtlety of this book. Maybe I'm reading too much into it and the change of voice. Maybe it is just a good yarn. But I don't think so. It's much, much better than that. In my opinion, a deserved second time winner of the Man-Booker. Readers of great books should not be disappointed.

I read the first book out of curiosity. I read this sequel (against my better judgment) because I enjoyed the film, which I thought was much more engaging and adult than the book. It is interesting that the plot of both book and film was much the same, but the visual presentation lifted the script from the book's basic level to something like a Star Wars franchise. I guess the promoters hope it is that successful!
The movie also made me realise that I was wrong about the narrator in my review of the Hunger Games. I defer to those readers who picked the performance as lacking something that I did not. Now, having listened to her a second time, it is clear to me, too. In fact, my 12 year old daughter (listening to the reading as we traveled to her school one morning) described it as "Reception Reading". I regret to say it has some of that Dick and Dora quality to it. Maybe it would be more engaging with another narrator.
As for the plot, it continued in its very predictable way. The penultimate Chapter was so predictable that I could barely listen to it, even though it is a mere 30 minutes long.
Unless I enjoy the next film, I will not be reading the third book.

I recall being very excited after I listened to The Blind Watchmaker (last year I think) and very much looking forward to re-visiting this book. After all, it was this book that sparked the debate about evolution that has flared for decades, now. I think I got too excited.
By the time I listened to this production, the novelty of the Dawkinses' reading of Richard Dawkins' text didn't have the same sparkle for me. In fact, I thought the exchange of his and Lalla Ward's voices wasn't used enough (as opposed to my view about it when employed in The Blind Watchmaker). There was more than one occasion that I was not sure if I was in the 1989 footnote or back in the original text. I had to check the hardcopy more than once. Still, Dawkins' reading is infectious in its enthusiasm and it is hard to fault Lalla Ward's lovely voice.
Also, because of the many advances since the book was first published in the mid '70s and since I first read it in the mid 1980's, some of the original thesis seemed a bit dated. Of course that can hardly be laid at the author's door. It would be unfair indeed to accuse him of being too successful in the promotion of debate, investigation and the development of his Darwinian based theories. I guess I (unfairly) expected the book to have evolved, too.
In one way, the book has evolved. The two new (to me at least) Chapters, particularly the last one, came as a very pleasant surprise. They have provoked me to go in search of The Extended Phenotype. I can't find it in Audible (I understand it is quite long - 300+ pages - from the Amazon reference), but it really seems very interesting if the last Chapter is a fair precise of its content. I look forward to its addition to Audible's collection!
In summary, if you haven't read Dawkins before, you might want to skip this seminal work and move to the more recent writings, many of which summarise this book. I enjoyed it because I enjoy the way Dawkins writes, reasons and argues a case. You don't have to agree with his argument, but you need to be particular dull not to understand it. For me it remains a classic treatment of his basic arguments. It was worth the re-listening and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to study good argumentative writing and wants to understand something about natural selection.