8 thoughts on “Don’t open the box”

  1. 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.…?

  2. Damn blog­ger. Not sure why it changed my name to Wired Jester. That’s the *URL* com­puter. Do keep up.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.


  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *