Scan barcode
theratking's review
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. The dialogue between a scientific and humanities perspective (while also acknowledging the two are not always so different) was really engaging for me. Reminded me a bit of some of the best kinds of conversations I have had.
That said, the intention of the book was.. a little unclear at times - the authors seem to want to suggest tangible action in response to the damage done by the Anthropocene, but still continue to speak in abstractions.
I happen to like abstractions, so I didn't always mind, but there was some tension in terms of the books goal. Not a deal breaker for me though.
That said, the intention of the book was.. a little unclear at times - the authors seem to want to suggest tangible action in response to the damage done by the Anthropocene, but still continue to speak in abstractions.
I happen to like abstractions, so I didn't always mind, but there was some tension in terms of the books goal. Not a deal breaker for me though.
fallonc's review
3.0
Imagine you're sitting around your local brewery with two of your pals, just chatting. Now imagine your two pals are experts in their field--like Cohen, a Medievalist, and Elkins-Tanton, an earth scientist--and you're that pal who listens and nods and follow about 70% of what they're saying, but completely awe struck by their discourse. That is what reading "Earth" feels like.
"Earth" is broken up into 8 chapters which are communicated to the reader the way the authors communicated to one another--through letters, texts, and conversations in offices and outdoors. The structure of the book reminds the reader of the very phenomenon that we earthling share: communication.
The book is mindful to differentiate between the anthropocentric and the object-ness (you other Object Lessons junkies get me when I say "object-ness;" non-junkies, pick up "Refrigerator" or "Luggage" now). We humans focus on the Earth's mapping, image, and quality of those who inhabit it, yet forget that Earth is not Earth only because we gave it its name. The letters and text bring in the human while the sections on our inability to understand the scale and size (and how to accept this inability) call the reader to take note that Earth is its own object, with or without us.
I switched back and fourth between giving Earth a 3 or 4 rating and settled on 3. I liked it. I probably won't read it again, but I would recommend it for those interested in object-ness. I enjoyed the structure and philosophical aspects of the book, such as:
-Earth time vs human time
-human's apparent attachment to Earth yet their alienation from the natural world
-the experience of feeling the passage of time
-Earth as a crusty mantel vs Earth as a planetary pond
-the typical image of a lonely Earth vs a nuance image of Earth surrounded by other matter
-the change in human's visual understand of Earth from pre-Medieval times to present day
-is beauty guarded against becoming too familiar?
more than I did the actual Earth science discussed in the book.
The structure is definitely one to be admired, but maybe not copied. The collaboration between two different disciplines is one to be admired and copied, and so is the poetic and understandable language these academics write and speak in.
All in all, I dig it.
"Earth" is broken up into 8 chapters which are communicated to the reader the way the authors communicated to one another--through letters, texts, and conversations in offices and outdoors. The structure of the book reminds the reader of the very phenomenon that we earthling share: communication.
The book is mindful to differentiate between the anthropocentric and the object-ness (you other Object Lessons junkies get me when I say "object-ness;" non-junkies, pick up "Refrigerator" or "Luggage" now). We humans focus on the Earth's mapping, image, and quality of those who inhabit it, yet forget that Earth is not Earth only because we gave it its name. The letters and text bring in the human while the sections on our inability to understand the scale and size (and how to accept this inability) call the reader to take note that Earth is its own object, with or without us.
I switched back and fourth between giving Earth a 3 or 4 rating and settled on 3. I liked it. I probably won't read it again, but I would recommend it for those interested in object-ness. I enjoyed the structure and philosophical aspects of the book, such as:
-Earth time vs human time
-human's apparent attachment to Earth yet their alienation from the natural world
-the experience of feeling the passage of time
-Earth as a crusty mantel vs Earth as a planetary pond
-the typical image of a lonely Earth vs a nuance image of Earth surrounded by other matter
-the change in human's visual understand of Earth from pre-Medieval times to present day
-is beauty guarded against becoming too familiar?
more than I did the actual Earth science discussed in the book.
The structure is definitely one to be admired, but maybe not copied. The collaboration between two different disciplines is one to be admired and copied, and so is the poetic and understandable language these academics write and speak in.
All in all, I dig it.
More...