1. Comment #415158 by Janus on September 15, 2009 at 3:08 am

?

Other Comments by Janus

2. Comment #415159 by SmartLX on September 15, 2009 at 3:09 am

You know how people repeat others' words in a high, nasal, barely intelligible "nyeh nyeh nyeeeeh' voice to mock them? This whole "review" is like that.

Oh, and First.

Edit: Second.

Other Comments by SmartLX

3. Comment #415162 by daverussell on September 15, 2009 at 3:30 am

Was this a review?

Other Comments by daverussell

4. Comment #415163 by zeerust2000 on September 15, 2009 at 3:32 am

Is this supposed to be satire? If so it fails. If not then what the hell is it?

Other Comments by zeerust2000

5. Comment #415164 by prolibertas on September 15, 2009 at 3:33 am

I'm confused... it's not good enough to be a satire, but if it isn't a satire, then it's just weird. Does anyone else know what it's about?

Other Comments by prolibertas

6. Comment #415166 by hoops mccann on September 15, 2009 at 3:40 am

"Is this supposed to be satire? If so it fails. If not then what the hell is it?"

Narcissism. If you're oblique and confusing enough, people will think you're smarter than them. Kind of like Bela Lugosi's character saying "pull the string".

Other Comments by hoops mccann

7. Comment #415168 by Sp!tfire on September 15, 2009 at 3:50 am

2. Comment #415159 by SmartLX

Oh, and First.

Edit: Second.

FAIL

Other Comments by Sp!tfire

8. Comment #415169 by Sp!tfire on September 15, 2009 at 3:56 am

How many beers this guy had before writting this?
It looks babbling...

Other Comments by Sp!tfire

9. Comment #415172 by Sheol99 on September 15, 2009 at 4:01 am

Yes. This is a very weird review.
The actual miracle is why such a garbage accepted by the editors?
One hypothesis will be the TGSoE storm make all editors dizzy, anything that mentioned "dawkins" and hard to read (and negative!) must be accepted. ?

Other Comments by Sheol99

10. Comment #415177 by Moq on September 15, 2009 at 4:22 am

A not entirely inept attempt at satire.

There's also a "digested read" of Karen Armstrong's latest book.

Other Comments by Moq

11. Comment #415179 by skepticato on September 15, 2009 at 4:28 am

Crace does this column called "The Digested Read" where he mockingly summarizes a book in what he considers to be the author's voice. It's not quite a review, closer to Colbert-style satire. Here's one he did of Karen Armstrong's book.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/07/karen-armstrong-case-for-god

Other Comments by skepticato

12. Comment #415181 by Hegelmon on September 15, 2009 at 4:51 am

Some of his columns are actually quite funny.

Other Comments by Hegelmon

13. Comment #415185 by Alternative Carpark on September 15, 2009 at 5:05 am

I say the previous "blank" article beats this one.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

14. Comment #415188 by zeerust2000 on September 15, 2009 at 5:14 am

Crace does this column called "The Digested Read" where he mockingly summarizes a book in what he considers to be the author's voice. It's not quite a review, closer to Colbert-style satire.

It makes a bit more sense now. Although I get the impression his aim is not much more than to get some laughs at the expense of TGSOE.

Other Comments by zeerust2000

15. Comment #415189 by SaintStephen on September 15, 2009 at 5:26 am

Kind of funny, actually:



EDIT: I found this line to be clever as well:

Brainy mammals contrive to increase the area of their grey matter within the confines of the skull – hence the wrinkles in the human brain.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

16. Comment #415193 by beebhack on September 15, 2009 at 5:44 am

Guys

Crace's 'Digested Reads' aren't reviews, as such -- they're just weekly outpourings of faux-spleen in the Guardian. Karen Armstrong had the same treatment recently. They brighten my bit of the Northern Line because they can be funny, and sometimes on the mark. But it's far away from serious crit.

Nice cartoon; T-shirt?

Other Comments by beebhack

17. Comment #415194 by SaintStephen on September 15, 2009 at 5:55 am

16. Comment #415193 by beebhack on September 15, 2009 at 5:44 am

Screen capture from the linked article. It would look nice on a T-shirt, though!

Other Comments by SaintStephen

18. Comment #415195 by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2009 at 6:00 am

I found this line to be clever as well:

Brainy mammals contrive to increase the area of their grey matter within the confines of the skull – hence the wrinkles in the human brain.

But why is this line satire, since it's what I actually wrote? And it is not even mine, but a biological commonplace.

I looked at his attempt at satirizing Karen Armstrong, and it misses her by a mile. Does he ever come close to hitting his target? Does he ever come close to recognizable satire? I mean, if you wanted to satirize my style, couldn't you do a better job?

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

19. Comment #415197 by SaintStephen on September 15, 2009 at 6:21 am

18. Comment #415195 by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2009 at 6:00 am

But why is this line satire, since it's what I actually wrote? And it is not even mine, but a biological commonplace.

I looked at his attempt at satirizing Karen Armstrong, and it misses her by a mile. Does he ever come close to hitting his target? Does he ever come close to recognizable satire? I mean, if you wanted to satirize my style, couldn't you do a better job?

Ahem.... *looking down at the ground and shuffling my feet*

I think you may have too many wrinkles for me, Richard.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

20. Comment #415199 by AshtonBlack on September 15, 2009 at 6:49 am

Not funny enough (IMHO!) to be satire.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

21. Comment #415202 by Nails on September 15, 2009 at 7:07 am

Think what the geographical distribution of creationists would look like if they'd all dispersed from Noah's ark: the greatest concentration would be around Mount Ararat. So how come they've all wound up in Utah?

At least there was one line worth reading.......

Other Comments by Nails

22. Comment #415207 by fossil-fish on September 15, 2009 at 7:31 am

Was it a good review?

That guy must be much cleverer than I realise. I think.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

23. Comment #415211 by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2009 at 7:47 am

Ahem.... *looking down at the ground and shuffling my feet*

I am so sorry, I didn't mean it to come across as a put-down of you. I guess I was just momentarily irritable because of Crace's inept attempt at satire (I'd love to be satirized if it hit the target). Anyway, I should have made it clear that the part that amused you wasn't word-for-word what I wrote, which was:-

The cerebral cortex of a mammal is a sheet of grey matter, wrapped around the outside of the brain. Getting brainier partly consists in increasing the area of the sheet. This could be done by increasing the total size of the brain, and of the skull that houses it. But there are downsides to having a big skull. It makes it harder to be born, for one thing. As a result, brainy mammals contrive to increase the area of the sheet while staying within limits set by the skull, and they do it by throwing the whole sheet into deep folds and fissures. This is why the human brain looks like a wrinkled walnut, and the brains of dolphins and whales are the only ones to rival ours for wrinkliness.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

24. Comment #415216 by SaintStephen on September 15, 2009 at 7:58 am

23. Comment #415211 by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2009 at 7:47 am

I am so sorry, I didn't mean it to come across as a put-down of you.

Au contraire, Professor Dawkins. I believe you gave me the finest compliment of my life. And I thank you very, very kindly for that.

(But see? My satire was completely lost on you!)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

25. Comment #415218 by Nunbeliever on September 15, 2009 at 8:09 am

Hahaha! Well, I have to admit (sorry Richard) (contrary to the majority opinion) that I actually thought it was quite funny :-) Sadly, creationists won't realize it was a satire...

...so the gullibility gene has grown stronger and at a certain point a new species, Imbecilis creationis, emerged from Imbecilis deis.

Imbecilis creationis! Haha! What a good word. That's one for my dictionary!

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

26. Comment #415221 by fretmeister on September 15, 2009 at 8:24 am

mmm.

Not nearly strident enough really!

(Running for cover!)

