The Compound: I can't be the only one who noticed this.

[Hwo Thumb]

A while back, I read the book The Compound (http://www.amazon.com/Compound-S-Bodeen/dp/B0053U7MMQ), by a fellow named S. A. Bodeen. I know that a lot of people who use this site are adults and probably haven't read this work of Y. A. fiction, but I'm curious as to why the book has gotten such good reception when the entire moral quandary stems from a ridiculously glaring logical fallacy.

In the book, a family lives in a massive underground bunker after the world above has been destroyed by nuclear war. When their livestock is compromised, the father comes up with the bright idea to start cloning members of the family and then eat them for meat.

What.

WHAT.

WHAT.

Seriously, that makes literally no sense at all. Why would you do that? That's not even a moral discussion. "Should we resort to cloning, murder, and cannibalism to save ourselves?" No, you shouldn't because you don't need to. Just eat whatever you're feeding the clones. Over 90% of the energy that you're using to grow the clones is being lost as heat and kinetic energy. Did I miss something very very important where they explained why the food they're feeding the clones is somehow inedible to them?

And here's the thing; The book might have been able to salvage itself if it at least had good characters. Yet the main antagonist, the father, is just crazy. Crazy is cliche. When you want to explain why a man would lie to his entire family to lock them in a basement mansion for six years and make them eat themselves, "He's crazy" is the laziest character motivation ever. It's a murder mystery that's missing the motive. It's an excuse to flaunt logic to move the story along. It's an antagonist that I don't care about in the slightest. I mean, if you want to give a character a poor grip on reality, that's fine, but there has to be a catalyst. He can't just be "crazy." Maybe he honestly thinks he's protecting his family. Maybe he has an obsession with micro-management. Maybe, maybe, maybe, but instead thje author goes with, "I cut my family off from society and imprisoned them for six years and tried to make them eat their own clones. Why? I wanted to see what would happen." That's literally the motivation they pick. He wanted to see whether they would do it. He's a little child chanting "Eat the bug! Eat the bug!" while his friend squirms and reluctantly complies. The other characters are all equally boring. The protagonist is an angsty teenager, (which is not a surprise, but still) and his family is a host of one-dimensional plot points called "Characters."

Am I missing something? Where are these fantastic reviews coming from? Why do people like this book?

[mona amon]

What.

WHAT.

WHAT.


I haven't read this book, but Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go has a similar idiotic premise, and provoked a similar reaction in me. Ishiguro is an excellent writer and the book has many good things going for it though it is a bit depressing and lacking the usual verve, but in the end it just falls flat because of the silliness of the premise. The author never explains why a whole society would acquiesce to such a thing, or why the clones accept their fate so meekly.

[YesNo]

It doesn't make sense. I agree. Eat whatever the clones are eating. How does he make the clones after the world has been destroyed by nuclear war?

[Vota]

This is the perfect example of what I consider a CRAP book. Poor characters and a ridiculous, completely illogical plot that insults the reader's intelligence.

This is the problem with a lot of books. If it is fast moving and can throw a lot of OH SNAP, what just happened moments at a consistent rate through the novel, people will call it a good novel purely because they were "entertained".

Just because something entertains you doesn't make it good. A philosophy professor of mine used to joke about locking kids up in the basement and torturing them because hey, it was fun and entertaining for him. Same thing applies to CRAP books. Being entertaining is not synonymous with being good or possessing merit, or quality of composition and plot, or etc etc etc.

[cacian]

it sounds like a delirious affair.
a what indeed.

[mal4mac]

I haven't read this book, but Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go has a similar idiotic premise, and provoked a similar reaction in me... The author never explains why a whole society would acquiesce to such a thing, or why the clones accept their fate so meekly.

I disagree completely, I think Never Let Me Go is a great novel.

In India it used to be the case that a widow might hurl herself onto the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. Why would a whole society acquiesce to such a thing?

Ishiguro doesn't have to explain why his particular society came about.

Never Let Me Go is a wonderful exploration of the loss of childhood's blissful expectancy and ignorance. Schopenhauer said, "In our early youth we sit before the life that lies ahead of us like children sitting before the curtain in a theatre, in happy and tense anticipation of whatever is going to appear. Luckily we do not know what really will appear." Ishiguro makes a superb allegorical novel from this observation.

Given the brain washing they gone through at that school I think it's believable the clones could accept their fate so meekly. Also what choice do they have? They have no power to change things. Think of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s, why did the Jews accept their fate so meekly? Why did Indias untouchables accept their fate so meekly? Why did British serfs in the middle ages accept their persecution by robber barons so meekly? Why do we accept crap jobs, and bad managers & politicians, so meekly?

I haven't read "the Compound" but it sounds like a story worth putting out there. There have been several real life cases that sound similar. For instance, that madman in America, whose name I forget for the moment, who kidnapped women and kept them locked in a basement for years, and when they got pregnant beat them until they had abortions. What about the many cases of husbands who don't just commit suicide, but kill their wives and children as well? The motivation, as you point out, Hwo, is probably a micro-management trip; that is, the stupid, mad, weak husband is exercising his "will to power" in the only way he can - by controlling his family through main force. As you actually found a reasonable explanation for his motivation, Hwo, then why are complaining about there being no motivation?! Maybe it isn't made explicit in the novel... sometimes the reader has to do some work...

[mona amon]

Sure, we do have examples of socially sanctioned murder within a community (usually not a whole society) - Sati, Witch burning, human sacrifice - never widespread, with deep rooted reasons for their existence, and with victims who went screaming and kicking to their fate. But to accept that a modern society would bring up a certain number of human beings like pigs for slaughter stretches the limits of plausibility beyond breaking point. He should have told us a bit more about how the clones were dehumanized in the minds of the other members of society, as well as exactly how they were brainwashed enough to eradicate all traces of the survival instinct. No one thought of Dolly the sheep as anything other than a sheep. How did this unique society convince themselves that the clones were sub human and soulless?

But this is not my main point. An author can write any scenario, establish any premise and get away with it as long as he succeeds in making it work for the reader, and if it worked for you that's great, but it just didn't work for me. Yeah, I got all the loss of innocence, betrayal stuff and was not entirely unmoved. Ishiguro is a brilliant writer after all. But for me it all fell flat on its face by the time it creaked to its meekly accepting close.

EDIT: Mal, which Jews accepted their fate meekly?

[luhsun]

Hamlet should just kill his uncle while the uncle was praying. I am not a christian and i cannot believe, nay, i do not think hamlet would be so idiotic as to accept that an evil man killed while he was praying would get a free pass to heaven. How can such crap ever be tolerated..such ridiculous illogical insult to our intelligence!

[mal4mac]

Sure, we do have examples of socially sanctioned murder within a community (usually not a whole society) - Sati, Witch burning, human sacrifice - never widespread, with deep rooted reasons for their existence, and with victims who went screaming and kicking to their fate. But to accept that a modern society would bring up a certain number of human beings like pigs for slaughter stretches the limits of plausibility beyond breaking point.


There are many examples of cultures where ritual sacrifice was widespread, and the victims went willingly to their fates (the Incas, for example). The Nazi's performed vivisection on Jewish victims to gain medical knowledge for their own use - this is very close to Ishiguro's vision. Maybe his society was a parallel world in which the Nazis conquered Britain - do you think Hitler would have hesitated using other people's body parts to enable himself to live longer?

[luhsun]

USA allows automatic hunting guns to be sold so that it is easier to shoot small kids at school. I think it is called some amendment or something to the constitution. Us country bumpkins can't really understand such sacrifice of small kids to the holy altar of the right to bear arms. Or small children molested by catholic priests and covered up by the church until recently..do i offend if i think there must be some tacit acceptance by society and the church?
Sorry for the rantings, but all human societies all these while have their dark secrets. Silly things were/are/will be done for always and always, even eating clones.

[mal4mac]

There are so many examples where we all do nothing while malign forces chop bits off us - like nothing has been done to stop the greed of the bankers since the 2008 collapse... they just keep on taking bigger & bigger bonuses while the rest of us get poorer.

[Hwo Thumb]

Motivation stuff
I already said his motivation was that he wanted to see what would happen. It wasn't a power trip; This is a man who is healthy, strong, and rich. He already controls every aspect of his family's life. He has all the power he wants. Now the book asked me to believe a man who was smart and rational enough to build himself to the top of the economy, execute the construction of a massive underground base without anyone noticing, and build cloning labs in them is also crazy enough to commit murder and cannibalism out of scientific boredom. Even if that could really happen, it still doesn't explain how nobody noticed the flaw in the whole, "Let's raise clones and eat them" plan. The author clearly just stuck that in there for shock value. It's poor writing.

USA allows automatic hunting guns to be sold so that it is easier to shoot small kids at school. I think it is called some amendment or something to the constitution. Us country bumpkins can't really understand such sacrifice of small kids to the holy altar of the right to bear arms. Or small children molested by catholic priests and covered up by the church until recently..do i offend if i think there must be some tacit acceptance by society and the church?
Sorry for the rantings, but all human societies all these while have their dark secrets. Silly things were/are/will be done for always and always, even eating clones.

You very obviously don't know what you're talking about. Put forth an informed opinion or none at all. (http://xkcd.com/1357/) I don't want to divert the topic, even though you're blatantly attempting to, but it sounds like you've been raised by a family who believes that the express purpose of guns is to make it easier to commit murder. Then you go and prove your ignorance by saying "I think it is called some amendment or something to the constitution." Look. Learn what you're talking about, or don't bring it up. Actually, just don't bring it up at all. School shootings have basically nothing to do with a book about a crazy man forcing his kids to eat their clones.

[Vota]

luhsun, if you are going to make ignorant, slanderous comments such as, "USA allows automatic hunting guns to be sold so that it is easier to shoot small kids at school", THEN GET THE **** OFF THIS FORUM.

Anyone who thinks I am going overboard, just re-read what he wrote.

I AM OFFENDED.

[Lykren]

I'm offended too, but by the gun laws, not by luhsun.

[Vota]

Wow, just wow. I am going to bow out of this because I'm liable to explode from the ignorance and idiocy present.

[luhsun]

I have many friends from the states, but few has such short fuses despite having read many books of quality and possessing increasing mental strength. I do wish to make a remark that reading and the liberal arts are not the same as bodybuilding, where a macho,brash show of strength may be the custom. The number of people there tending to so easily explode at other people's perceived idiocy does make your gun laws dangerous. My intention was to present proofs that irrational society was not only found in the times of hitler or in the times of primitive indian sutee widow burning. The childish regression seen in these exchanges (among highly educated, widely read forumers) is a small proof that a smart and rational man, after spending so much effort and time to build his mental strength, could go irrationally ballistic. So Hwo Thumb, i am not digressing. I am attempting to proof that irrational person and society that is found everywhere(including this forum) could make the plot of your story plausible. Do recall the recent austrian and also american imprisoning of female sex slaves in secret bunker/house (although no cloning nor caninibalism).

[Hwo Thumb]

But a book's entire premise shouldn't rely on the fact that "this guy is irrational." Crazy is lazy. When a murder mystery show wants to throw in some cheap drama, or raise the stakes, they make a serial killer, because they're unpredictable and dangerous, and it shakes up the flow. When an internet commenter wants to dismiss all the points made against them, they say, "These people are irrational and angry." And, by the same token, when an author wants to provide character motivation without actually coming up with a good reason for why their character would do such a thing, they say, "He's crazy. Don't need 'splaining."

And besides, even if that is the point you were trying to make, you executed it poorly. Instead of connecting your ideas back to the book with anything more substantial with, "people are crazy," you just made a bunch of incredibly poorly written attempts to point out social injustice. As a matter of fact, by implying that guns cause violence, you're defeating your own point. You're trying to show how there have always been crazy and irrational people, but then you suggest that the second amendment, which was created to prevent violence, creates it.

How about, instead of writing very poorly written justifications in defense of the author of a book you have never read and then defending them with, "You guys are overreacting," you just don't make those points in the first place? It doesn't help that you then go on to imply that there is some sort of paradox in being intelligent and being nice, when, in my experience, the people most likely to be infuriated by stupidity are well read, intelligent individuals.

Maybe you can't stand how even those "possessing increasing mental strength" of this forum still have "such short fuses," but I can't stand how I'm somehow obligated to respect the opinion of someone who makes non-sequitur statements about gun control and pope-rape in a conversation about cloning and cannibalism.

[/rant]

[luhsun]

Both gun laws and cannibalism are abhorent and irrational. You are not required to respect my opinion.. and i am much obliged that you are verbally parrying like an english gentleman. I will admit touche if you score a clever hit. Do tell me that when you started this thread, your intention was not to get a standing ovation of agreements. You make a brash claim without understanding psychology or humans. Defend your honour with your pen(or keyboard)!

[Hwo Thumb]

What are you spouting out of your keyboard? This is not a fencing match or a duel. I did not "make a brash claim without understanding psychology or humans." This has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. It's about literature. I cannot express how little I care whether there really are people as crazy as the father in The Compound. That's irrelevant. That's not what we're talking about. The book is poorly written because even if it possible that there is a dude so crazy that he will lock his entire family in his basement for six years and trick them into committing murder and cannibalism just for sh*ts and giggles, it still treats that character as nothing more than a tool to advance the plot; A big, nefarious bad guy cackling maniacally like a comic book supervillain. The book is poorly written because it is simple, fundamentally flawed, and thoroughly unchallenging. There is a good guy and a bad guy, and nothing in between. There is a moral issue that, for some reason, nobody realizes makes no sense at all. The characters are one dimensional objects that drive the plot. They're unrealistic - They're not people, they're characters. The kid is "angsty teen." The dad is "batsh*t crazy dude." The sister and mother hardly exist at all.

I hate to cite my own writing, because it feels like boasting, but I make a real effort to make my characters real people. They have a personality. They have tastes, and likes, and dislikes, and a history, and old friends, and phobias, and moral ambiguity, and, yes, irrationalities. But I have never made a character who is just crazy "because he is." That is poor writing. To me, it says that the author could not come up with a way to rationalize what's going on in their book, so they just went with, "Things are this way because I said so." That is unacceptable to me. It doesn't matter if that person could exist in real life. Let me restate that. It doesn't matter if that person could exist in real life. Firstly, if people like that do exist, they are incredibly rare. It's like basing your villain off of Hitler, based on the grounds "but there really was a person that awful!" Yes, but how often do you actually see someone like that? Besides, fiction isn't about real life, it's about telling a story. This story was poorly written, contrived, and the premise was, at its core, fatally flawed.

I find it odd that you're addressing my issue with the "dad is crazy" problem, but not the fact that the whole premise of the book makes no sense, and the other people in the underground bunker with the dad should immediately realize this. Yet, either the main character is as mentally... off... as his father, or we're expected to believe that the author legitimately believes that eating clones is a viable method of food production, because nobody in the book ever points out that the plan is completely illogical, simply immoral. I mean, sure, if I really really suspend my disbelief, I might be able to buy that the dad is "just that crazy." But am I supposed to believe that nobody else in the bunker has even the vaguest concept of the laws of thermodynamics? Energy goes in, energy comes out, some is lost in the process. That's literally all you need to know to see the issue with this book - People need to eat, and not all the food they eat stays in their body forever. (By that logic, eating a 90 year old man feeds you for 90 years, but eating a newborn sustains you for nine months. I am very very very sorry I had to write that sentence.)

Addendum: I am not addressing your comment on gun laws because they're as poorly explained as they are irrelevant. If you think gun laws are illogical, that's fine, but at least express that opinion in an intelligent and well informed way, and some place far away from here, where it doesn't belong.

[luhsun]

I also wonder what Arriak meat taste like. Of course, the comics at smartjeeves may not be considered literature, and for a short while, i did ignore my belief there are no aliens.

[Hwo Thumb]

I also wonder what Arriak meat taste like. Of course, the comics at smartjeeves may not be considered literature, and for a short while, i did ignore my belief there are no aliens.

That's not literature. And I'm not sure if you did it on purpose in a misguided attempt at satire, or if you're just illiterate, but you managed to spell the site name wrong. Those are not books. Are you under the impression that I was suggesting my poorly drawn webcomic was representative of my stories? If so, though I hate to resort to blatant insults, you're just plain stupid.

I write stories. The characters in the comics are flat and two dimensional (literally) because they are a way to take a break from my actual writing. I don't put effort into them. And considering I'm trying to express a character in one panel with a handful of dialogue, it says something that I even managed to give each character any personality at all, unlike in The Compound, where I could swap the protagonist out for a bowl of cheese for all the difference (and sense) it would make.

Once again, you have completely diverted the subject by bringing up something completely irrelevant, apparently in a misguided attempt to distract me or catch me off guard. I never, at any point, implied that the characters I create in a crappy webcomic are "good." I accept that they're not. It's a comic. It's simple. It's basic. It's what I do when I'm bored. In other words, it's not the book that I'm writing, and not the book I was referring to in the above post.

Now howsabout we actually talk about The Compound, and howsabout you either address my points rationally and thoroughly, or get the hell out of here? I find it insulting that I crafted a well worded and reasonable arguement, and you responded with a sarcastic trollish comment about the comic I draw when I'm bored.

And, once again, you've managed to forcibly jam your own beliefs and opinions into a conversation where they don't belong. Nobody gives a crap about whether you believe in aliens. Your opinion on aliens means literally nothing to me. There are no aliens in The Compound.

(By the way, whether you subscribe to the caricatured aliens I have created or not, I find it incredible that anyone can claim themselves intelligent, while also believing that in the nigh-infinite space, and all the planets that orbit all the stars in all the galaxies in the universe, there is not the slightest chance that life could have evolved anywhere but here. It projects the pre-scientific revolution line of thought that Earth is in the center of the universe and is the only thing that matters.)

[luhsun]

You did boast. And you lambasted the poor author of the compound... sometimes one may write to make money and there was no pretension to create a literary masterpiece. As long as it sells on amazon, and people get entertained and get their money's worth... live and let live.

[mona amon]

Maybe his society was a parallel world in which the Nazis conquered Britain - do you think Hitler would have hesitated using other people's body parts to enable himself to live longer?

I wouldn't know. He was not Lord Voldemort, and as Shaw says, "No specific virtue or vice in a man implies the existence of any other specific virtue or vice in him, however closely the imagination may associate them", and no, I see no parallels to Nazi Germany. The novel wouldn't have failed so badly with me if I had been able to draw any sort of parallel to anything at all relevant.

