This Writing Life
Writer and psychologist.
View all posts by Ian Hocking
Interesting review — but I’d be interested to know why you decided to read this particular book? (Although I’ve just realised, this guy might be really famous when it comes to thrillers, and I would not know as I haven’t read much of that type of stuff).
Actually, while I’m complaining of the fact I know so little about thrillers, perhaps I could importune upon you to, at some point, write a post recommending some good ones to try.…?
Damn blogger. Not sure why it changed my name to Wired Jester. That’s the *URL* computer. Do keep up.
Well, I read this book because the author sent me a copy and it looked interesting. Plus I’m generally interested in the MacMillan New Writing enterprise.
A post recommending good thrillers sounds intriguing. Perhaps I should do a top five books and top five films…stay tuned!
ach, blast it, now I’m going to have to read the book. Hopefully the library will have it, as I wonder if the navel-gazing, er, I mean, philosophy, will keep me interested — I enjoy exploring ideas, but if they are too crusted in academic nomenclature, I find it too hard after a day of work and kids, and if it is too watered-down, it can become meaningless generalization.
Why is it that thrillers so often more boring than thrilling? I’m usually pretty suspicious when I read the words ‘tense’ or ‘taut’ — how does the writer maintain that tension? Even when there is something mundane going on, you have that sense of menace and impending violence.
I’m not sure that I really know what a thriller is, you know.
Go ahead and read it, Helen — I think you’ll it fairly tense and gripping. You might want to try ordering it through your library.
Interesting to read your comments about the blurring of philosophy/psychology, Ian.
From your review, the book sounds like it’s two separate works. I think I would be interested in reading something similar, but even, with the navel-gazing and the action more balanced.
I’ve never understood this fascination with staring at fruit.
Yes, I like the blurring of psychology and philosophy. In fact, I’ve always thought (and tried to show students) that psychology is seen best as a branch of philosophy; with just a little philosophical vocabulary, it becomes much easier to conceptualise the history of psychology and its various paradigms.
I think Fuchs has managed a fairly good integration here; at least, the philosophical conundrums are integral to the plot. I’ll be interested to see what he comes up with in his next book.
But the characters in this book see the emergence of consciousness as a mystery that somehow confounds evolution
The “I don’t understand it so it must be magic” theory of evolution. I could never force myself through a book like this. I find that I damage too many walls by throwing the book at them.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.