Cosmos Books

Original, wild, and never lets up in any of his stories. This is one writer to keep an eye on as I am sure he will set new marks in excellence !!

Ugh. Shallow rip-offs .... Overworked, academic, clumsy prose. Stilted dialogue. A few clever ideas here and there, but not enough to make up for the rest.

Avoid this at all costs, it'll just make you sick.

Stross is a hell of a writer, and Toast is a hell of a book. Charlie and I have written two stories together (and we'll write more, you can be sure of that) and now that I've had a taste of Charlie's writing from the inside and the outside, I have to tell you that Charlie is better than drugs.

The stories in this book are, of course, wildly original. Even when Stross is eating another writer's lunch -- a grand tradition in our field -- he's adding seasonings that are all his own. Every page contains ideas that are so whacky and weird that you shouldn't operate heavy machinery for an hour after reading them.

Buy Toast. Read Toast. Loan Toast to your friends. They'll thank you, once they come down.

"Toast" is, bar none, the best short story collection I've ever read.

Nearly every story gave me a whole-body physical thrill - goose bumps, tingling scalp, and other reactions I omit for fear of Amazon's censors. (Come to think of it, Amazon's censors will severely limit this entire review - you'll have to interpolate as best you can.) The only comparably exciting book I've read lately is Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep."

"Lobsters" is my favorite short story, and gives a fair taste of the rest of this collection. In the not-too-distant future, Manfred Macx is busy implementing the principles of open source in the world of intellectual property. His ex-dominatrix/girlfriend is hunting him down; she works for the IRS and is pissed off because Manfred's system of high-tech altruistic barter is robbing the U.S. government of tax revenue needed to pay Social Security, the biggest pyramid scheme of all time. In between, Manfrend fends off a charmingly quirky Russian AI, hit-and-run rubberizations, and a slashdotting, among many other things. Sex, drugs, and patent law - all the ingredients of a fantastic short story, plus Stross's completely unique gritty/gonzo writing style. You can read it on the web - google "charles stross lobsters" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky."

If you are, like me, a computer geek, I have some urgent advice: You want this book. Now. Don't think, just buy it. You'll thank me. If you aren't a computer geek, you'll enjoy this collection anyway.

This is a disappointing collection that could have waited a while longer to include Stross's better fiction. Instead, we're left with three great pieces ("A Colder War", "Antibodies", "Extracts from the Club Diary") adrift in an ocean of mediocre prose and stories that range from the average ("Yellow Snow", "A Boy and His God" -- funny story, this, but not much else) to the atrocious ("Big Brother Iron").

I still believe that Stross has potential, as evidenced by the better stories. Unfortunately, the rest of the collection fails to meet the same standards, not to mention that it's under-edited and poorly produced (quite a few typesetting errors, and too much text crammed into a single page to save on the page count).

This book is the sequence of the excelent Mind In the Cave book. But this book isn't so good than the original. Some points of view seems forced and don't have the same appeal that the original's ones.

If anything jars your sensitivities, it's the claim that your brain is driving you instead of the other way around. Yet, many cognitive studies suggest that's often precisely the case. If David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce are correct, then mentally-driven activities have contributed to the making of many social conditions. One of those conditions, a universal which provides support for their thesis, is religion. The definition of "religion" has been subjected to some drastic changes lately. It's been broadened to encompass many "spiritual" themes. Today's spiritual movements tend to hark back to earlier, simpler modes. The authors assert that some of these can be traced to the Neolithic period in Europe and Western Asia.

Using the recent finds of archaeology and the cognitive sciences, the authors postulate that Neolithic society developed the foundations of religion. Moreover, religion pre-dated the adoption of agriculture and husbandry. Archaeology has revealed sites in Asia Minor suggesting that hunter-gatherer groups built shrines, seasonally visited for ritual purposes. Communities grew around these shrines and agriculture was developed to support them. The shrines marked a departure from earlier practices of dealing with the spirit realm in caves, represented by such sites as Lascaux and Chauvet as described in Lewis-William's previous book, "The Mind In the Cave" [2002]. The above-ground shrines allowed greater community participation and a new social structure. One aspect of that change was the burial of heads beneath the floors of houses. Some of the corpses may indicate more than just ancestral burial, and represent sacrifices. Was spiritual power derived from those buried heads, the authors query?

In moving communication with spirits out of caves and involving more of the community, religious figures - shamans - assumed a different role in society. The authors note that all religions possess an ecstatic component, and nearly every individual has experienced various forms of altered consciousness. From this, the authors postulate "the consciousness contract" in which those who could experience and interpret the results of altered consciousness rose to become religious and community leaders. Instead of waiting for visions to occur, the shamans came to prompt them through physical exertion or psychotropic drugs. Thus supercharged, the visions seemed more intense, hence, more meaningful. Even if the community shared but a lower-level version of the visions, they were sufficiently aware of them to understand what the shamans described. What was already lodged in the mind emerged with greater force and wider acceptance.

Group activities reached peaks of drama and expression with the establishment of burial sites and stone shrines in Western Europe and the British Isles. Although the best known today, Stonehenge is but a small facet of what belief produced in shrines and burial places. Lewis-Williams and Pearce provide an impressive guided tour of the sites, their structure and arrangement. There is a good deal here to indicate how altered states of consciousness can be transformed into the physical world. Spirals, for example, often seen by those in trance or other altered states, are a fundamental component of many burial and shrine sites. The illustrations, including colour plates, depict these and other manifestations to greatly enhance an already vivid text. Although, the reader's preconceptions about religion or early societies may be challenged, but they will have no difficulty in understanding the evidence or conclusions the authors provide. A truly stimulating and provocative book, well worth the time and investment to understand thoroughly. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Speculation, conjecture, supposition, and thin hypotheses. Not to mention occasionally misleading in its assertions. You would learn more by re-reading C.J. Jung's classic works on the same subject matter and then re-read some of Mircea Eliade's own excellent and well-regarded work. This text makes me think more of Joseph Campbell's musings.

When the authors do venture out of the realm of occasionally entertaining and sometimes New Age style 'what if?' discussions, their source analyses and conclusions are at least worth consideration. However, I spent too much time trying to find some of their terms in dictionaries (which turned out to be entirely idiosyncratic words for the authors) than I did in thoughtful contemplation of their ideas since it was frustrating to try to pry away the fluff-talk and get to the actual information.