I think it's absurd to try and justify a faulty premise by arguing that "evil exists" or "Hitler existed" or "people shoot each other with guns". I would like an explanation that is consistent with the internal or artistic logic of the book I'm talking about, not parallels with real life which do not work at any level. If the author fails to give us a convincing artistic justification for his premises, then he has built his house upon the sand. I'm not saying there has to be an actual or real world justification. The fact that witches and wizards and magic do not actually exist has not prevented millions of readers of the Harry Potter books from getting drawn in and immersed in the world that Rowling created. So the bottom line as far as I'm concerned is, create any world you like. Just draw me in and make me believe in its existence.

[Vota]

luhsun, I showed just how rational I am, AND tolerant, by leaving the thread, at least until your last post has spurred me to one final post.

First of all, ad hominem insults incoming:

1. You said, "USA allows automatic hunting guns to be sold so that it is easier to shoot small kids at school." You sir, are a ****ing moron. You make a blanket statement here so full of hot air its amazing it didn't float off from lack of credible weight.

2. You said, "Us country bumpkins can't really understand such sacrifice of small kids to the holy altar of the right to bear arms." You show your inherent bias and prejudice against America, AND your sentence is so poorly constructed a grammarian would probably have a schizoid embolism if they saw it, irrespective of English clearly not being your first language, but I don't ****ing care.

3. You said, "do i offend if i think there must be some tacit acceptance by society and the church?" You have no clue what you are talking about here, and that you would even imply such a thing makes me want to punch you through your computer screen.

4. You said, "I do wish to make a remark that reading and the liberal arts are not the same as bodybuilding, where a macho, brash show of strength may be the custom." You once again show your complete lack of knowledge of a subject of which you have no business making statements about.

5. You said, "The childish regression seen in these exchanges (among highly educated, widely read forumers) is a small proof that a smart and rational man, after spending so much effort and time to build his mental strength, could go irrationally ballistic." I could show you irrationally ballistic, but I would likely be banned from this forum if I did, and I am smart enough and rational enough not to do that. You piss me off and offend me. You think you are some kind of intellectual conducting experiments, but really you are just an ignorant **** trying to make himself look smart. My apologies if I regress slightly back to the time of my machismo, ghetto fie! old habits. I cannot help it. You bring out the primitive in me that wants to club you over your head for uttering such ignorant statements. Your ancestor's ancestors probably cringe at every keystroke this forum has had the displeasure and misfortune to read.

6. You claim to purposely insight anger to prove something about a CRAP book, but really, you just made yourself look like an even bigger idiot by showing your ignorant, biased, and poorly reasoned statements.

7. And last, but surely not least...your lame intellect had the nerve to comment on Hamlet. Fie! Fie! Off to the pits!

[luhsun]

Do argue properly, vota.

[mal4mac]

I would like an explanation that is consistent with the internal or artistic logic of the book I'm talking about, not parallels with real life which do not work at any level. If the author fails to give us a convincing artistic justification for his premises, then he has built his house upon the sand.

I'd go so far as saying that Ishiguro risks losing some readers who can't accept the world he throws us into, as he's obviously lost you. But I, and most critics, seem more than happy to accept it. I totally agree with Joseph O'Neill: "Ishiguro serves up the saddest, most persuasive science fiction you'll read."

[mal4mac]

Do argue properly, vota.

Yes, vota's childish insults are getting a bit tiresome. I thought your point about "hunting guns" was very well made. It showed no bias or prejudice against America, it simply questioned one of the strangest aspects of that society.

Your grammar is fine, I get what you're saying, what more does one need?

I find it amazing that vota is trying to stop you making comments about bodybuilding! We all know something about bodybuilding, and anyone has the right to say "liberal arts are not the same as bodybuilding, where a macho, brash show of strength may be the custom." That "may be the custom" admits to not being an expert on bodybuilding, and invites vota to provide arguments against it in a gentle manner. And what does he do? More childish insults!

I like the way you tell it as it is luhsun: "The childish regression seen in these exchanges (among highly educated, widely read forumers) is a small proof that a smart and rational man, after spending so much effort and time to build his mental strength, could go irrationally ballistic." Vota's last post just adds more evidence to your observation! Vota says "I could show you irrationally ballistic", and does, in that very post!

[luhsun]

Thank you, mal4mac. I will, of course, brush up on my grammar.

[Hwo Thumb]

You did boast.
Apparently, after I explicitly stated that I was NOT boasting, you managed to interpret what I was saying as boasting. I was pointing out how anyone who wants to consider themselves even a half-decent writer has to put some thought and effort into their characters instead of making them generic objects that inhabit the cramped setting of the poorly written book. I only referenced my own writing because I was speaking from experience. If I was boasting, I would have said, "In my book, [book title here], I did a great job portraying [character name here] for reasons X, Y, and Z"

sometimes one may write to make money and there was no pretension to create a literary masterpiece. As long as it sells on amazon, and people get entertained and get their money's worth... live and let live.

I don't have a problem that this book exists. I have a problem that this book has sold well and received good reviews when it is not well written. It shouldn't sell on amazon. It's bad. And it shouldn't sell in the meatspace either. It's just a crappy book. The premise is poor, the characters are poor, the pacing is horribly rushed, the author relies on cheap tricks to create drama... The only redeeming quality it has is that at least the prose itself isn't terrible, but it's not enough to make up for all the other bad parts.

I also have the problem with the fact that you still refuse to address my main arguments, and instead prefer to compress everything I was saying down to one element and then attack that one element, usually in a horribly off-topic way by bringing up outspoken unsupported opinions on gun-control and how I spend my free time making crappy webcomics on the internet when I'm bored.

I think it's absurd to try and justify a faulty premise by arguing that "evil exists" or "Hitler existed" or "people shoot each other with guns". I would like an explanation that is consistent with the internal or artistic logic of the book I'm talking about, not parallels with real life which do not work at any level. If the author fails to give us a convincing artistic justification for his premises, then he has built his house upon the sand.

Yes. This is exactly what I was talking about. Odd that luhsun doesn't seem to keen to address my rebuttals to his idea of what constitutes a realistic character.

Edit:

Hamlet should just kill his uncle while the uncle was praying. I am not a christian and i cannot believe, nay, i do not think hamlet would be so idiotic as to accept that an evil man killed while he was praying would get a free pass to heaven. How can such crap ever be tolerated..such ridiculous illogical insult to our intelligence!

You still haven't provided any sort of insight whatsoever as to what was going on in your head when you thought this was in any way relevant to the book we're supposed to be discussing.

[luhsun]

And has your book sold better on amazon?
And the hamlet part was sarcastic...hamlet, a far better work, can be criticised in a hill-billy way the same way you criticised compound (i admit my grammar sucks, but i hope the structure of the sentence/content was adequately cobbled to give a picture of a brash know-it-all.

[Hwo Thumb]

And has your book sold better on amazon? I haven't PUBLISHED a book. I never said I did. All I said was that when I put work and effort into something to make it publishable, I'm sure as hell going to put some work and effort into making the characters who inhabit it worth reading about. So no, I haven't published a book yet. I also haven't ever been dumb enough to pretend that eating clones is a viable strategy for solving any problem in this book. My entire point is that this book sells well, and it shouldn't, because it is bad. It is poorly written. It is unrealistic. It doesn't make logical sense. I don't need to be a published author to share my opinion on a crappy book any more than I need to be a director, scriptwriter, or actor to judge a movie. If you can look me in the eye and tell me that you legitimately believe that a entire rich, well educated family which has never heard of the laws of thermodynamics is an acceptable break from reality, yet it's "realistic" to include a completely insane character, you're a much poorer judge of literature than I am. This is a bad book. It just is.


And the hamlet part was sarcastic...hamlet, a far better work, can be criticised in a hill-billy way the same way you criticised compound (i admit my grammar sucks, but i hope the structure of the sentence/content was adequately cobbled to give a picture of a brash know-it-all.

This doesn't even make sense. First, you made absolutely no connection back to The Compound, which I'll remind you, since you seem so keen to forget, is what we're discussing. Secondly, I'm not a "brash know-it-all." I'm a regular person who took one look at this book and is utterly baffled by why anyone can like it. How does me pointing out an extremely obvious flaw in the premise of the book while you repeatedly ignore the issue in favor of attacking my perceived arrogance make me a "brash know-it-all?" Thirdly, "hilly-billy?" Please explain to me how the hell my dislike of this book is "hilly-billy." (Oh, and lastly, the "sarcastic" critisism you made makes sense. You're asking a perfectly reasonable question as if it rhetorically stupid when it is just that - a reasonable question. Even if you presented it poorly, it's a good point. It just has absolutely nothing to do with this book.)

Now, for what feels like the millionth time, can you please actually talk about the book? You know, the BOOK that this conversation is about? Can you talk about that instead of me, my "boasting," my "hilly billy" critisism, my poor artwork, my lack of popular publication, your opinions on gun control and pope rape and the existence of aliens, and your strange and incomprehensible attempts at satire? Can you do that? Because if not, you have nothing to add to this discussion. Please stop trolling and just leave.

And on grammar - It's not about whether what you're writing is comprehensible. If you can't find the shift key, your argument, however well crafted (that is to say, not at all) is painful to read.

[luhsun]

I have no intention to buy the book on amazon...cos that will increase its sale by one. Not reading it does not disallow me from defending it against your attacks. One man's meat is another's poison.. looking at the summary, i do not have the inclination to buy and read it..but that does not give me the right to call it silly or other readers who do read it, silly.
And the shift key...guilty as charged.

[mona amon]

Are you seriously saying we have no right to call anything silly? :)

[Hwo Thumb]

I really don't get what luhsun is trying to argue. He is vehemently defending a book he has never read and has no intention to, and yet he insists that it's not in my place to establish my opinion that it doesn't make sense, when, in fact, it is an objective fact that the book's premise is flawed.

It seems like he's just using this thread as an excuse to insert whatever off topic opinions he has and then try to make them relevant.

[mal4mac]

I already said his motivation was that he wanted to see what would happen. It wasn't a power trip...

He *said* this was his motivation, but I agree with you that this wasn't very convincing.



; This is a man who is healthy, strong, and rich. He already controls every aspect of his family's life. He has all the power he wants.


Many suicides who kill their families are healthy, strong, and rich. No one can control *every* aspect of his family's life.



Now the book asked me to believe a man who was smart and rational enough to build himself to the top of the economy, execute the construction of a massive underground base without anyone noticing, and build cloning labs in them is also crazy enough to commit murder and cannibalism out of scientific boredom.


The Nazis who built the death camps were at the top of their economy, executed the construction of them without the mass of the German population & foreign powers noticing, built vivisection labs in them, and performed experiments in them that were worse than cannabilism.

And how do you know ghe was doing it out of scientific boredom? From what you have said, the only evidence we have is his self reporting of "I wanted to see what would happen." Why trust what he said? If there was a "God's eye" narrator saying, "He did it purely because he was bored." Then you would be right, otherwise all bets are off.



You very obviously don't know what you're talking about. Put forth an informed opinion or none at all.

I read your original post, so I am informed.

[mal4mac]

Are you seriously saying we have no right to call anything silly? :)

You have the right, but it does raise the temperature somewhat!

[Hwo Thumb]

The Nazis who built the death camps were at the top of their economy, executed the construction of them without the mass of the German population & foreign powers noticing, built vivisection labs in them, and performed experiments in them that were worse than cannabilism.
Why does everyone keep invoking Godwin's law? I mean, granted, I did it, but only in response to you.

Anyway, there's a few problems here - The Nazi's weren't insane. They were immoral, efficient, evil, but not insane. While the men lower down on the chain of command were just following orders, obviously Hitler wasn't the only guy who knew what was going on - He was actually kind of stupid, and it was mostly the men below him that managed the war effort and the genocide. Obviously not all of these men were insane; some were just horribly immoral and clouded by misplaced nationalism and idealism.



And how do you know ghe was doing it out of scientific boredom? From what you have said, the only evidence we have is his self reporting of "I wanted to see what would happen." Why trust what he said? If there was a "God's eye" narrator saying, "He did it purely because he was bored." Then you would be right, otherwise all bets are off.

The information the author gives us is the only window we have into that world. If that window is biased and clouded, that's fine - That shows that the author knows how to write from a certain perspective; In this case, the teenage son. But there's no hint that the father had any other goal than what was explicitly stated. If you give your antagonist an ulterior motive, you have to at least provide some hint that such a motive exists. If he said he did it out of boredom, than either he did it out of boredom, or Bodeen needs to provide some kind of evidence pointing to the contrary.



I read your original post, so I am informed.
Thank you for replying to a post that was not directed to you, and was not about the book. This is taken completely out of context and has nothing to do with you.
You're also wrong. You're reading my opinion, which I have already formed. If you really want to contribute to this conversation, you could do so most effectively by reading the book, or at least part of it, and then commenting, to get a more objective viewpoint here. So far, I think I'm the only poster on this thread who has read the book. I'm not saying you have to, but you can't say you're informed when you're not.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a rude, but it annoys me when people are wrong.

[luhsun]

Hwo Thumb(i made the effort to capitalise your 't' as a peace offering, and i hope you wouldnt mind the rest)...stephanie bodeen wrote for children, and i suppose she tried to upgrade, maybe not yet successfully, to cater for bigger children(like us). Willy wonka of charlie and the chocolate factory was pretty absurd, but i suppose younger children wont mind... and those spoilt kids disposed off in chocolate slurry... did it make charlie a cannibal? In her interview, stephanie did credit roald dahl as her role model. So my answer to your question: maybe she was not sophisticated enough, or a more charitable explanation may be that she was targetting teens for her market.

[mona amon]

Why does everyone keep invoking Godwin's law?

I'd never heard of Godwin's Law before. It's as true as the Law of Gravity! :hurray:

[luhsun]

Godwin's law ruled that the first one to mention hitler or nazi lost. So i suppose technically mal4mac and i lost. However, i think the spirit of the law was to prevent mudslinging/calling your opponents names when we ran out of arguments. Mal4mac and i mentioned hitler as example of the evils men did and still do. I think we did not resort to calling fellow forum users 'nazi'.

[Hwo Thumb]

Yeah, I guess, in that respect, Godwin's law is lurking in the corner. Hitler has been mentioned, but only as a comparison to the character in the book, not any of the posters involved in the discussion.


Hwo Thumb(i made the effort to capitalise your 't' as a peace offering, and i hope you wouldnt mind the rest)...stephanie bodeen wrote for children, and i suppose she tried to upgrade, maybe not yet successfully, to cater for bigger children(like us). Willy wonka of charlie and the chocolate factory was pretty absurd, but i suppose younger children wont mind... and those spoilt kids disposed off in chocolate slurry... did it make charlie a cannibal? In her interview, stephanie did credit roald dahl as her role model. So my answer to your question: maybe she was not sophisticated enough, or a more charitable explanation may be that she was targetting teens for her market.

The problem with this is that this isn't a kid's book. If you're writing a book for a teenage market, you can't write like a child. A book that addresses serious subjects like cannibalism and cloning has to match that drama with the skill with which it's written. Even if it's a book marketed for teenagers instead of adults, I think it's reasonable to expect the author not to patronize me by thinking I wouldn't notice the mistakes.

There's another issue, which I mentioned but didn't elaborate on. Looking only at writing style and prose, this book is pretty well written. It's not Asimov or Shakespeare or anything, but it's not bad. The problem with the book is in the content, which is less the mark of someone who is having trouble adjusting their writing style to an older market and more that of someone who didn't put enough thought and effort into the plot or characters of their book.

There's plenty of authors who write ridiculous stuff for adults that doesn't make sense. Expecting logic to work in Douglass Adam's work will give you a headache. Same goes for Johnathan Swift. Catch-22 is itself the trope namer of a logical fallacy. The distinction between the errors in these works and Bodeen's book is intent; These authors all deliberately tossed aside logic in favor of writing a better book, and it works. But it seems like Bodeen either never noticed the huge plothole in The Compound, or didn't care enough to fix it.

Either way, this book reeks of laziness. I know I'm being harsh, but I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the book if it wasn't so popular. If a book sells well, I expect it to be good. I apply it to higher standards. And this book is sub-par, which is why I'm picking it out when there are certainly much worse books. Basically, I have less of a problem with the poor quality of the book and more of a problem with the success it's achieved when better books go unnoticed.

Jeez, I use the word "book" a lot. Well, this is a lit forum.

(Also, although it's never made precisely clear, I'm pretty sure none of the kids in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were killed, just forced through an experience horrid enough to give anyone PTSD and then being told that they'll receive nothing)

[luhsun]

All kids know the naughty ones died horribly. How else could they survive these physical traumas? The deaths were not made explicit but smarter kids knew we lied to them so they wont get nightmares.

[mal4mac]

The Nazi's weren't insane.

This is a fuzzy area, but I think you could argue they were, judged by our standards. Some dictionary definitions:

insanity - in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction;
normal - conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

I guess you will say that the Nazi doctors volunteering for vivisection duty were behaving "as expected" or "normal for Nazis", but shouldn't they be held to a higher standard of sanity?



If he said he did it out of boredom, than either he did it out of boredom, or Bodeen needs to provide some kind of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Why? It's a novel not a psychological case study. You're allowed to do anything in a novel, however novel.



So far, I think I'm the only poster on this thread who has read the book...


You're unlikely to find anyone who has read an obscure author just by launching a thread in a general literature forum. Why not launch a discussion on the Amazon review page for the book?

[mal4mac]

I'd never heard of Godwin's Law before. It's as true as the Law of Gravity! :hurray:

No it isn't, it's a glib and over-simplistic statement made by some obscure lawyer. Luhsun has pointed exactly why it's flawed.

[mona amon]

Godwin's law ruled that the first one to mention hitler or nazi lost. So i suppose technically mal4mac and i lost. However, i think the spirit of the law was to prevent mudslinging/calling your opponents names when we ran out of arguments. Mal4mac and i mentioned hitler as example of the evils men did and still do. I think we did not resort to calling fellow forum users 'nazi'.

It's not as rigid as that. From Wikipedia -


Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I thought it was hilarious because it has just the right amount of truth, exaggeration and conciseness which is at the heart of most comedic lines. I'm a member of only two internet forums, but have noticed the regularity with which comparisons to the Nazis appear, and it does get tiresome. It is more about the analogies rather than name calling - I have not come across that. Even when we were having that long and impassioned debate about whether Hitler was evil or not, no one called the forum member defending Hitler a Nazi or Neo Nazi, and I wasn't making a dig at you or mal4mac. I just find it spot-on and very funny.

[mal4mac]

As a (former?) physicist, I think I was more put out by you suggesting it was "as true as the Law of Gravity" :)

[Hwo Thumb]

Why? It's a novel not a psychological case study. You're allowed to do anything in a novel, however novel.


Okay, so maybe they don't NEED to include some hint of an ulterior motive for us to read for one, but they should. It's shoddy writing, which is what I've been saying all along.


You're unlikely to find anyone who has read an obscure author just by launching a thread in a general literature forum. Why not launch a discussion on the Amazon review page for the book?

It's not obscure - practically everyone at my library has read the book, and the only reason I have is because I got it for free from the library - we had like, 10 copies of it.

Like I said, my problem with the book is not that it exists - it's that it's not obscure when it should be.

[mal4mac]

It's not obscure - practically everyone at my library has read the book, and the only reason I have is because I got it for free from the library - we had like, 10 copies of it.

Like I said, my problem with the book is not that it exists - it's that it's not obscure when it should be.

Maybe it got hyped in your part of the world; I'd never heard of the author or book before you mentioned them. It's not available in my public library; the author doesn't have one book in there (and it's not a small library, it has the second highest number of visitors in the UK!) Maybe you should take this up with your library - why are they buying so many copies of an obscure author when they have a very limited selection of classics (determine *which* classics are missing - there are bound to be many - such is the state of the world, even in good libraries... ). I'm angry at my library, at the moment, for not having anything by Rousseau...

[luhsun]

Maybe that is why the sales is so good... are they dumping free copies everywhere to stimulate interest? (Wow, 10 copies for your library alone.. i am not conversant with the practice in the states... do the publishers usually give out so many free copies?)

[qimissung]

I haven't read this book, but Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go has a similar idiotic premise, and provoked a similar reaction in me. Ishiguro is an excellent writer and the book has many good things going for it though it is a bit depressing and lacking the usual verve, but in the end it just falls flat because of the silliness of the premise. The author never explains why a whole society would acquiesce to such a thing, or why the clones accept their fate so meekly.

I haven't read all the arguments in the thread.

But I did want to say, Mona, that I read this book last year and loved it very much. Maybe it's science fiction, but I think it's really an exploration of humanity disguised as science fiction:

In fact, Never Let Me Go is a clever novel, in which Kazio Ishiguro uses a very detailed description of the short lives of clones to present an intensified view of human life and its difficulties, where our complex social and personal relationships, and above all our mortality, fear of death and ability to love, are magnified through the shortness of time allotted to the clones.

I found this article here-it's the best one I've read about it so far:


http://mathewson.hubpages.com/hub/Never-let-me-go-essay

[AuntShecky]

This thread stumbled into the territory of Godwin's Law long ago.

That's too bad, because the OP made legitimate points about an author's explaining a character's preposterous actions with "he's just crazy." Serious writers (meaning writers who take their work seriously, whether it's dramatic or humorous) learned from Aristotle the difference between the impossible and the improbable.

[mal4mac]

Godwin's law is a crude blunt instrument, it certainly doesn't deserve the title "law".

Nazi Germany was a reality and should be used as any part of history would be. If I have a valid point that I can make about something and it is directly related to something going on in Nazi Germany, the point is still valid. Just because I mention Nazi Germany doesn't invalidate it. The "hero" of the novel discussed was performing evil medical experiments on human beings, what's wrong with comparing that to Nazi experiments? It's difficult to think of other evil people who were renowned for doing that - Genghis Khan and Bin Laden didn't go in for medical experiments. I guess I might mention Dr Moreau, but the thread is about a kid's book, and kids might not be conversant with the minor works of H.G. Wells - WWII analogies are extremely useful because they’re familiar to almost everyone.

"The very notion that a major 20th Century event like German aggression is off-limits in political discussions is both arbitrary and anti-intellectual in the extreme. There simply are instances where such comparisons uniquely illuminate important truths." - Glenn Greenwald, http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/godwin/

[luhsun]

Are you serious, Auntshecky, that you actually still believe so dogmatically aristotle's arbitrary hair-splitting semantics on probable impossibility vs improbable possibilities?
His classifications of animals/plants/medicine are outdated, but sometimes still accurate and discussed by scientists in a quaint way. So should this arbitrary dichotomy..be respected but not worshipped. Let me use an example from the above thread which i left unrebutted earlier. I made a sweeping statement re: my disbelief in aliens.. not because i am unaware of the infinite number of stars in this universe, and i choose to let it be because such arguments are futile. Using this infinity of stars in the universe logic, it is probable that these impossible aliens do exist (i say impossible because none has turned up in public yet). So Hwo Thumb was justified in believing the improbably possibility of aliens. Using such induction logic, many chimpanzees each on a typewriter, typing randomly could reproduce shakespeare entire plays. This is improbable possibility. But then stars are so many light years apart from each other, and scientifically, faster than light travel or communication are impossible. So, contact with aliens is on a practical basis impossible..too far and too little chances they can reach us. But then again, aliens and ftl travel are the stuff of many science fictions.
So aristotle's dictum has an escape clause..we, the readers, could and should choose to be sometimes charitable and suspend critical judgement on certain aspects of the plot so we can enjoy the stories. Let the author concentrate on the central plot of his story. Eg aesop's fox and the grape story. I could be a spoilsport and insists foxes cant talk or are extremely cunning, so they wont be unsuccessful in reaching the grapes.

[mal4mac]

So aristotle's dictum has an escape clause..we, the readers, could and should choose to be sometimes charitable and suspend critical judgement on certain aspects of the plot so we can enjoy the stories. Let the author concentrate on the central plot of his story. Eg aesop's fox and the grape story. I could be a spoilsport and insists foxes cant talk or are extremely cunning, so they wont be unsuccessful in reaching the grapes.

I totally agree luhsun. Even Allan Bloom, that most conservatives of cultural critics, thinks Aristotle's "Poetics", is flawed...

[Hwo Thumb]

So Hwo Thumb was justified in believing the improbably possibility of aliens. Using such induction logic, many chimpanzees each on a typewriter, typing randomly could reproduce shakespeare entire plays. This is improbable possibility. But then stars are so many light years apart from each other, and scientifically, faster than light travel or communication are impossible. So, contact with aliens is on a practical basis impossible..too far and too little chances they can reach us. But then again, aliens and ftl travel are the stuff of many science fictions.
Before you said aliens don't exist. Now you're saying they probably do, but we just can't communicate with them. Those are two completely different arguments. You know, whether that was intentional or not, I just want to say that almost nothing bothers me more in a discussion than when someone changes their argument just enough to make my point appear invalid, and acts like it was what they were saying the whole time.

You also claim that ftl travel and communication is impossible. This is not only an extremely audacious claim for anyone who is not a theoretical physicist, but is irrelevant, because the source material that brought us to the subject of aliens was your apparent expectation for a crappy comic strip to prioritize scientific realism over just getting the point across. If it was supposed to be realistic, I could be expected to provide an explanation for how a bunch of aliens ended up forming an empire together, but that's just not the case, is it?

On the other hand, Bodeen writes The Compound in a serious manner. If you expect me to take your book seriously, you have to provide some half-believable logical justification for how the entire moral dilemma of your book works.

And then you have this lovely little thing on Aristotle. Once again, instead of addressing Aunt's point (That asking the audience to believe "he's just crazy" as a valid character motivation is just a step too far) you make an unnecessary commentary on the author she cited.

The lovely thing about philosophy is that it ages well. Times change, but people seldom do. Pointing out the distinction between the impossible and the improbable? How is that hair-splitting semantics? There's a clear difference. In any case, Shecky's valid point was that a good writer should not rely on coincidence or tremendous improbabilities to drive the plot. All books do this to some degree, but the secret is knowing how much, and it's a secret Bodeen has yet to master. Whether or not Aristotle's old philosophies are valid has little bearing on whether Shecky's are.


Godwin's law is a crude blunt instrument, it certainly doesn't deserve the title "law".

GODWIN'S

LAW

IS

SATIRE.

Although it is technically true (Because, given infinite time to argue, the conversation WILL compare someone to Hitler at some point. In that sense, it is a law, because it is completely and irrefutably true) I invoked it as a joke, and it's clearly meant to be a joke, even if it wasn't obvious in this context. It's like GIFT (greater internet f***wad theory) There's not really any "hard" science supporting it, because it's not an actual theory, it's a satirical poke at how out-of-hand internet arguments tend to get.

[luhsun]

"ignore my belief there are no aliens" does not mean aliens does not exist. The key word is my belief, and i have explained that the belief is based on practical considerations, perhaps applicable to me alone,although i hope there are also like-minded people out there. I did not make a sweeping statement saying aliens do not exist, and arguments are futile if you choose to believe in aliens or even ghosts or god. I raised this matter to split hairs with auntshecky, because she tried to argue using bombastic words and invoking aristotle, instead of using common sense logic. I did not intend to argue with you about aliens.
Anyway, i believe bodeen wrote so that her book will be read and enjoyed and hopefully be sold. I dont believe she was trying to write a philosophical masterpiece and i am very sure she labelled her book as fiction and not non-fiction. And you HAVE NOT answered my question as to whether or not your library routinely get 10 copies of free books from every publishers.

[Hwo Thumb]

"My belief there are no aliens."
"My belief,"
"There are no aliens."

^Above: You claiming that you think there are no aliens. You are not saying that they probably don't exist, you're saying that you believe they don't. If you meant to say that you think it's IMPROBABLE that they exist, then you could have said that instead, but that would still be wrong; As I think we've made clear, aliens probably do exist - we just have no means to contact them, and they're probably not on the same level of development as us. Anyway, it doesn't matter. This is at least the third time you've managed to change the conversation about this book to your own personal beliefs. Nobody cares about your opinion on gun control, or creepy priests, or aliens, and yet you repeatedly make these strange attempts to make your own political or world beliefs applicable to this. They are not.

