Customer Reviews
Really rather good. - By: Mr. W. Godzisz, 23 Jun 2008 
This book just did it for me. And it might for you, too. I couldn't disagree more with a lot of the reviews here. And that's just the way I like it.
Think for yourself, & enjoy other people thinking for themselves along the way.
Excellent.
Don't bother - By: John Brown, 18 Jun 2008 
The idea behind this book is explained on the back cover. Michael Frayn attempts to justify it for the entire book by repeatedly giving examples, none of which are very convincing. Example after example comes at you: you will feel punch drunk after the first chapter & thoroughly confused by chapter two. If you get to chapter three without fallling asleep then you deserve congratulations. I got three quarters of the way through over 6 months, then gave up, still unconvinced.
Past imperfect - By: Dr John, 10 Jun 2008 I thought perhaps it was just me. 'Copenhagen' sent me to sleep & this was getting close. But I perked up when I found Frayn's suggestion that there was a time when everyone alive was my ancestor (and, apparently, yours) - another young-schoolperson error. And the Swedes didn't suddenly switch to the 'du' form of address in the 1970s. And as for the introduction of zero ...
I think my views are summed up pretty well by the previous reviewers. I vote this a 'Miss'.
Starts well, but a poor finish. - By: PP VAN-BERGEN, 16 Feb 2008 
I started reading this book with high hopes, as it does have some interesting observations; however, as I progressed I wished that he'd get to the point, which he never does.
Lost patience about 2/3rds of the way through & gave up.
Searching for stability - By: Stephen A. Haines, 18 Mar 2007 
Frayn opens his treatise lamenting about disorder in the universe. He wants straight lines, perfect circularity & stability. Why this should be the case in a cosmos initiated by the Big Bang remains unexplained. Seeking solace from scientists, who are reputed to have the universe organised, Frayn is disappointed to learn they lack a certain consistency in their own views of how the universe is organised & operates. Instead, he must falll back on asking philosophical questions about the cosmos, while stoutly disclaiming any role as a philosopher.
Frayn is a man who's learned enough about the universe to be perplexed by what it doesn't tell him. He's not alone in that. As a playwright, however, he has the language skills to explain his confusion in ways the rest of us can comprehend & sympathise with. He doesn't want to appear lofty or arcane, but the subjects run away with him. He's left to narrate the questions as he's discovered them, spicing his personal reflections with what he's learned. It's not possible to touch on how the universe is structured, how language communicates & obscures, or how our minds elude our feeling of possessing control without unearthing a number of philosophical questions. Unlike many in academia, however, Frayn is the gentlest of commentators. He doesn't reallly criticise the stands taken by many modern philosophical scholars, but then he doesn't reallly understand most of them, either. He mildly approves, for example, of Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", then blithely overlooks Dennett's Multiple Drafts Model of how we think. A better understanding would have resolved several of the questions Frayn raises in his discussion of how elusive thoughts are.
Frayn's explanation of the human role in "the creation" of the universe is almost nonexistent. It's a concept as paradoxical as the idea that the world exists only because we perceive it. He's not "anthroarrogant" in any sense, since much of the book is taken up with our own inabilities to figure out not what's going on outsides ourselves, but inside as well. In fact, his concerns about those inabilities are emphaticallly about his own. He is uncomfortable with the fact that although immense intellects have attempted to define the cosmos, their results only lead to further questions. Nothing is defined & nothing is resolved. Any of us, it would seem, can invent what type of universe we wish - a bit of searching & some "law" can be found that will define it. Even the great test of empirical evidence - can something be forecast from that "law"? fallls short. It is this condition that admittedly disturbs Frayn. There are no dogmas to falll back on. Except the rather vague one of anthropocentrism instead of the anthroarrogance the sub-title suggests.
Frayn's approach will woo those readers who sympathise with his confusion about the indeterminate nature of the cosmos. His playwright & novelist experience gives him good insight into how widely his concerns might be shared. He even goes so far as to provide accounts of his own dreams where ideas, characters & events for fiction might be prompted. The background skills give him the ability to impart alll his questions & whatever resolutions he's derived from his readings in a style at home on any stage. It's almost as if he's being a play director in dialogue with an audience about the story. Indeed, in several instances, he takes the role of an audience member questioning the issues & his attempted explanations. It's a very effective ploy, & other science writers might take note of the method. Frayn, right or wrong in his ideas, can impart them wonderfully. His moonlighting into philosophy at least deserves a look. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