This seems to be one of the books that is coming out of a fairly recent trend in archaeology where a vaguely appropriate adjective is applied to 'archaeology' and thereby used to justify so-called 'groundbreaking' or 'cutting edge' research. That in turn usually works out be at least substantially speculative fluff which cannot be adequately proven or disproven, but certainly does help to fill white space on pages.

I finished the book, but I regret the time that I spent on it. It could have been reduced by around 100 pages and become a much better book.

Simply the best introduction to new, often ground-breaking research on Neolithic Mind on the market today. Well written and well illustrated it is the follow-up to the highly acclaimed "The Mind in the Cave" by David Lewis-Williams, which dealt with remarkable Upper Paleolithic art depicted by Shamans on the walls of caves. "Inside the Neolithic Mind" applies a neuropsychological model of altered states of consciousness to explain cosmology and architecture of famous Catalhoyuk in Turkey, one of the first cities people founded, and monumental, mysterious tombs in Ireland.

It wasn't until having completed this book and put it away when I realized the full impact of it's narrative. Mostly, because it is so understated. It's speculations about the Neolithic psyche are compelling and with the reminder that we can't underestimate in our secular world-view the interweaving of altered-states, cosmological beliefs, and eventual early human advancements. For example, we like to think of early domestication as a reasoned development to provide easy availability of food, milk and hides. Yet, it is likely, if not highly probable that domestication of aurochs, for example, was a product of a dominating supernatural cosmology. To quote the authors, "The associated assumption that rational decision-making and processes, such as sensible adaptation to the environment, can account for all past human behaviour is groundless. It imputes contemporary Western values to past societies. We must be more alert to the irrationality of the past (and of the present.)"

The main thesis of this book is that altered-states of consciousness and our beliefs in and attempts to control supposed supernatural forces may have played a significant role in some major technological advancements from the Neolithic age. Moreover, these altered state experiences are not only central to the development of religious beliefs, but are also neurologically hard-wired into our central nervous systems. The archeological evidence and arguments are worth the effort of understanding, if just to get a speculative glimpse of the Neolithic world. What is less convincing, however, is the scant neurological backing the authors provide. This is one of the major shortfalls of this book.

Still, the argument that stayed with me was the one suggesting that religion as we know it entails an often unquestioning belief in the supernatural and supernatural forces, and this belief, albeit universal across the peoples and across the ages, is a misreading of what is simply our own neurological processes. Our march as a species is toward giving up our superstitions, our beliefs in the supernatural, and recognizing them for what they are -- anachronistic resonances from the neolithic mind. The authors end with the question, "Is it possible to have a religion that does not entail a belief in the supernatural?" If you have an interest in religion, human prehistory, and even cognitive psychology I'd highly recommend this book. If you are coming at it with an interest in neuroscience, however, you'll be more than likely disappointed in its offerings.

Mamet is one of America's finest playwrights while "American Buffalo" might not stand up to universal appeal as much as "Glengarry" or "Speed the Plow" I consider it one of his best works. The language and characters are not idealistic but harsh and real as the Chicago neighborhood it takes place in. Mamet writes of broken characters and the broken American dream, read the play then rent and watch the production starring Dustin Hoffman and Dennis Franz or go watch a local theatrical production when it's done right and done by good actors it is truly an American classic.

I am an actress, playwright, and constant theatergoer, so I'd like to think I know when a play is good...and believe me, this play is excellent. It is stark, realistic, and yet has a fantastic quality all its own. The story follows three small time crooks: Donny, the calm vet, Teach, daring and aching for adventure, and Bobby, the slow, amiable kid. Their plot to steal a valuable coin collection is the center of the play, but so much more goes into it. Honor amoung thieves, the busted American dream, and masculinity are at the core of this piece, and Mamet, with his honest style, pulls off what could very easily be a dumb crook spoof. It's a little hard to read at first, as all Mamet is, but if you envision the story, you'll get through it. I recently saw the play in New York at mamet's Atlantic company with Philip Baker Hall, William H. Macy, and Mark Webber, and it was truly great. I suggest owning the play and getting to a local performance asap.

In this play about three low life thugs, Mamet was trying to take a shot at America and its business ethics. The Indian associations of the title was a loose attempt to suggest the fundamental chicanery of a society whose founding act was the dispossession of the former owners of the land. But the problem with this play is that BOB, DON, and TEACH are so 'dumbed down' and their dialogue so impoverished that all Mamet can do is create a moral fog.

America may well be founded on the crime of dispossession and the genocide of the Indians, but a buffalo's head on a coin in a play hardly suggests any of this and is certainly incapable of presenting the rights and wrongs of the case. The logical extension of capitalist drives may indeed be a criminal society, but a few petty criminals mouthing off phrases of capitalist jargon, obviously detached from the comprehensive arguments of capitalist ideology, hardly proves this inherent criminality or reveals the complex processes by which capitalism encourages crime.

In the play TEACH defines 'free enterprise' as: "The freedom of the individual to embark on any course that he sees fit." In dialogue like this Mamet is apparently hoping to link the amoral self-interest of his characters to the principles of the American Revolution.

But the characters' relevance is limited by a number of factors. First, their ignorance and inability to express themselves severely limits any exposition and critique of society. Also, because Mamet is attempting a particularly bleak and stark form of realist drama. There is no opportunity, as with, say, the early plays of Eugene O'Neill, to present us with archetypal characters embodying whole race or class positions. Who does TEACH stand for besides himself?

Because of the 'literalness' of his form, if we want to find a critique of society, we must look for it more directly in the evident relations of the characters to the broader society. Such an avenue, however, remains firmly blocked as the characters are isolated from society. Indeed, they seem to belong to an almost self-contained little universe, centering around "Don's Resale Shop."

If Mamet is attempting in this play to present us with a 'reductio ad absurdum' showing the inherent criminality of American business ethics, then, he has painted himself into a corner. His characters lack consciousness, social relevance, and symbolism, all factors that allow a playwright to tackle social and moral problems. "American Buffalo" is extremely limited in the extent to which it can refer outwards to the greater society. All he can give us, in effect, is the 'absurdum' without the 'reductio', the criminality detached from the social forces that create it.

