tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post443650391838348990..comments2024-03-28T15:48:11.151-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: WHAT AM I READING?Robert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-53714748166823381532012-05-23T15:43:03.710-04:002012-05-23T15:43:03.710-04:00Briefly, I found the book virtually opaque on the ...Briefly, I found the book virtually opaque on the technical stuff, and filled with endless odd digressions that distracted from the story line. The NY Review seemed to think it was a brilliant piece of work. I had one very small but important bone to pick with the book: Although it went into endless detail about the private lives and eventual fates of very minor characters, the godawful, shameful treatment of Turing, who is, after all, the person who is supposedely the central character, was relegated to a laconic paragraph at the end of the final chapter. I found that deeply offensive.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-77154202950569413592012-05-23T15:13:10.029-04:002012-05-23T15:13:10.029-04:00Well, the review in the NYTimes is safely ignored,...Well, the review in the NYTimes is safely ignored, since it manages to misstate the technical results and to make up some history. It is very irritating, since the Times could easily have found someone with the technical competence to review the book. Or else someone who wouldn't pretend to said competence. <br />BUT, I'm curious about the disjunction between the book you read and the book reviewed in the New York Review. (I haven't read the book.)David Auerbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612242467208247588noreply@blogger.com