Furthermore, I didn't really want to bring this up, but I really don't appreciate you comparing cloning your family and eating them for ****s and giggles, an action that, I think it's safe to say, is pretty objectively evil, to the sale of assault weapons (which are actually incredibly loosely defined - anyone in support of a ban specifically on assault weapons probably doesn't know what they are) and guns in general, which is not only subjective but an incredibly volatile political subject that we're not here to talk about. (Apparently there's no such thing as moral ambivalence. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGErC6QQdoc)) In fact, that ridiculous assertion comes far closer to the spirit of Godwin's law than any mention of Nazis so far - You're basically implying that anyone who supports the second amendment supports school shootings and murder, and saying it's comparable to making your kids eat themselves, or at the very least that both actions are equally irrational.

And you HAVE NOT answered my question as to whether or not your library routinely get 10 copies of free books from every publishers.
Because obviously I work at the library and know why they make the purchases they make. I think my whole point was kind of that people like this book and I don't know why, not that people like this book and I can rationally justify why any library would need 10 copies. (Actually closer to 3 or 4 now - They gave a bunch away as part of a reading program)

Anyway, i believe bodeen wrote so that her book will be read and enjoyed and hopefully be sold. I dont believe she was trying to write a philosophical masterpiece.
And there's no gradient in between a "philosophical masterpiece" and a book with the most horribly thought out premise outside of a low-budget 70's sci fi show? I don't read books expecting beautifully crafted prose, but if a book is popular enough to receive praise by almost everyone who has read it, I sure as hell expect it to make some kind of sense.

[luhsun]

Ahh.. perhaps the problem may be your taste is different from the hoi polloi reading public who buy the book and pay your salary.

[Hwo Thumb]

Ahh.. perhaps the problem may be your taste is different from the hoi polloi reading public who buy the book and pay your salary.

Once again, you're acting like I'm the one being a gloating, big-headed pedant, when you're throwing in outdated Greek phrases, nitpicking Aristotle, and, of course, crafting this eloquently constructed excerpt,

...dogmatically aristotle's arbitrary hair-splitting semantics on probable impossibility vs improbable possibilities?

So, here you are, asserting that my "problem" is expecting a well-received book to be well-written, and not just pointless, YA drivel with no semblance of rational plot or character motivation, when you, either by nature or intentionally, are throwing in as many big words as you can while still keeping your arguments somewhat readable. You can't accuse me of setting my literary standards too high and then write like someone who just discovered a thesaurus and insists on using it as much as possible.

Annnddd I'm not sure what you mean by "buy the book and pay your salary." It's not my book, and it's not my salary. Nobody pays my salary, because I'm not a writer selling books. I'm a 16 year old offended by the fact that this author thinks so little of my demographic that she thinks this crap will get past the radar, and I'm even more offended by the fact that she's right, and her book did sell. It may not be a best seller; Bodeen may not be world renowned, but I've read far better books by far less-acclaimed authors.

Before you comment on my age, by the way, keep in mind that my points were equally valid before I revealed that I'm not an adult.

[luhsun]

My apologies, Hwo Thumb, i made the wrong assumption that you are at least in your twenties, or you are a librarian employed by the library. My next comment will be seen as patronising, and necessarily so, because our age gap is so huge, but in a few years' time, you may not be so easily offended by incongruencies in books or even real life. Nothing has to make sense just because you are offended.

[Hwo Thumb]

I'm not offended by the author's mistake; Like I said before, I'm offended by the fact that an author thought so little of my age group that she could sneak that glaring mistake past, and that she actually pulled it off - The first time I pointed the cloning issue out to a few friends who had read the book, they legitimately hadn't noticed before. Perhaps this has been blown out of proportion by this argument, but I simply don't understand how this book is successful. All the pretty prose in the world doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense.

The thing is, I don't like many book directed towards kids my age. It's not that they're poorly written, I just don't like the content; They tend to be violent and gory, because apparently teenagers like death, and they tend to be full of angst and forced relationships, because that's kind of our trademark, and they tend to be very contrived, because the author needs an excuse to stick a bunch of teenagers into situations where one would expect to see adults.

However, The Compound takes the cake; while it eliminates the "unnecessary awkward love triangle" issue, it is more violent than average, ("Let's raise human beings like cattle and then eat them!") is unnecessarily angsty, (I don't remember that much about the character, because they were so forgettable, but I found the main character annoying and a bit whiny) and, as we've discussed, it's pretty freakin' contrived.

[luhsun]

Maybe you are more mature as compared with your peers. If all American kids are like you, regardless of the PISA studies , thevtop scoring South Korea, Shanghai and Singaporean kids could have a tough fight on their hands. Mal4mac, did you guess he is only 16?

[YesNo]

I asked my daughter (teenager) if she heard of the book and she said she read it. What's worse, she said she enjoyed it.

It just goes to show how much I know about what she's reading.

[mal4mac]

I asked my daughter (teenager) if she heard of the book and she said she read it. What's worse, she said she enjoyed it.

It just goes to show how much I know about what she's reading.

Why "what's worse"? Have you read it YesNo?

[mal4mac]

Maybe you are more mature as compared with your peers. If all American kids are like you, regardless of the PISA studies , thevtop scoring South Korea, Shanghai and Singaporean kids could have a tough fight on their hands. Mal4mac, did you guess he is only 16?

I thought 16-18, with a gift for hard argument! I wouldn't expect a cultured, intelligent 20+ from the UK to tell someone from another country to go use a thesaurus. I tend to think well of the US, so assume the same goes over there.

[luhsun]

Ok.. thanks mal4mac. Learning experience for me.

[YesNo]

Why "what's worse"? Have you read it YesNo?

No, far from it. Now I might have to read the book.

[mona amon]

I haven't read all the arguments in the thread.

But I did want to say, Mona, that I read this book last year and loved it very much. Maybe it's science fiction, but I think it's really an exploration of humanity disguised as science fiction:

In fact, Never Let Me Go is a clever novel, in which Kazio Ishiguro uses a very detailed description of the short lives of clones to present an intensified view of human life and its difficulties, where our complex social and personal relationships, and above all our mortality, fear of death and ability to love, are magnified through the shortness of time allotted to the clones.

I found this article here-it's the best one I've read about it so far:


http://mathewson.hubpages.com/hub/Never-let-me-go-essay

Fair enough. :) I actually liked the book on the whole, but you know how it is - criticize one aspect of it and you come across as hating it from beginning to end. Also, I love Remains of the day and An Artist of the Floating World so much that I felt this was disappointing in comparison.


Are you serious, Auntshecky, that you actually still believe so dogmatically aristotle's arbitrary hair-splitting semantics on probable impossibility vs improbable possibilities?

I'm not sure exactly, but I think it is less to do with how possible or probable something is than with how successful the writer is in convincing the reader to buy his premise. It is easier to accept that Gregor Samsa wakes up one morning to find himself transformed into a horrible insect than to accept that a mother would allow herself to become pregnant, carry the child for nine months and then care for it and nourish it just so she can give it up to a crazy husband to make hamburgers out of. There are many ways in which a premise, even an impossible one, can work. Analogical, metaphorical, or psychological truth is often more compelling than actual possibility.


Godwin's law is a crude blunt instrument, it certainly doesn't deserve the title "law".

Nazi Germany was a reality and should be used as any part of history would be. If I have a valid point that I can make about something and it is directly related to something going on in Nazi Germany, the point is still valid. Just because I mention Nazi Germany doesn't invalidate it. The "hero" of the novel discussed was performing evil medical experiments on human beings, what's wrong with comparing that to Nazi experiments? It's difficult to think of other evil people who were renowned for doing that - Genghis Khan and Bin Laden didn't go in for medical experiments. I guess I might mention Dr Moreau, but the thread is about a kid's book, and kids might not be conversant with the minor works of H.G. Wells - WWII analogies are extremely useful because they’re familiar to almost everyone.

"The very notion that a major 20th Century event like German aggression is off-limits in political discussions is both arbitrary and anti-intellectual in the extreme. There simply are instances where such comparisons uniquely illuminate important truths." - Glenn Greenwald, http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/godwin/

Why the Nazi analogy does not work for me as regards Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go -

Nazism did not spring up overnight, fully formed. It was a culmination of number of social, cultural, historical and intellectual factors, some of which can be traced all the way back to medieval times. Ishiguro does not give us any reasons for how human beings would agree to slaughter other human beings who were genetically identical to themselves.

Also, he does not give us any reasons why they would all meekly accept their fate instead of walking away and becoming waitresses or something when there were no physical restrictions preventing the clones from mingling and merging with the people outside, and giving up their lives was a volontary act. I see no Nazi parallels there either.

Ishiguro was obviously not interested in this aspect of the book. He just wanted a framework in which to explore other things. To quote him, "The original idea was to write a story about students, young people who are going to go through a human life span in thirty years instead of eighty. I thought that they were going to come across nuclear weapons that were being moved around at night in huge lorries and be doomed in some way. It finally fell in place when I decided to make the students clones. Then I had a sci-fi reason for why their life spans are limited. One of the attractions about using clones is that it makes people ask immediately, What does it mean to be a human being? It’s a secular route to the Dostoyevskian question, What is a soul?" - all this would have been just fine if he had been able to carry it off, but personally, I feel he'd have been better off sticking to the nuclear weapons plot. With this clone business too many intrusive questions kept popping into my head for which the book was not providing answers, and my sympathy started to wane as each implauabile detail was revealed.

[YesNo]

I asked my daughter about those "clones". She didn't remember them. What she remembered was the adventure of trying to get out of the compound against their father's wishes. They had to find a "code" of some sort to unlock the exit door.

[luhsun]

Samsa transforming into an insect is not scientifically possible. Human being doing silly things.. history and the newspapers are full of these. Jim jones asking his followers to give their children poison before killing themselves. Drug abusers selling their children into prostitution and worse. Young fathers bashing their babies, putting them in washing machines or microwaves. Mothers keeping quiet or are silent accomplices. I know you folks are educated, or at least come from privileged backgrounds...but i find it perplexing that even mona amon does not believe that men do evil things in this world, and many more men and women do stay silent and allow evil things to be done. Cloning and eating their own children are heinous, but still plausible. Of note, the author is familiar with east africa. Witch doctors there did in the past kill children and adults and ate their body parts ritualistically.
A few hundred years ago, stories abound of witches in europe who killed and ate children, sometimes their own. How else can you account for the story of hansel and gretel, inclusive of the story of hansel being fattened up by the witch?

[Hwo Thumb]

snip

Okay, we're leaning back into the same argument again; Just because horrible things DO happen does not mean the author can rely on the "Humans aren't logical" excuse to explain why nobody noticed the ridiculous flaw with the plan. I don't expect every character to be logical, but I expect them to make sense, and the same thing goes for the plot.


I asked my daughter about those "clones". She didn't remember them. What she remembered was the adventure of trying to get out of the compound against their father's wishes. They had to find a "code" of some sort to unlock the exit door.
Maybe I'm exaggerating the role the clones played in the book. After all, they weren't the focus of the book; rather, I think they were intended to be an extra incentive, encouraging the characters to escape the Compound before cannibalism became necessary. So maybe I am blowing it out of proportion. Maybe it is a good book, but I personally couldn't get past that the book expects me to buy that nobody noticed the whole "It takes more energy to feed people than you get out of eating them" issue.

Maybe it's because I can only take a book seriously if it's realistic. I mean, I enjoyed Douglass Adam's work, but if it were a serious story instead of a comedy, I would have despised it. (Obviously an extreme example, but you get what I mean)


...if all American kids are like you...
Sometimes I wish they were...:banghead:

[AuntShecky]

If all American kids are like you,

then your ol' Auntie is less worried about the next generation!

[luhsun]

But if real life is replete with illogical men and women, why do you insist on a book making sense your way... in psychology, we look for internal and external consistency. I dont know what you literary people look for and will be glad to be informed. Internal consistency is when the contents of the book from beginning to the end do not contradict one another without a good explanation. External consistency is when the contents of the book are consistent with what is happening in the outside world. I would have thought that a fiction could blatantly ignore both rules.
There is a psychological developmental stage called preoperational stage.. in it, a toddler is so preoccupied by the word "iron" and the concept of "of course iron is heavier", that he is usually confused regarding whether or not a kilogram of iron is heavier than a kilogram of cotton.

[Frostball]

This reminds me of a very similar flawed premise in The Matrix. The premise that robots need human bodies for energy is exactly as flawed, since the amount of energy required to keep the humans alive and hooked up to the matrix would always be more than the energy gained from it. You'd think they would just use nuclear power. Nevertheless, The Matrix remains one of my favorite movies. But the flawed premise always stuck out like the sore thumb to me.

[luhsun]

The basis of matrix was the harnessing of human consciousness/thought as an alternative source of mental energy for the AI. Just like yoda could lift luke's spaceship via channelling the flow of the force (scientific bunkum, but hey, many of us are star wars fans). Just suspend disbelief and enjoy the story.
If you wish a gross explanation, clones can be fed an diet the original humans could not or would not eat, and their flesh then eaten. The blinkered unidimensional preoccupation with conservation of energy may not be scientific after all, because you ignore other outside energy sources. We feed tilapia fish with pig excrements, and then eat the fishes. I believe oysters and crabs also recycle rotten protein. Singaporeans drink 'new water', ie recycled water from the sewerage and latrines.

[Hwo Thumb]

Yeah, but you can't feed people pig excrement and rotten protein. It's not like the clones can photosynthesize or something.

Also, I'm not sure where the consciousness thing in the Matrix is shown. To my memory, they never mentioned that, they only said they were harvesting the people themselves. Thought is an abstract concept, it can't power anything except in a figurative sense. If they were going to suddenly assert that in this universe, thought is real energy, they sure didn't make it clear.

As long as we're talking about the Matrix, was anybody else bothered by the fact that the machines were clearly the good guys from the start? I mean, we built them, then we got scared of them, then we made the first strike, then they won the war to defend their freedom, fair and square, and created probably the fairest surrender terms ever for us (You get to live in a utopia!) and yet at every turn they proved themselves to have stronger moral fiber than us as we continuously stab them in the back. In the end, the Big Bad of the series is a mutual evil to both the humans and the machines, and was arguably created by the humans meddling in the Matrix.

**minor edit after you posted, whoops**

[luhsun]

They could eat fungi (no photosynthesis needed) which may survive on waste heat and soil and human excrements....Good machines/robots realising that the 3-4 laws protecting humanity will eventually cause more harm...do go through the whole foundation/robots series of asimov and his followers... and please suspend your critical judgement and dont harp on the nonsensical platinium iridium positronic brains.

[Hwo Thumb]

...Okay... That was virtually incomprehensible. The fact that the AI are the good guys has nothing to do with the fact that they are artificial. It's never stated that the machines in the matrix were given Asimov's laws, or that they have positronic brains, simply that they are intelligent and capable of making autonomous decisions.

Anyway, I don't want to distract us with the Matrix. It's a conversation for a different thread, at least the part about who the "good guys" were. Now if we want to talk about the suspension of belief with the plothole, I think it has less to do with good writing and more to do with the fact that the movie just moves you along at such a fast pace compared to a book that you don't have time for critical thought, you just have to accept it, and only notice plotholes in reflection.

Now that I think about it, that might explain the situation with The Compound. It was a very rushed book, and necessarily so, and I can't help but wonder if that's why nobody else seems to be bothered by the cloning issue; They were just so busy keeping up with the fast pace of the book, there wasn't time to reflect on the logistics of the moral dilemma.

[luhsun]

Life is too short... just enjoy the story and stop poking holes in the plotline. Gee..i sounds like an old geezer

[mal4mac]

Nazism did not spring up overnight, fully formed. It was a culmination of number of social, cultural, historical and intellectual factors, some of which can be traced all the way back to medieval times. Ishiguro does not give us any reasons for how human beings would agree to slaughter other human beings who were genetically identical to themselves.


I find this instantly believable! I don't see any need to provide an alternative history - isn't the novel long enough already? (Not too long... but long enough...)The Nazi example shows that whole categories of human beings can be classified as "not really human", thereby allowing anything to be done to them. All it would need is for the society to define clones as "not really human" and the underlying motive is transparent & believable - perfect transplants!



Also, he does not give us any reasons why they would all meekly accept their fate instead of walking away and becoming waitresses or something when there were no physical restrictions preventing the clones from mingling and merging with the people outside, and giving up their lives was a voluntary act. I see no Nazi parallels there either.


I imagine it was a police state and they just couldn't melt into the crowd - many Jews remained in Germany, trying to live as normal a life as possible, because they knew escape was impossible. I imagined the clones as having been in that situation for many decades, so their apathy & acceptance was now total - OK this wasn't the situation in Germany, fortunately the 1000 year Reich didn't happen. Maybe this "acceptance" was more like sacrificial victims in the Inca civilisation who willingly went to their fates.

I'd go as far as agreeing that there is something "unworldly" about the novel that detracts from it somewhat. I think "An Artist of the Floating World" is his best novel, combining the strangeness of "Never Let Me Go" with the "real life" feel of "Remains of the Day". And that "floating world" is so attractive!

[mal4mac]

The basis of matrix was the harnessing of human consciousness/thought as an alternative source of mental energy for the AI. Just like yoda could lift luke's spaceship via channelling the flow of the force (scientific bunkum, but hey, many of us are star wars fans).

I think it's a bit harsh you calling it "scientific bunkum". I'd call it an "intriguing guess at future science". There isn't a scientific explanation of consciousness yet, but, who knows, future science might harness human consciousness and channel it to an AI. Just suspend disbelief *and* don't call it "bunkum", then you'll enjoy it more :)


The blinkered unidimensional preoccupation with conservation of energy may not be scientific after all...

Good point, so maybe the matrix guys haven't solved the "hard problem", maybe it's the actual wave form/pulses of neural energy which the AI requires from the humans - not the gross wattage.

[mona amon]

And that "floating world" is so attractive!

I'll drink to that. :cheers2:

[luhsun]

Touche, mal4mac.

[YesNo]

So the machines needed human consciousness in the Matrix. OK, now the Matrix makes slightly more sense. I was wondering why they were keeping us alive, but I ignored that nonsense because I enjoyed watching the interaction between the characters.

I read the first chapter of The Compound. Bodeen sets ups the tension right away while describing the characters, their location and how they interact with each other. The story does include cannibalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Compound_(book) I agree with Hwo Thumb that this part of the plot doesn't make sense and the book would be better without it, but then I haven't finished the book. It is hard enough to believe that a father would lock his family underground for fifteen years let alone raise his younger children as food.