This play is a failure, but Mamet was able to return more successfully to these themes in "Glengarry Glen Ross." where the greater eloquence of his characters, dishonest land salesmen, allowed him to express more coherently the amorality of American business imperatives.

"American Buffalo" was recommended to me by a fellow thespian because he thought this was raw and fantastic. It is indeed raw, but not at all fantastic. The dialogue is very choppy and I felt out of the loop with it - as if I missed some great detail. Perhaps this is a play that needs to be enjoyed when seen performed, rather than just read. I do not recommend.

It's unfortunate that the first Amazon review of Mamet's brilliant work is by Mr. C.B.Liddell, a pompous, pontificating Brit who doesn't understand the play. I'm not sticking up for Mamet: his works are very hit and miss, and even the hits are an acquired taste (like Monty Python), I'm just standing up for a damn good play.

One of the problems with American Buffalo is that its language and setting (low-income Chicago in the 70's) are unfamiliar and difficult to appreciate for many people, but it's loved by many actors and writers in the same way that musicians appreciate "musician's music." Also, like Glengary Glen Ross, it can be emotionally violent and offensive for some people.

Still, a great work of art, in my humble opinion. Don't pass up the chance to see it performed by talented actors who know and love the play!

Unlike the other reviewer who missed the point of the book, the authors were only reflecting the views of the scientists questioned. There is no attempt to prove the existence of God. The book is well written, with high ranking scientists from several fields providing valuable insight into their beliefs.

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Sir Arthur Eddington
"Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking

Universe, Life and Deity:
In Paul Davis terminology, this is an inquiry in the mind of some very prominent scientists. It is a matter of great relevance to inquire how contemporary scientists visualize the relation between religion and science; the origin of the universe, life, and the existence of God. the 'Time Magazine' nominated the book as; "the year's most intriguing book about God was produced not by theologians but by 60 world-class scientists, 24 Nobel Prize-winners among them."

The Questionnaire:
Although the idea of the book is not new and may have been motivated by the initiator faith, yet it presented scientists' unedited responses, which are uniquely stated, thoughtful, and revealing. It is said that the questions that deserve be asked are those which could not be answered.
Those metaphysical inquiries were about theological/natural sciences, the cosmological question on origins of the universe, life, and Homo sapiens, and their approach to these quizzes, and thought on the concept of God.

The Responses:
In his introduction which summarizes the spectrum of responses, Roy Varghese quotes Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, and Hawking.
"Stranger than the strangest concepts and theories of science is the appearance of God on the intellectual horizon of twentieth century science,' deducts Varghese with reference to their statements. In 'A brief history of Time' Hawking declared, "We ought to know the mind of God', while Paul Davies is quoted to argue that, "the very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness- in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness, is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."

Eccles' conclusion:
according to sir John Eccles the origin of consciousness is relevant to the origin of Homo sapiens: "The only certainty we have is that we exist as unique self-conscious beings, each unique, never to be repeated. This I regard as outside the evolutionary process. the evolutionary process gives rise to my body and brain but, dualistically speaking, that is one side of the transaction...So that brain and body are in the evolutionary process but yet not fully explained in this way. But the conscious self is not in the Darwinian evolutionary process at all."

This book is a thought-provoking collection of essays exploring issues relating to science and theology. Or, in other words, life, the universe, and ... never mind. This book is probably not going to appeal to those with set, rigid, doctrinaire views on either science or religion. Nor is there an effort to convert you to anything, really. The essays are varied, interesting, and you can probably take a lot of different thoughts away from this book. I didn't take it as an attempt to prove that science can or should point to a god. Certainly, a number of the writers recognize that science does not (and cannot) rule out a god. That, in my opinion, is true agnosticism (as applied to both religion and science!). Just as some religions have properly abandoned views inconsistent with provable scientific facts (darn that Galileo!), scientists ought to be willing to discuss and acknowledge the limits of science. Perhaps some scientists critical of this book don't like the same skepticism and desire for proof that they would place on religion being applied to their own domain. Oh well. For those intimidated by any critic's intimations regarding their degrees, for the most part, the essays, while sophisticated, don't require a Ph.D. in physics. I enjoyed this book, it made me think, and that's not bad.

As someone who's interested both in Science and Religion, I have enjoyed this book tremenodously. It is a purley scientific and unbiased review of many leading scientist's views on the subject of God, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe.
24 of these scientists are Nobel Prize winners. I found it interesting that many of these reputable scientists, by their views, challenge the widely acceptable notion, that Creation is a religeous myth, and the Big Bang/Evolution is the only scientific answer...definetley worth reading.

As one reviewer stated, the reviewer who criticized this book on the basis of his antagonism to religious faith missed the point. I would go further and state that he showed the weakness of his own thinking process. True science is religious faith neutral. To conduct good scientific experiements, the question of God is left out of the process. This by no means implies that the scientist does not hold a personal opinion on the subject, either for or against. It merely means he or she suspends personal belief in the interest of conducting good experiments. Further, the number of people who hold to a certain position regarding faith, neither makes that faith valid nor makes it invalid. The professor's personal faith is atheism. That is a religious faith, every bit as much as is theism, creationism, or any other of the many isms of this world. This is very adequately demonstrated by his intollerant review. He takes an extreme position that is on the opposite side of the radical creationists, but is no more defensible then the radical creationists' views. He even goes so far as to suggest that the scientists (some of whom are Nobel Prize winners) who seem to think that a belief in God is not unreasonable, are not intelligent.

Now to the book itself. I find it very fascinating to look at the process of how many of the world's great scientific minds approach the questions addressed in this book. The people questioned take positions across the spectrum of belief/disbelief. The book includes a number of answers by those who do not believe in a god. I found the process and approach to be very well done, and to ask reasonable questions.

This book I think is worth reading no matter whether you believe in God or don't. The thinking process is never hurt by hearing opinions that differ from your own.

This book can be condensed to one sentence: as it is within, so it is without. That is one of the principles in the Hermetic, written by Thoth, long before any of the eggheads in our modern scientific community were hatched.

Who would have thought that Spiritual Laws, thousands of years old and present in most Eastern philosophies, would be proven scientifically by quantum mechanics! It's very refreshing to see members of the scientific community embracing this change of paradigm - that we create our own reality, whatever reality is. I admit that i don't know.

Thanks David Darling. It's not easy being a physicist when your belief system is not in line with conventional wisdom.