Other Comments by fretmeister

27. Comment #415224 by ukvillafan on September 15, 2009 at 8:39 am

This is the first "digested read" I have come across. I doubt I shall go hunting for more such offerings.

It falls well short of intelligent satire in my opinion; 95% of it could have been written by anyone with half a brain (which, OK, might rule out an imbecilis creationis - his only good line). Satire requires an accurate depiction of the "evil" (for want of a better word) being satirised and, to my mind, the author is way off the mark here. Essentially, he seeks to categorise Mr D as someone who thinks himself as an obsessive, egotistical, megalomaniacal god who is more important than Darwin.

The article strikes me as the ramblings of a jealous man who wants to be an author but can't cut it. But I have never met the man, so I can accept that I may well be wrong. I doubt he could be so charitable.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

28. Comment #415229 by mattmason75 on September 15, 2009 at 9:04 am

Was the author on drugs? I tried very hard to laugh but all I managed was a forced snicker.

Other Comments by mattmason75

29. Comment #415232 by gos on September 15, 2009 at 9:23 am

A healthy read, in that it made me question whether I found it unfunny because it satirized someone who I agree with (especially since I found his Karen Armstrong somewhat amusing).

Short answer: No.

Other Comments by gos

30. Comment #415236 by Laurie Fraser on September 15, 2009 at 9:38 am

Completely pathetic. I wrote something of similar quality in first year of high school, and was roundly, and rightly, torn to pieces over it. Not worth putting on RD.net. Crace fails.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

31. Comment #415239 by mixmastergaz on September 15, 2009 at 9:55 am

I've read plenty of these 'digested reads' that the Grauniad regularly publishes, but I've got my reservations about them. They seem to provide half-wits with the means to ridicule books that they haven't read (I don't mean Crace, I mean his readers). But Crace isn't ridiculing TGSOE here, he's ridiculing Richard. Fair enough, but if you're going to do that then you could at least make it funny. This is as pointless, humourless and cliched as Richard's 'appearance' in South Park. At least Marcus Brigstocke was funny. Crace isn't and there's nothing worse than something that's supposed to be funny, but isn't. I suspect that only those who have a personal dislike of Richard will be able to force a laugh at this crap. Totally misses its target.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

32. Comment #415240 by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2009 at 9:56 am

If you want to satirize an author, you have to pick on some feature (or features) of his style and poke fun at it. A good satire of my writing could find plenty of things to pick on. You could dig at my irrelevant digressions, often in footnotes, which some might think pedantic, such as my diatribe against 'Beijing' on page 184 of TGSOE. Or there's my habit of sticking in personal anecdotes, which some might think self-indulgent, such as my occasional verse quotations, or my story about learning Boyle's Law at school (footnote on page 366). Or you could satirize the very idea of the selfish gene, as the philosopher Anthony Kenny did with a witty exposition on how the letter 'e' must be a very selfish letter because it is so ubiquitous in English prose. Or you could satirize my occasional purple passages, which might well be judged over-the-top, such as the following from Climbing Mount Improbable:

Mount Improbable rears up from the plain, lofting its peaks dizzily to the rarefied sky. The towering, vertical cliffs of Mount Improbable can never, it seems, be climbed. Dwarfed like insects, thwarted mountaineers crawl and scrabble along the foot, gazing hopelessly at the sheer, unattainable heights. They shake their tiny, baffled heads and declare the brooding summit forever unscalable.
Our mountaineers are too ambitious. So intent are they on the perpendicular drama of the cliffs, they do not think to look round the other side of the mountain. There they would find not vertical cliffs and echoing canyons but gently inclined grassy meadows, graded steadily and easily towards the distant uplands.

Occasionally, these purple passages descend into what some might consider mawkish sentimentality, like this from page 189 of TGSOE:

At the age of three and a half, the Taung child was eaten by an eagle. We know this because damage marks to the eye sockets of the fossil are identical to marks made by modern eagles on modern monkeys as they rip out their eyes. Poor little Taung child, shrieking on the wind as you were borne aloft by the aquiline fury, you would have found no comfort in your destined fame, two and a half million years on, as the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus. Poor Taung mother, weeping in the Pliocene.