[Frostball]

Anyway, I don't want to distract us with the Matrix. It's a conversation for a different thread, at least the part about who the "good guys" were. Now if we want to talk about the suspension of belief with the plothole, I think it has less to do with good writing and more to do with the fact that the movie just moves you along at such a fast pace compared to a book that you don't have time for critical thought, you just have to accept it, and only notice plotholes in reflection.

I agree with this. The movie just moves right along, with interesting characters doing interesting things, thereby keeping you pleasantly distracted enough that the flawed premise doesn't detract. It seems to me that if a flawed premise is necessary for a novel this is a great technique to use; that is, try not to let the reader dwell too long on it by giving the reader plenty of other cool things to dwell on.

As for the robots in The Matrix needing thoughts and/or consciousness, this is not mentioned or even implied at all in any of the movies. Morpheus specifically talks about how much electrical and heat energy the human body produces and then holds up a duracell battery explaining to Neo that the robots want to turn us into just that, a battery.

[luhsun]

Each human pod is equipped with a headjack that connects to the matrix to form the neural network of the matrix. If you watch the scene with the pods carefully, the umbilical cords primary purpose are to provide sustenance and the excreted heat are channeled away to prevent overheating and of course, the environmental friendly matrix makes sure the heat does not go to waste..the heat is recycled by the efficient matrix to heat up things. The duracell scene had morpheus creepily trying to hypnotise neo.. look at his body language and the way he turn the shiny metal object in his hand rhythmically... that is recruiting strategy/scare tactic!
So the headjack for harvesting human thoughts for the network is the raison d'etre for the pod... the umbilical cords are just food and excrements channels.

[YesNo]

So that battery was a misunderstanding Morpheus had. Interesting. He's doesn't know as much about the matrix as I thought. What are the machines getting out of the matrix?

Anyway, regarding The Compound, I finished chapter two. The mother is getting a better developed personality and she seems hostile toward her husband. She's going to feed her husband the bad bread and warns her children not to eat it. Ely is also showing a negative side, but then they have been in there for six years. So far no cannibalism.

[AuntShecky]

We feed tilapia fish with pig excrements, and then eat the fishes.

I'll never order tilapia again!

[mal4mac]

As for the robots in The Matrix needing thoughts and/or consciousness, this is not mentioned or even implied at all in any of the movies. Morpheus specifically talks about how much electrical and heat energy the human body produces and then holds up a duracell battery explaining to Neo that the robots want to turn us into just that, a battery.

Why should Morpheus tell Neo the truth?

[Frostball]

Why should Morpheus tell Neo the truth?

I'm not exactly saying he has to. I see people coming up with this "thought energy" idea out of nowhere, and while it might be true, so can an infinite number of things. It could be that the robots are actually enslaved the entire time by Morpheus, who is a god-king from another dimension playing a little game with everybody. The movie does not explicitly contradict this but... there isn't any good reason to believe that's what the writers of the movie really thought was going on. So basically, if people want to think this "thought energy" thing is what was really going on even though there's literally no evidence pointing towards it, they are welcome to their interpretation and there's nothing anybody can do to falsify it. Except perhaps asking the Wachowski brothers, but they could just be lying too.

[luhsun]

That is a guess too far, frostball. My other interpretation is based on the bible... the book of daniel... as this is a lit. forum..morpheus named after the god of dream, is the dream of nebuchadnezzar. The king's first dream may be the ship(huge objects made of various metals). The huge tree dream is the neural network, and cut down by the messenger, neo. Did you know the brothers choose to name moepheus' front organisation "daniel's institute of dreams"?

[Hwo Thumb]

That is a guess too far, frostball. My other interpretation is based on the bible... the book of daniel... as this is a lit. forum..morpheus named after the god of dream, is the dream of nebuchadnezzar. The king's first dream may be the ship(huge objects made of various metals). The huge tree dream is the neural network, and cut down by the messenger, neo. Did you know the brothers choose to name moepheus' front organisation "daniel's institute of dreams"?

What does that have to do with harvesting thought? Although we can't assume for sure that Morpheus is telling the truth, there's no evidence that contradicts his version of the story; The robots are keeping humans alive to use as batteries, (Which, I suppose, is different from actual farming. I think the idea is that they gather energy, and use people to store it.) but power from thought is never shown.

Like I said before, about character motivations: If the author has some hidden ulterior motive or something, they need to provide a shred of evidence. Otherwise, I could just assert that the entire movie took place on a microscopic world accidentally spawned from a spilled can of coca-cola in a freak science accident, and seconds after the ending credits of the third movie (Sorry, first: There WERE no sequels to the matrix ;)) the whole mess was wiped up by a washcloth and everyone died. But there's no evidence supporting that.

I don't remember where this was from, but I read a paper stating that the "true" interpretation of any work of art is that which has the heaviest evidence, contains no direct contradictions, and requires the fewest assumptions. The idea that the machines use thought for power fails the third category, and arguably the first.

[mal4mac]

It also has the requirement of not being ruddy stupid. To make sf films watchable, I usually have to bend over backwards to create an interpretation that makes them bearable - it's either that or stop watching. These days, I'm old, my back aches, i usually just avoid them - Godzilla you can keep it!

[Hwo Thumb]

You know, I think I need to go back and reread this book. It's quite possible I'm exaggerating the role that the cloning played in the story.

I guess I can understand why others would like the book. Personally, I despise obvious errors (I couldn't stand the Maximum Ride series) but it doesn't seem to bother others as much.

[YesNo]

Something seems wrong with the story. I've only read a few chapters, but I am not motivated to continue reading except to try to understand better what that is. There is something wrong with the father's character. It is too shallow to be interesting, but that would be what one expects of villains in stories. The author doesn't want the reader to empathize with them since ultimately the author plans to destroy them.

On the other hand, I don't want to belittle the author's achievement of writing a book that became well enough known to achieve the commercial success it did no matter what I find wrong with it. The plot is well-paced.

[Hwo Thumb]

I like my villains the way I like my DNA strands: Complex, fascinating, and composed of DNA. :)

It's nice to have someone else who agrees with me about the father. (I was starting to wonder if perhaps I had read the book too quickly, and had only found the characters shallow because I hadn't invested enough time in it. This might still be the case, but at least I'm not alone.) I think it's a common theme in "simpler" books, primarily YA, to have an objectively evil, and not particularly layered villain, unless the moral ambiguity is somehow part of the plot. It's really a shame, because writing a villain a perfectly tragic death to the point where you can get your audience feeling sorry for them is a sign of a good writer.

In any case, I'm thinking of re-reading The Compound, but I'm not convinced it's worth the time investment. (Besides, I have to push my way through Beloved first.) YesNo, you'll have to tell me, when you're done, what your overall opinion was.

[luhsun]

DNA strands are quite simple.. two strands coiling around each other to form a double helix. It is the combinations of many many nucleotides (each with a choice of the only 4 available nucleobase) along the strands with exons and introns, and the mystery of their actual functions that are confusing the heck out of us... i believe that natural mystery is a bit wee more complex than whatever books and villains we can name.

[Hwo Thumb]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you knew I was making a joke there

[luhsun]

Knew you were joking..you put a smiley there...
Just a small correction to your understanding of DNA as you do not appreciate errors ;-)

[Hwo Thumb]

But DNA is complicated! And fascinating! And awesome! Even if the structure of a strand of DNA isn't exactly overly complex, isn't a computer nothing more than 1s and 0s? And yet, after living things, computers are the most complicated things we encounter in our daily lives.

On that note, I often wonder if anyone else has an odd fascination with phylogeny and taxonomy. (A bit of a tangent, but as long as this thread has developed a tendency for swerving off topic, I may as well pitch in)

[luhsun]

I could not resist pulling your leg..but are you aware that a clone is a dna duplicate?
And usa had approved the selling of meat of cloned animals without special labelling? (our european friends were a wee bit upset )
And currently there are raging controversies over cloning of human fetal cells so that their organs could be harvested for organ transplants? That cannibal allusion in the compound or similar books is giving ethical scientists nightmares. So, i do not find the eating of clone story far-fetched, but of a far more immediate importance to us than worries about the existence of aliens from space.
By the way, do clarify your question re: taxonomy and phylogeny. Taxonomy is just the human effort to scientifically classify living beings. Phylogeny is the scientist's guesstimate on the evolutionary history of species of living beings (sometimes we use physical features, sometimes DNA similiarity). I think you may be interested in haeckel's discredited hypothesis that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny... a simple version is that the developing human embryo looks like a tadpole, then a fish, then chicken, pig and finally, voila, a baby human... the claim was that you can see the whole evolution from amphibian to fish to bird to mammal etc as the fetus develop

[Hwo Thumb]

Ha ha, yeah, I was aware of all that.

The thing about it, though, is that any ethical dilemma this book presents is ruined by the fact that, at its core, it doesn't make sense :P

What I mean is that it's just really cool looking at the way we divide and classify living things, and I love seeing the way scientists use the evidence we're given to track evolution.

[luhsun]

Aristotle did propose a taxonomy classification .. and i suspect 2000 years in the future, our taxonomy system may also be different...(tongue in cheek, of course) once alien 'dna' or silicon based life muddles up own carbon/nitrogen/oxygen template of life.

[luhsun]

Of side interest are the various conjectures regarding phylogeny/ontogeny of education, music, poetry etc, although different terms with the same parellel meanings are used.

[Hwo Thumb]

Irony
http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i396/Archangel913/irony_zpsed382651.png

Apparently, Google has picked up on my discussion of this book.

[mal4mac]

Apparently, Google has picked up on my discussion of this book.

We're all in the Google compound :)