While this is certainly not the best book on any of the many sundry topics it discusses, it gives the reader an overall impression on theories, problems, and conjectures in the world of physics, metaphysics, philosophy, and the like. I personally did not find it "mind-expanding", but it was very informing. I'd wager that the average reader would find this book intriguing, though the veteran philosopher might not be as impressed with it. I enjoyed the book. Darling did tend to lean toward subtle mysticism, which was at most a trifle irritating, but he did quite well to include the pros and cons of not only his perspective but also those of many other viewpoints. Overall, this book is worth the read.

Equations of Eternity - Speculations on Consciousness, Meaning, and the Mathematical Rules That Orchestrate the Cosmos is less about science, and more about speculation. Although Equations of Eternity was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, it is somewhat uneven and not entirely successful. Speculations are not always clearly identified; too often there exists an unclear, fuzzy boundary separating where scientific consensus ends and personal speculation begins.

Furthermore, although the author, David Darling, is not alone in speculating on the interaction between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory and human consciousness, he rarely references other works. His discussion of whether mathematics involves discovery or invention is not new. I was disappointed that there was no bibliography, no sources, other than an occasional reference in the text.

Darling's arguments place considerable value on the various anthropic principles (especially John Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle and Martin Gardner's extension, the Final Anthropic Principle), and yet, he devoted relatively little space to their discussion (and much less to opposing viewpoints). Darling should have focused more attention here.

In general, the earlier sections were quite good, especially the discussions on the evolutionary development of intelligence, the survival value of self-awareness, and the immense significance of art and symbolic representation in human development. I like his mantra: Self-awareness in humans equates to self-awareness by the universe ... as we humans are clearly components of the universe.

The last few chapters covered more familiar ground - futuristic projections regarding space travel, galactic migration by humans, existence of other intelligent life, the evolution of computers and artificial intelligence - and were more conventional in their outlook.

Although you may not ultimately agree with Darling that "we should begin to treat very much more seriously the possibility of a link between mind and cosmology", his speculations are indeed interesting.

While searching for the right words to describe what this book is actually "about" it appeared to me in the subtitle of the book itself - "Speculations on consciousness, meaning, and the mathematical rules that orchestrate the cosmos." Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. The truth is, the book is all over the place - not necessarily in a bad way - but so much so that it's difficult to sum up it's contents with a few simple words. It's anthropology, metaphysics, quantum physics, computer science, teleology, futurism...you name it, it's probably making an appearance in David Darling's "Equations of Eternity."

The first quarter of the book addresses the evolution of human consciousness (thus the anthropology), discussing our near evolutionary ancestors and the development of the forebrain. From there he takes a turn into what to me was the most laborious section of the book, the metaphysical section. Here he just gets a little too "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" for my taste. Except he takes it a step further and seems to ask "if nobody is there to see it, does the tree even exist at all?" Just when I was about at my metaphysical breaking point, he quickly changes gears into the realm of quantum physics and starts giving the science behind what he is saying (Schrodinger's cat, etc.). It's during this part of the book that the lay reader may get a little lost in the science (I did once or twice) but by and large the book is extremely readable.

Suddenly Darling turns to the world of computer science and how computers might one-day work...random, I was thinking. But I began to see how he was assembling all of the information he laid out in his book and used it to coalesce into his final couple chapters, his "grand theory" of the evolution of consciousness, where he foresees all of humanity - no, all of the universe - existing as one single, massive collective consciousness millions of years from now.

At times the book bordered on a new age philosophy, but he usually avoids this by quickly backing up his claims with scientific research. Whether or not you ultimately buy his theories, the book is well worth the read and he doesn't make too many intellectual leaps, if you carefully follow his arguments. When he does present something that sounds outlandish, he is quick to point out that the standard "accepted" solution of the same problem is often just as outlandish - it's just that we're accustomed to it.

It's a fun book that will really get you thinking, and it's easy to get through with a few night's investment. Well worth picking up - it could be the kind of book that changes your life (as it apparently was to some other reviewers, and I can see how this is possible) but for me it was just an enjoyable foray into some realms of science that are currently almost 100% speculative. But as Darling proves in this book, speculating can be very entertaining.

The other reviews of this book don't do it justice. As I'm not planning on spending a long time with this one, mine won't either. But, I'll tell you that this is one of the most memorable and profoundly interesting books that I've read in recent years.

While I'd have to call "Soul Search" my favorite of his books, this book was one that I actually bought up discounted copies of & sent to a number of my friends as gifts. (The friends I sent it to were not scientists or researchers, they were musicians and a health-care worker.) That wasn't something I'd really ever done before (or since).

What made this book so meaningful to me was it's humble-toned explanation of many scientific developments of our time and their implications to us. After writing (with engaging, pleasant, and clear language) about these things, Darling incorporates them into his "speculations" on how our world-society may develop as a collective. Don't get me wrong...there's nothing preachy here. Darling doesn't try to tell you that anything "must be" a particular way. He just offers many well-considered ideas based on an obviously-strong knowledge of his subject.

Ultimately, what Darling did was write a book that is well worth your investments. I'm randomly writing this review (while looking for new works by this author) after not having opened my copy of this book in probably three years. That's how strong an impact it made on me.

I gave 2 stars only because it has a couple of good things, as to deserve something over the least. It tells you to be aware and don't believe everything, and to try different alternatives. Besides, it shows a theory that has been told by other people about the possibility of life arising from space in meteorites. Up to here fine, but... It is not conceivable that Carl Sagan had recommended to read this man (that is why I bought this book)in the demon haunted world, when Hoyle uses any trick to arrange anything to suite his words. He describes in the 3rd chapter how he supposes that the cosmic soup experiment by Ulrey was done, when everybody knos that technical papers show step by step how they were made... there is no need tu make assumptions. Besides, in that same chapter he describes how electricity used to extract hydrogen from water is produced by humans, as the basis to say that urea cannot be produced by inorganic means. The book is so full of such incongruencies to attempt to make us believe his hypothesis that I would reccomend to save time and read something useful.

While most of us assume the truth of Darwinism - and may even have read whole books by exponents like Richard Dawkins - it can be shocking to realize how many gnarly bits there are that we just don't quite understand. For instance: how did some assumed (and so far undiscovered) common ancestor give rise to bears and horses? In theory, random mutations happen all the time, and a tiny percentage of them are beneficial. But if no such mutation yields a new variant that cannot interbreed with the main species, how do new species arise? And if it does, how can the new variant survive unless - by some unbelievable coincidence - another identical mutant of the opposite sex is born at the same time and place?

One of the hallmarks of a great mind is the confidence to ask questions that the rest of us would be ashamed to ask for fear of exposing ourselves to ridicule. This book forcefully argues that today's scientific orthodoxy can be every bit as stifling and irrational as the religious dogmatism of previous centuries. Surely it is wrong that certain opinions simply cannot be held by practising scientists - if they want to keep their jobs and have their papers published, at any rate?

"Our Place in the Cosmos" advances a variety of ideas, all of which are stimulating, although some are more convincing than others. The authors make no bones about the fact that some of their thoughts are speculative - they are only two scientists, backed up up by a small team of researchers, and they have limited time and means. In stark contrast, they claim that the entire community of Darwinian biologists has laboured for 150 years without finding conclusive evidence in the fossil record.

The book's most convincing hypothesis is that the universe is stuffed with microorganisms. The comparison of infrared flux from the galactic centre with that from dry E. coli shows a striking similarity, suggesting the existence of interstellar clouds made up of bacteria - dehydrated of course, but potentially viable when introduced to a suitable ecological niche. It is explained that bacteria can survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, whereas airless bodies like the Moon swat them like bugs on a windshield. There is also evidence to show that respiratory diseases could be spread by such infalling bacteria (and viruses), whose arrival can be synchronized with the passage of comets.

It is impossible to do justice to this thrilling book in a review. If you enjoy scientific thrillers - with the added spice of an apparent conspiracy to ignore the work of misunderstood geniuses - get hold of a copy of "Our Place in the Cosmos". Anyone who enjoyed Fred Hoyle's SF novels - notably "The Black Cloud", "Ossian's Ride" and "A for Andromeda" - will recognize some key themes.

Some previous reviewers of this book seem to think it supports creationism, but they cannot have read it with any care. Very early in the book, the authors make it perfectly plain what they think of creationism: "the creationist is a sham religious person who has no true sense of religion... It is the facts we see in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the word of God. Documents, whether the Bible, the Quoran or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy." This is their religious argument against creationism, and later on they make it clear that there are strong scientific arguments against it as well: they accuse creationists of blocking valid questions, and of selecting only those observations that seem to support their case, ignoring everything else. No one who actually read the book, or the authors' earlier writings on biology, could possibly think that they were creationists. Amazingly, however, the lawyers for the creationist side in the US Federal Court in 1981 did manage to think this, and went to the expense of bringing Chandra Wickramasinghe all the way from Wales to Arkansas, only to hear him testify that "one would have to be crazy to believe [that the universe is just 10000 years old]."

Unfortunately, however, the relatively infrequent attacks on creationists provide the only worthwhile parts of the book. The rest of it consists of a dogmatic and weakly argued case against an oversimplified travesty of what modern biologists actually think. They have only the most superficial knowledge of biology, and appear to think that the opinions of physicists need to be taken seriously simply because they are physicists, not because they have actually bothered to study in detail the subject they want to pontificate about. Almost at the beginning of the book they remind us that a figure of "no less stature than Kelvin" was hostile to Darwinism, but they neglect to tell their readers (who can hardly expect to know without being told) that Kelvin's main argument was one that every scientist todays accepts to be false: he thought the earth might be as young as 25 million years old, and that it could not be more than 400 million years old, anyway much too young for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. Kelvin, indeed, is a notable example of the sort of senior scientist who has great confidence in his opinions about matters he knows little about: "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible", he thought, and "radio has no future".

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, arguing in just the manner of the creationists that they despise, think that the existence of bacteria with an amazingly high tolerance to enormous doses of radioactivity prove that they could not have evolved on earth, where the conditions necessary for natural selection of this tolerance exist nowhere in nature. There is already an element of dishonesty in this argument, as by no means all bacteria tolerate exposure to high levels of radioactivity, and those that can, such as Deinococcus radiodurans, are the exception rather than the rule. A more important problem is their suggestion that biologists just brush examples like this aside because they go against their dogma. It is not clear whether this suggestion is dishonest, or simply the result of not bothering to check how biologists have dealt with this, but in any case it is false. Considerable effort has gone into explaining how Deinococcus radiodurans can have arrived at the properties that it has: it turns out that in natural conditions this organism needs to survive long periods of extreme desiccation, during which it (like any other desiccated bacterium) suffers much the same sort of genetic damage as that produced by exposure to radiation.

The essential claim of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is that life evolved elsewhere in the universe, and that the earth is continuously receiving new samples of bacteria and viruses from comets and other sources in space. In their earlier writings they were clearly confused about the differences between bacteria and viruses. By the time they wrote this book they had this more or less sorted out, but some relics are still there. They seem to think that their arguments and evidence for the robustness of [some] bacteria allow them to claim that viruses can survive space travel, and they show no awareness of the fact that viruses can only reproduce inside a host, so that human-specific viruses need human inhabitants of comets in order to culture them. In fact they go much further, and seem willing to entertain the idea that an animal as large as a bee could survive arrival on earth as a passenger inside a meteorite.

Among the criteria in a web site describing how to recognize scientific crackpots is a suggestion of "40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on". True to form, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe assure us right at the beginning of the book that rather than the inquisition of Galileo being a thing of the past, "society has not improved since the sixteenth century in any important respect." However, as they must surely know, Galileo was imprisoned for his views, but no one has been imprisoned for questioning Darwinism.

In this controversial book, Fred Hoyle asserts that life on Earth may originally be of extraterrestrial origin. This isn't as stupid as it sounds. The infrared spectrum of comets & galaxies are surprisingly similar to that obtained from viruses/bacteria found on Earth. Most bacteria on Earth are remarkably resistant to extremes in temperature found in outer space; they will continue to thrive after being exposed to temperatures of only a few degrees above absolute zero. Yet the Earth NEVER gets that cold, and according to the theory of evolution they shouldn't evolve to be this impervious to extremely cold conditions. He attributes the periodic influenza epidemics to the passing of the Earth through the tails of nearby comets in orbit. This is quite a claim!