Surely a truly witty satirist could make something of any or all of these? John Crace just seems to miss the target altogether. It isn't enough just to elicit the response, "Ah, I recognize that this is attempting to be satire, therefore I'd better laugh." It actually needs to be funny! It actually needs to hit the target in question, not some other target 100 yards off to one side.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

33. Comment #415241 by godless_hoor on September 15, 2009 at 9:57 am

Regular readers of Crace's will know this is not to be taken seriously- he lampoons *every* book he reviews, and sometimes the only criteria for getting this treatment is having a high profile.

Sometimes they will be old classics, sometimes new books. Often he's satirized books I'm very fond of. I've read quotes from authors about him saying they love to read his column, but they all dread the day they see their own work there.

I have to admit this wasn't one of his better works, he got a bit personal for my liking in this one. But I doubt this will affect how people see TGSoE in the slightest.

Other Comments by godless_hoor

34. Comment #415244 by fretmeister on September 15, 2009 at 10:30 am

so then Richard...

You agree he isn't strident enough!

Other Comments by fretmeister

35. Comment #415246 by Tyler Durden on September 15, 2009 at 10:34 am

Comment #415240 by Richard Dawkins

If you want to satirize an author, you have to pick on some feature (or features) of his style and poke fun at it. A good satire of my writing could find plenty of things to pick on.

Sounds like an open invitation to me... and I've only just started reading TGSOE ;)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

36. Comment #415247 by Laurie Fraser on September 15, 2009 at 10:38 am

Comment #415240 by Richard Dawkins

Yeah, now you mention it, mate, there's some seriously shmaltzy stuff in there! :)

No, you don't have to worry - whatever stylistic "faults" you may have are outweighed by the beauty of your general prose, and the inspirational information you deliver so coherently, concisely, and, so often, so poetically. TGSOE is a marvellous read!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

37. Comment #415248 by Mark Jones on September 15, 2009 at 10:39 am

Rather than a pastiche of his writing, to me it reads more like an exaggeration of Richard (or even of the media image of Richard) in interview; as such, I would suggest this is more of a caricature of Richard than a satire of his writing.

I don't think it's particularly incisive, but it did make me giggle a couple of times (as does Richard!).

Other Comments by Mark Jones

38. Comment #415251 by Steve Zara on September 15, 2009 at 11:13 am

Comment #415248 by Mark Jones

In Guardian terms, it is quite a complement for a book to be put through the "digested read" mangle. They only do this with books that are considered significant. The "digested read" is not a summary, or a review. It's imagining the kind of thing that someone can say at a party to give the impression that they have read the book.

These digested reads may not be the most sparkling wit, but they do sometimes provide a witty parody of a book, and people's opinions of it.

They really aren't supposed to be taken seriously.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #415254 by mixmastergaz on September 15, 2009 at 11:25 am

Well obviously Steve's right in that it can't be taken seriously. But since it isn't funny it can't be taken humourously either...

I'm not sure how much of a complement it is to receive the digested read treatment though. As often as not the chosen targets are ghost-written celebrity autobiographies or Da Vinci Code trash.

If it's biting satire you're looking for have a peek at:-

www.platitudes.org.uk/#

It parodies 'thought for the day' every day. I find it's usually funnier if you read it as soon as you get into work and the real 'thought...' is still fresh in your mind. Quite how the author manages to get them online so quickly after the original broadcast is beyond me.

