The Selfish Gene.. And many other "Must Reads!!"
About 1 year ago, I became a bit of a fan of the marmite-man Richard Dawkins. I often turn over or roll my eyes when he goes on about Religion and the arguments against it, as it just doesn't interest me. I find Dawkins, on the subject of Evolution, quite entertaining and he is able to put his point across simply yet, as much as possible, un-patronising.
Now, I have an interest in natural Science as well as I find Evolution fascinating. I was told his book is brilliant for an all round explanation without too much depth, yet scientific enough and to the point. I've started it at least 3 times, and I think I've got about 100 pages in. Why? Well, every chapter has a vital link to Evolution, and instead of explaining it simply, he'll use LOADS of analogies, and even though I fully understand what he's trying to put across, it is constantly shown in a different light. In a nutshell, his book can be summed up by two sentences: "Evolution is not aimed for the good of the species, nor is is it good for the individual. Rather it's good for the gene." -- don't buy the book, as it's ~250 pages which tries to explain that.

Also, other books:

A shit load of Bernard Cornwell.. I love his writing as well!
War of the Worlds.. I'm determined to read it one day.
Lord of the Rings. I'm just not fussed about mythical fantasy.
Stephen Fry's books. Love the man. Find his books difficult to get in to

I do genuinely enjoy reading. Yet the books I tend to read are about peoples terrible lives. For instance, in the last month I've read the following books:

-Christie [A book about John Christie, the infamous serial killer at 10 Rillington Place]
-Edith's Story -- A book about a Jew who's family were killed in the Holocaust yet she survived in hiding.
-The Nipper, A Glaswegian child who was beaten to within an inch of his life by his drunk father throughout his entire childhood

.. I hope this doesn't reflect some deep-seated insecurity which I've bottled up sub-consciously and will some day unexpectedly erupt.
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Sun 27 Jun 2010, 10:45, 19 replies)

If you want to read Dawkins to get a good basic all round explanation of evolution,
I recommend 'The Greatest Show on Earth' followed by 'The Ancestor's Tale'.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:37, closed)

Ah yes,
I have heard about his others. I was put off by not being able to get through The Selfish Gene. In your opinion are they easier to get through?
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:53, closed)

I really enjoyed them.
I can't compare them to The Selfish Gene, as I haven't read it. The Greatest Show on Earth sets out the evidence for evolution. It does use a lot of analogies, but also contains a lot of information.

The Ancestor's Tale is a walk back through time looking at the common ancestors of humans and all surviving species in the world. Different species tell 'tales' which explain aspects of evolution or scientific methods, such as logarithmic graph plotting or how phylogenies are worked out.It also contains a lot of natural history.

I thought both were excellent.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Sun 27 Jun 2010, 12:18, closed)

I think
I'll loan those out of the library before I attempt to read them then. =)
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Sun 27 Jun 2010, 22:38, closed)

I'm reading the Selfish Gene 30th anniversary edition at the moment
Dawkins is a git, with good reasons to be smug. I've also read Unweaving the rainbow and a couple of others. These books should be studied in all schools.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 10:36, closed)

Oh yes,
That's the edition I've attempted to read as well. I struggled enough with the foreword's and the preface. I do agree that he is quite smug and so self-sure it's unbelievable. However, everything he practices and teaches are pretty much cut & dry accepted theories, with a mountain of evidence.
As said earlier, I will try and read his book, I guess I have to be in the right frame of mind. I tend to go through "intellectual" stages where I try my hardest to educate myself, and other times I just read anything which is easy to read. I it's me being unable to read his book as opposed to his book being genuinely crap. Wish me luck.
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:01, closed)

You really don't need the luck. Its an easy read.
I read about a page and half a day just before I fall asleep at night. I then have a massive binge on the weekends. I'll finish it this week, and skim through the extra notes at the back. If you like a bit of interlectual popular science, try some of Jared Diamond.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:08, closed)

Nope.
If you don't get The Selfish Gene, read "River out of Eden". It's an amalgamation of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The Extended Phenotype, but written for those without a biology background.

The Ancestors' Tale is really hard work. And The Greatest Show on Earth is just another religion basher, which I find quite sad. It's a terrible shame that such an intelligent man has become such a drum-banging preoccupied arsehole.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:33, closed)

I don't think The Greatest Show ... is a 'religion basher', though it's purpose is to respond to Creationist issues with Evolution. Creationism isn't Christianity or any other religion, as most of the Christians I know see Genesis as a metaphor and don't deeply consider who exactly was mother of Cain's children etc.

The God Delusion is a Religion Basher, in the same way as the Bible is an 'Other Religion' Basher.
(sigismund, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 16:41, closed)

fair point.
Although my general point still applies. I don't know why he has the need to attack something so mindlessly irrelevant to his audience. It's not like he's going to get any creationists reading his book and going "you know what, now I'm convinced!" It's not a scientific debate between evolution and creationism - because only one of them is actually a theory. You don't need to debunk something that doesn't have any "bunk" to start off with.

In the same way that he's not converted one single religious person to atheism by writing the God Delusion. All he has done is alienated people, for nothing.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 16:49, closed)

I consider
myself to be modestly educated when it comes to biology and evolution. It's not that I don't understand it or I find it too advanced, I just get bored with it as it seems like a load of waffle to explain relatively simple concepts with a shit-load of analogies.
But like I said before, I'll just have to get into one of my "educate yourself" moods and plow through it.

Thanks for the other recommendation as well =)
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Wed 30 Jun 2010, 21:58, closed)

War of the Worlds
is a very good book- H.G. Wells really is a fantastic author.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 1:02, closed)

^This^
His short stories are worth reading, as well as the novels.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 10:38, closed)

I agree
H. G. Wells was quite the pioneer of sci-fi writing during his time. Many people mocked the ending of War of the Worlds [the newer one] as the ending was so poor.
However, this idea was very intuitive and unique at the time as micro-biology and the immune system was just beginning to be studied and understood. I thought it was brilliant.
I also want to read The "Time Machine" and "The Invisible Man".. Classic films and ideas.

P.s. I've alwasy preferred the older War of the Worlds and The Time Machine films =)
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:04, closed)

I too think Wells was ahead of the game in seeing the near future.
In The Land Ironclads, he predicts the tank, and The War in the Air predicts mass aerial warfare. It is unfortunate he is not more popular across his works.

I haven't seen the recent time machine film, but the old one was very good. The Tom Cruise War of the worlds though, I thought better then the 1950's version.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 17:30, closed)

If you can't get through Lord of the Rings,
try The Hobbit.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 9:48, closed)

I have read The Hobbit
Some years ago, when I was either 13 or 14. I think I attempted Lord of the Rings a couple of years after when the films were in their prime. I just could NOT read them. It was so difficult to get into and read them fluently. Is their a distinct difference between the two stories? The Hobbit is only ~300 pages, where-as Lord of the Rings is about ~1500? I genuinely don't know. I just know it's a lot. I found The Hobbit quite easy to read and quite charming. Lord of the Rings was just a chore.
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:08, closed)

If you can get through Lord of the Rings
try E R Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, and if you get through that, attempt his Zimiamvian Trilogy. If you get through those, Ariosto's Orlando Furioso.

I can guarantee that you will fail to finish one, more or more likely all of those.
( MisterPunch did it that way on, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 11:15, closed)

Ahhhh, The Selfish Gene...
I managed to get about halfway through before it ended up sitting on my windowsill for the past few months. Now I've moved back home and it's sitting on a shelf instead. My friend didn't even get that far into it.
( Poppy The Platypus was abducted by an army of toast soldiers on, Mon 28 Jun 2010, 17:36, closed)