But Hoyle provides all the convincing scientific evidence necessary to prove his point - there are just the right amount of relevant figures, which reveal all the data that brings him to this conclusion. The style of writing is unpretentious and not overcomplicated, and it flows very well. The proposition is very original, and I doubt you'll find another book like this. Revolutionary.

I used to wonder at statements like "the theory of relativity changed the world". They never made sense to me -- how could scientific revolutions affect one's personal philosophy? Now I know, because I've just experienced one. I used to believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution because the alternative -- the Bible -- was too ludicrous/painful. But some parts of Darwinism seemed really shaky and required a religious amount of faith on my part to believe them, which defeated the purpose. Salvation (eek, what an abused word) came in the form of Hoyle and Wick, who have not only shot down Darwinism, but have also put forward an excellent case which deserves serious consideration from the experts. I hope it gets it. A useful book to read, even if you're like me and the biology bits go over your cerebrum. Someone ought to condense this book into something more palatable.

Though very well written and engrossing, "Africa Zero" may be confusing to someone who has never read Neal Asher before. It's beginning (and end) is abrupt and overwhelming and the action is brutal and fast moving- the reader will be playing catch-up until half-way through the first story. If you know Asher's work, this is probably what you enjoy most about it but if you've never read anything by him you will probably be a bit confused. However, Asher (as usual) excells at his streamlined method of storytelling to throw the reader into the middle of the story and engross them, even if it's at a forced-march. Gory at times but also laugh-out-loud funny and full of great visuals, "Africa Zero" is not Asher's best work but is definitely one that reinforces Asher's stand-out status among modern sci-fi writers.

I'm a big fan of Asher's polity novels, but I didn't find Africa Zero nearly as interesting. This work seems to be mostly an expression of the author's political views, which are approximately those of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. The hero of the novel, we are told, was responsible for saving the Earth by culling the human population with genetically designed diseases and preditors -- an idea that has emerged in some factions of the British animal rights movement. In other words, he murdered billions of people for ideological reasons, and we are supposed to think he is cool.

I have to say, I will be harder for me to enjoy Asher's books after seeing how naive, hostile and anti-American his views are.

Neal Asher's work is the perfect translation of comic book energy to big-screen-style narrative. This book, related in the deadpan first person of an Edgar Rice Burroughs type hero, pits a virtually unstoppable cyborg steward of a transformed far-future Africa against environmental vandals, ruthless corporate schemers, and sadistic religious fanatics, but as usual there is more to his larger-than-life characters than at first it seems. Harshly logical and gleefully brutal, this disarmingly juvenile but richly themed work carries forward the best pulp tradition with visceral, steamrolling conviction.

An early work by Asher, Africa Zero comprises two novellas set in a distant future where the Collector, a lone cyborg with attitude, wages war on an army of religious fanatics. A nice brisk read, this book has the Asher trademarks of high octane action and plenty of big explosions. Fans of his Polity series will recognise the reptilian sauramen as forerunners of the dracomen in later books, but these prototypes are more entertaining. Few science fiction stories are ever set in Africa, let alone feature mammoths, glaciation, vampires and giant crocodiles as well, so this is one to remember.

For those of you familiar with Asher's Polity universe the first thing you should know is that this a non-Polity story. The second thing you should know is that you simply won't care. This is trademark Asher all the way, simply resonating with the distinctive and familiar Asher voice. Asher is a natural story-teller and writes with an exuberance that defies comparison. No one crams as much energy, science, terror, adrenaline, blood, explosions, monsters, philosophy, politics, religion, technology, ideas, intelligence, and both the redeemably good and irredeemably evil into his books. The important thing though is no one makes you have a fraction of the fun Asher does when he writes. You ENJOY yourself when reading Asher!!! If there is anything wrong with this novella it is simply that it is a novella not a novel. I wish I could have kept reading indefinitely.

Africe Zero features an ancient cyborg who more less Lone Rangers, albeit somewhat reluctantly, around Africa keeping an eye on the local flora and fauna and the human enclaves that still exist. If you have read the polity books, just think "Golem". The resultings adventures feature all the action, violence, and blood spatters you learn to crave from Asher, the complex plot developments, and as many crazed and insane evil bigots and religious fanatics as your imagination could care to blow away. I suspect that this novella came before the polity novels because you do definitely see the seeds of the idea for the Golems and Dracomen featured there. I whole-heartedly recommend that you shell out the bucks for this one. Asher always delivers more adrenaline charged fun per dollar than any other writer out there.

This was undoubtedly one of the worst books that I have ever read. The author was pretentious, prissy, nasty toward his "friends" and fellow travelers, and condescending toward what he called "natives". Mainly, though, he was just boring. He simply listed the places he traveled through, along with a litany of complaints about the tour guide, accommodations, and anyone unfortunate enough to have bumped into him.

His writing was practically unreadable. Someone should have taken his thesaurus away from him, and informed him that attempting to emulate nineteenth century British writing does not make for a good read.

I can only imagine that the other reviews on this page were written by the author or his friends, since they are so far off base. There is absolutely nothing "gay" about this book, except for maybe three sentences that appear to have been inserted after the fact, mentioning that a co-traveler was gay, etc.

The only thing good that I can say is that reading this book might inspire you to write your own travel book, because if the author managed to get this book published, anyone can.

This book put me in mind of Theroux' disappointments with Pacific and other cultures and that writer's despairing take on the seeming inevitability of mankind's baser tendencies. Elegantly written, not at all a guidebook--a fact that may disappoint some--this romp through many beautiful destinations fascinates because of the writer's frequent chafing encounters with fellow expats and local excesses.

This is not a "gay book" as such, though frequent allusions to the writer's formative-year experiences and reflections inform his orientational destiny. Anyone looking for racy accounts or a guide to where to find sexual pleasure will be disappointed. The author does convince us, however, of the significance of gay sensibility when he relates often poignant experiences involving gay people. He sends up a Paris lesbian for her reference to "bootch" women; he puts his pen to recalling an affair that begins on a Mexican bus; he laments the failure of old friendships that fall apart on a visit to the Loire valley.

This reader was touched by the writer's reproachful observance of the sometimes-ugly presence of foreigners and their impact on the breakdown of traditions in a number of cultures; his well-articulated recounting of the political and religious brutalities that underlie the history of Albi's shimmering Ste. Cecile cathedral; and his resonating adolescent sojourn across America that culminated in a brief stay at a New Mexico jail.