Those who heard the right awful Anne Atkins scoffing recently at the naivety of people who believe in ridiculous things like UFOs and were taken aback by the extent of her hypocrisy owe themselves a visit.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

40. Comment #415257 by irate_atheist on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 am

I have been pulled up, on occasion (and quite rightly so), for resorting to pathetic ad hom attacks. So I will refrain from calling John Crace a gibbering, ill-educated, cretinous fool and merely point out that this article is a joke. A joke similar in quality to the one vomited over the citizens of the world when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

For example:

Partly thanks to Darwin, but largely to me, we can now dispense with this proto-theist, Blairite nonsense. There is a universal gene pool, and new species appear by a shuffling of the gene pack. End of story. God (not that there is one), I'm tired of repeating this stuff. I expect you're tired of reading it, too. Oh, you're not reading it. But as I have a dominant megalomania gene, I'd better continue.

Ho, ho. My sides are quite literally splitting as a result of this erudite witticism from Mr. Crace. What an insight into the thoughts and writings of one the the UK's foremost science educators.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

41. Comment #415258 by Steve Zara on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 am

Comment #415257 by irate_atheist

The article isn't supposed to be insightful.

I guess I shouldn't be trying to defend the Guardian, but these digested reads are utter trivia. They are flim-flam.

They are the mildest of jokes. They summarise what some rather dimwitted dinner-party guest would say to another about a book they couldn't be bothered to read.

Occasionally they hit the spot (such as with any Dan Brown book), occasionally they don't. But they are so inconsequential that to get annoyed about them is equivalent to being offended by the lack of wit in a Christmas cracker joke.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #415259 by seabala on September 15, 2009 at 11:57 am

After reading about Odontochelys i HAD to make this cartoon. Unfortunately couldnt get better pics so had to make do with what i got on google images.



Other Comments by seabala

43. Comment #415260 by Tyler Durden on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Comment #415258 by Steve Zara

And speaking of Dan Brown:

"customers were queuing outside Waterstone's flagship store in Piccadilly this morning from 4am to be the first to get their hands on the novel."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/15/dan-brown-lost-symbol-price-war

4am?!? Why?

Do these people then run home and start reading it at 4:53am?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

44. Comment #415262 by irate_atheist on September 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm

41. Comment #415258 by Steve Zara -

But they are so inconsequential that to get annoyed about them is equivalent to being offended by a the lack of wit in a Christmas cracker joke.

I'm irate, it's my job to get annoyed. My mortgage, pension and children's inheritance depend upon it.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

45. Comment #415265 by halbard101 on September 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm

It sounds as though this guardian piece isn't satire directed at Richard but at the people who will pretend that they have read TGSoT.

Re-read with this in mind, it does seem to make a lot more sense.

Other Comments by halbard101

46. Comment #415270 by Steve Zara on September 15, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Comment #415265 by halbard101

It sounds as though this guardian piece isn't satire directed at Richard but at the people who will pretend that they have read TGSoT.

Exactly!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #415276 by Sally Luxmoore on September 15, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Richard, it seems to me that (as is often the case when people write books) if you want a good satire of yourself, you'll have to write it yourself! This reviewer is certainly not up to it.

PLEASE - don't stop doing the asides! Speaking as maybe the archetypal 'intelligent general reader' (not a scientist) your asides make you the author more approachable and funny and are the sort of thing that can help us non scientists to keep going over the difficult bits. They are friendly and frequently funny. As I have said before, it's like sitting next to someone entertaining at a dinner party.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

48. Comment #415278 by seabala on September 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm

I agree. I learn a lot from the footnotes and the occasional tangents.

Other Comments by seabala

49. Comment #415283 by Peacebeuponme on September 15, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Tyler

Do these people then run home and start reading it at 4:53am?

They would probably be able to read it a second time at 4:53am.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

50. Comment #415284 by fretmeister on September 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm

In my humble opinion, the tangents, the footnotes, the asides all go to what makes Richard who he is.

I could deliver, parrot fashion, a lecture on any subject on earth, but I wouldn't understand it, or just as importantly convey how exciting the subject is.

The tangents etc are the very thing that shows the excitement and wonder.

Richard reminds me of my old maths teacher at school. Even when just teaching GCSE level he could get excited enough to have an asthma attack! I never liked maths at school - but his joy was infectious.

Other Comments by fretmeister