Champ seems unable to resist venting considerable spleen against such targets as his very nasty Soviet tour-guide, or, on a visit to the Costa del Sol, a drunken, randy English housewife. But this reader was much-impressed with the book's humor (how, for example, can one forget the barbecue restaurant scene in Kansas City?), its trenchant wit, the often sublime descriptions of art, architecture and food, and the book's often transcendently lovely language.

I read Mr. Champ's book with considerable pleasure. Since I don't travel very extensively because of a basic fear of flying and simple lack of time, I depend on the Jan Morrises, Bruce Chatwins, and Roberts Champs of this world to do much of it for me. I can read in the comfort of my armchair and imaginatively follow their perigrinations about this world of ourse without the discomforts that travel so often entails...

What I look for in any travel book is the ability of the author to transmit his or her experience to me in an imaginative way, with an eye for the telling detail that can bring it to life. Mr. Champ has that ability, i.e. he is a good storyteller. He has apparently traveled widely and is also a devotee of varied national cuisines. To be able to almost motivate a reader to get up and go out and seek the kind of food of which he speaks is something of a knack in itself -again, the result of good imaginative writing.

The author subtitled his book, "Traveling the World with a Gay Sensibility" but there is remarkably little in the book that would be amiss in any travel book to a heterosexual reader. I think gay men and women look at the world with their own angle of vision,which is why gender differences -I feel- can be valuable in the total view of things. But there is no wearisome dragging one through the various gay fleshpots of the locales he visits. I would object to that as much as I would to a straight tour of similar "joints." When the "romance" of travel is spoken of, it is always implicit, I feel, that the possibility of sexual/amorous adventure is a given. And it adds a certain frisson to the read of those close encounters and how they sometimes resolve themselves - or just friendships that sometimes become lifelong. In that sense, surely, travel really does broaden us and brings us more in tune with our fellow human beings.

Mr. Champ has apparently spent considerable time in Mexico and is somewhat critical of what used to be so often referred to as the Ugly American. Alas, they still exist. He notes how Mexicans are invariably friendly in the smaller cities especially, never thinking of passing a stranger on the street without a Buenas Dias. Ex-pat Americans and Canadians, on the other hand, think nothing of ignoring such greetings although there are doubtless happy exceptions. It reminds me of Alec Wilder's reference to "the present ice age." Let's hope its glacial effects don't change what is still a human and a warmly human place to visit.

This book is a hoot!! I had such a good time reading it and felt as though I was travelling with the author on each of his adventures. For anyone who loves to travel (even if only by armchair) I whole-heartedly recommend this book. You will want to start it all over again after you finish the last page.

Champ's odyssey through countries as diverse as Greece, China, Mexico, Russia, France and the U.S., is an anecdotally entertaining diversion. Although about half the book centers on Mexico (a place this reviewer avoids at all costs), it is not only instructive in that it offers cautions for fellow travelers to that loudly mystical land, but also entertains those of us who occupy armchairs rather than airplane seats. Champ is especially telling in his recounting of the expatriate communities he finds generally wanting, not just in Mexico but elsewhere. One senses that if he set out to take up the expat life, he was quickly disabused of those American and British enclaves with their greed, pettiness and gossip-mongering. The author is obviously and seriously at home on the road, having mastered several languages, and he must have kept a meticulous journal, since the accounts of his adventures are most often funnily specific and detailed -- all told with an easy charm and written with elan. Anyone who can evoke the feeling produced by Southwestern France's Le Gouffre de Padriac's chasm with this kind of turn of phrase -- "suggests those very fears expressed by people with serious earthquake anxiety who feel they'll be swallowed up in some geotectonic orgy of massive Richterian registration" is worth spending some agreeable time with. You'll find the time spent in Champ's cosmos well rewarded.

There are many reasons why Jerome Drexler's theory of dark matter is not widely accepted amongst astronomers. I am a professional astronomer working at a research establishment in California. The idea that relativisic protons can be responssible for the dark matter of the Universe seems ridiculous to me and this is why:

1. If dark matter consisted of relativistic particles (such as relativistic protons) then this is what astronomers would refer to as Hot Dark Matter. Hot Dark Matter has been ruled out as a form of dark matter because it does not allow the structures we see in the Universe. The reason because the particles are at such high velocities that they can never become gravitationally bound to each other, and all structure is wiped out. Galaxies cannot form, stars cannot form, planets cannot form. This would be a huge problem. This is why astronomers have come to believe in Cold Dark Matter (slow moving massive particles).

2. Protons are charged particles (they have positive charge). Any moving charged particle has both an electric and a magnetic field associated with it. Relativistic charged particles would create a huge electric and magnetic field. This would be easily observed. However, it has never been observed.

3. The Cold Dark Matter Particle (the WIMP) has never been observed for a reason. It's predicted mass lies just beyond the energies we can probe with our current particle accelerators. The next generation of particle accelerators will be able to probe these energies. These new particle accelerators will be coming online in the next 2 to 5 years, so watch this space. Admittedly, if we don't find the predicted WIMP (or neutralino as it is strictly called), then we do have to go back to the drawing boad.

I don't understand how this book has come to be published. The people deciding it should be published are obviously not professional astronomers. However, Jerome Drexler has never had his theory published in an astronomical journal. The reason is because it has never made it past the peer review stage... because his theory is simply WRONG. It does not stand up to experimental tests or what we know about the Universe.

This is another fantastic book by Dr. Drexler. Dr. Drexler identifies dark matter as a viable candidate and explicates his theory cogently by describing in detail the astronomical evidence he found that justifies his theory and conclusion. His most recent book, "Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos," published this year (2006), delineates and expounds his theory to an even greater extent. I queried him regarding the use of the term relationism vis-a-vis reductionistic practices. Dr. Drexler thoroughly explicated this complex theory that he has posited in significant detail.

Dark Matter, is deemed by many to be the most elusive mystery of the universe, which is probably attributable to its massive, extensive, and hard-to-detect characteristic. Dr. Drexler, in his 2006 sequel, astutely delineates 14 mysterious phenomena, along with his new analytical decoding concept of dark matter relationism, to discover and identify a very promising dark matter candidate compatible with these 14 cosmic elements. In the process, he has quite possibly brought the decades old quest to identify dark matter to a successful conclusion. He adroitly then locates and analyzes an additional 11 unexplained cosmic phenomena, which were discovered and reported by various astronomers mostly during 2005. Drexler again, utilizing his same promising dark matter candidate, plausibly explicates all 11 of these recently discovered cosmic mysteries in his May, 2006 sequel.

I have personally purchased multiple copies of Dr. Drexler's 2003 and 2006 books for family members and friends at the University of Maine. I read with chagrin Dr. Marc "DM"s negative reviews on these books, which interestingly were both written and posted on May 31, 2006. I vehemently disagree with Dr. Marc's and JMK's reviews and evaluations, both of which bring to mind the saying attributable to Herbert Spencer: "Contempt prior to investigation..." Although Dr. Marc characterizes himself as a professional astronomer, I am constrained to believe that he is a grant-seeking, self-promoter, who perhaps has not even read Dr. Drexler's two books. As a professional man, with graduate degrees myself, I eschew hasty judgments when pondering the theories of colleagues and others. I have therefore indicated that neither of Dr. Marc's reviews were helpful to me, and in closing, I strongly urge every professional cosmologist, astronomer, astrophysicist, or interested novice, to read Dr. Drexler's books with an inquisitive and open mind. Do not be influenced by the pejorative and negative views espoused by Dr. Marc.

Drexler's book was sent to me unsolicited inviting my feedback and comments. I cannot call myself even an amateur cosmologist therefore I cannot assess how plausible the explanations in this book are. Furthermore, I have not actually read it cover to cover. Nevertheless, I award it 4 stars for the following reasons:
1. The topic is well laid out and is made very accessible via extremely short chapters listed in a detailed table of contents. It is well indexed. A glossary is also included.
2. Throughout the book, use is made of lists, both bulleted and numbered, e.g. pp 110-114, making it easy to follow his arguments.
3. More importantly, it lists 58 references (7 to his own work) as well as a further 30 suggested sources. Readers are cautioned not to assume agreement in these sources with Drexler's views.
4. The book is intended to be provocative and to generate further thought and discussion. The Preface states: "This book, "Comprehending and Decoding the Cosmos," deviates significantly from mainstream cosmological and astrophysical theories."
I would not, of course, recommend a book just because of its layout and style. I see this book as a thought-provoking re-examination of existing observations and theories in addition to offering solutions and new ideas. I leave it to others to comment on the plausibility of these.

Since the discovery of DM, which many believe constitutes most of the mass of the universe, there has been a debate regarding the baryonic or non-baryonic nature of DM. Current scientific research favors non-baryonic particles with huge new detectors being built today that actually exclude baryons. At its heart, Drexler's book is philosophical in its approach, taking a contrarian view in the debate. Citing Ockham's razor and top-down vision, the author sorts recent astrophysics data of others to analyze and resolve the DM issue, asserting that DM consists of relativistic protons, i.e. baryons. A large amount of data is reviewed and the considerations seem persuasive. Not mentioned as a baryonic argument in favor of DM is another philosophical consideration relating to the significance of man in the Universe. If man is significant and perhaps even central in the universe, as Primack suggests in his new book, it would be a shame if the baryons of which we are made turn out to be cosmologically weird stuff. Drexler's book is worth a read.

I have read this book and it is another fine book by the Scientist, Mr. Drexler. I have followed Drexler's career since his days at Bell Labs-his founding of the Drexler Technology (Lasercard), his numerous patents -- He would not publish a book with research that is false. Did the other reviewer really read the book? I HAVE READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER AND IT OPENED MY MIND TO NEW IDEAS ABOUT THE COSMOS,ETC. EVERYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN GOOD , LOGICAL RESEARCH SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.

There is a certain 60's flavor to it. Surreal and sick, it makes one think of Kafka. The obsessive thoughts of the narrator about an accidentally deformed woman and images of hanging; a sparrow, a chicken, a block of wood,
a cat ( his Lena's) and finally Louis, her husband in suicide. No one
seems to admit to being part of this strange impulsive pattern of behavior
that borders on the psychotic. The narrative is like being trapped in a waking nightmare.

I read this book a few months ago ... but decided to write a few lines about it only now, after i finished Joseph Roth's "The Radetzky March". "Cosmos" can be considered a sequel in a sense to "The Radetzky March", even though the books have, on the surface, pretty much nothing in common.

"The Radetzky March" is written about the decline and fall of Austro-Hungarian empire, the whole pre-modern world, in fact, about emerging new men, who can not live by "simple" rules of their fathers.

But the main character in "The Radetzky March", Carl von Trotta, is still "pre-modern", in a sense that his inner world is not developed to a degree of convoluted reflection, which is the main subject of "Cosmos".

The protagonist of "Cosmos" is "super-modern", quintessentially modern ... not "post-modern", though. This highly poetic book is all about reflection, about a person observing an outside world through his own hidden impulses, vague desires and longings ... This outside world, "cosmos", is beautiful, complex, even convoluted, enticing, repulsive, dangerous ...

Nobody is simple any more, each event has enigmatic second meaning - not to be fully comprehended ... ever.

One more time: this is, probably, one of the most poetic books i ever read. It definitely deserves a second (third? fourth?) reading.

Cosmos no es un libro rápido, lleno de situaciones que nos ponen a pasar hojas y hojas de manera frenética. Cosmos es un libro acerca de la vida, de cómo entendernos, de observar cada cosa como si en cada imagen, cada olor, cada movimiento encontraramos el sentido verdadero de vivir. Es un libro lento pero rico en descripciones. Y es cierto lo que dice la reseña digitial, este libro tiene su lado surrealista. No es una novela en donde pasarán mil cosas, las cosas pasarán en usted si le llega a gustar el libro.

I rercently reread "Cosmos" and it still holds up. Over the years I have passed this novel on to goths, punks, high school drop-outs, violinists and math wizards -- and it never disappoints. It has a deadpan, rather menacing tone that one cannot put down.

Cosmos isn't for the average reader who likes their fiction in neat compartments. Rather, it goes off in a stream of consciousness that occasionally seems to get bogged down in the narrator's thoughts, then soars into lycism when describing his surroundings. From the beginning of the book with the sparrow hung on a wire, the writer takes us into the narrator's mind and the people's lives with which he has come in contact. It ends as it begins, with question marks.

Read it for a different look at life, but don't read it if you want "high adventure" or "action."