I've finished reading Michael Flynn's Eifleheim, too. Here are my impressions.
In a nutshell: For me, the parts of Flynn's story have much more to love than the whole. I was really into the narrative up to the last few pages, but there, the narrative tensions resolved in the key of Carl Sagan and Star Trek, which means that the highest human destiny is to go to the stars and make contact with intelligent life forms, with no touch of cosmic enchantment or transcendence.
Yet, on the other hand, I was struck by Flynn’s erudite presentation of Scholastic philosophy, portraying the way they thought and the origin of physics, which turned on the idea of momentum. That was enjoyable and well done.
And what’s not to love in the Krenken?
Also, the plausibility of Tom's Cliology and Sharon's Janatpour
space, was impressive, and worrisome to me, because I've got some favorite notions about such things, that are, maybe, also best presented in fiction, so I was relieved that he comes clean on the spatial models in his end notes.
Anyway, the lack of any serious grasp of the transcendence, even in Flynn's erudite account of the quandaries of Catholicism in which Fr. Dietrich and Brother are caught up in, was a personal letdown.
I wondered about Flynn's personal beliefs as well; he obviously did his research, but there were a few niggling things that were inaccurate Catholic teaching which I feel a practicing Catholic would have known.
Flynn was a practicing Catholic. I believe I know which scenes you are referring to and the text does make it seem like maybe the author believes them as well. However, I would hesitate to make that conclusion because I don't know if Dietrich is supposed to be a stand-in for the author's views or a flawed, yet mostly correct, character in his own right. Certainly Joachim is wrong about a lot of things, but not completely. Anyway, it will be a good topic for discussion!
Yes, to Christie. I think that he’s a very intelligent persons who has mastered a number of subjects to a high degree without having an affective feeling for them, even, I think, various fields of science. I suspect, maybe uncharitably, that the way he finishes off the story, has an appeal for his choir who will find his treatment of the Krenken sympathetic. Good book to choose for discussio, Arron.
My friend Matthew Scarince is a fan of the book and a historian by training. I invited him to our discussion as a special guest (like with Ben with The Anubis Gates) to give a historical perspective and to attempt to address the potential issues we are talking about. He has way more knowledge than me when it comes to the Middle Ages. It should be a good discussion! I haven’t yet finished my reread but I will in the next week or so. I’m looking forward to this one!
Oh and I ordered a book through inter library loan that has an essay by the author on why he wrote Eifelheim. I’ll provide that to everyone when I get it!
I'm afraid I don't remember the specifics, as I was listening to an audibook (it's about the only way I get things read these days). For brevity's sake, I didn't mention that I did consider the fallibility of the character Dietrich, or the possibility that Flynn is so well-researched on Church history that this is one of those instances of teachings that were not yet universalized. The only Church history I know is the what I need for apologetics, but on everything else I am pretty ignorant!
Arron, it would be a good thing to get the ball rolling about the book for your podcast discussion.
We all read differently, don’t we, taking "read" in the largest possible sense, and so each frames the story in a different sense.
The ideal discussion of a book would be like a multidimensional art gallery, in which each participant could see the narrative through the frame in which the other sees it! Did you, as a scientist, ever ponder the ideal gas or fluid?
That’s not an aside, since it struck me that you, Arron, are a type of ideal reader of narrative stories. I've met a few biologists who were ideal readers of certain kinds of organisms.
There's a harmonic between you as reader, and them as observers through their particular personal framing of living things, like desert rodents, giant kelp, coccolithophores, eastern pacific fish, etc and stories which are reread (ref. CSLewis's essay on two kinds of readers).
What’d ya think? How would you frame your framing?
I've finished reading Michael Flynn's Eifleheim, too. Here are my impressions.
In a nutshell: For me, the parts of Flynn's story have much more to love than the whole. I was really into the narrative up to the last few pages, but there, the narrative tensions resolved in the key of Carl Sagan and Star Trek, which means that the highest human destiny is to go to the stars and make contact with intelligent life forms, with no touch of cosmic enchantment or transcendence.
Yet, on the other hand, I was struck by Flynn’s erudite presentation of Scholastic philosophy, portraying the way they thought and the origin of physics, which turned on the idea of momentum. That was enjoyable and well done.
And what’s not to love in the Krenken?
Also, the plausibility of Tom's Cliology and Sharon's Janatpour
space, was impressive, and worrisome to me, because I've got some favorite notions about such things, that are, maybe, also best presented in fiction, so I was relieved that he comes clean on the spatial models in his end notes.
Anyway, the lack of any serious grasp of the transcendence, even in Flynn's erudite account of the quandaries of Catholicism in which Fr. Dietrich and Brother are caught up in, was a personal letdown.
But, the book is ideal for discussion!
I wondered about Flynn's personal beliefs as well; he obviously did his research, but there were a few niggling things that were inaccurate Catholic teaching which I feel a practicing Catholic would have known.
Flynn was a practicing Catholic. I believe I know which scenes you are referring to and the text does make it seem like maybe the author believes them as well. However, I would hesitate to make that conclusion because I don't know if Dietrich is supposed to be a stand-in for the author's views or a flawed, yet mostly correct, character in his own right. Certainly Joachim is wrong about a lot of things, but not completely. Anyway, it will be a good topic for discussion!
Do you remember what specific things were inaccurate? I’ll try to pin those down in the text and we can maybe address those in the discussion.
Yes, to Christie. I think that he’s a very intelligent persons who has mastered a number of subjects to a high degree without having an affective feeling for them, even, I think, various fields of science. I suspect, maybe uncharitably, that the way he finishes off the story, has an appeal for his choir who will find his treatment of the Krenken sympathetic. Good book to choose for discussio, Arron.
My friend Matthew Scarince is a fan of the book and a historian by training. I invited him to our discussion as a special guest (like with Ben with The Anubis Gates) to give a historical perspective and to attempt to address the potential issues we are talking about. He has way more knowledge than me when it comes to the Middle Ages. It should be a good discussion! I haven’t yet finished my reread but I will in the next week or so. I’m looking forward to this one!
Oh and I ordered a book through inter library loan that has an essay by the author on why he wrote Eifelheim. I’ll provide that to everyone when I get it!
I'm afraid I don't remember the specifics, as I was listening to an audibook (it's about the only way I get things read these days). For brevity's sake, I didn't mention that I did consider the fallibility of the character Dietrich, or the possibility that Flynn is so well-researched on Church history that this is one of those instances of teachings that were not yet universalized. The only Church history I know is the what I need for apologetics, but on everything else I am pretty ignorant!
Yeah me too haha. It should be a fun discussion and we will have plenty to talk about
I've finished it -- so excited for the book club discussion!
Me too! Will you be joining us you think? I have yet to set an official date and time.
Arron, it would be a good thing to get the ball rolling about the book for your podcast discussion.
We all read differently, don’t we, taking "read" in the largest possible sense, and so each frames the story in a different sense.
The ideal discussion of a book would be like a multidimensional art gallery, in which each participant could see the narrative through the frame in which the other sees it! Did you, as a scientist, ever ponder the ideal gas or fluid?
That’s not an aside, since it struck me that you, Arron, are a type of ideal reader of narrative stories. I've met a few biologists who were ideal readers of certain kinds of organisms.
There's a harmonic between you as reader, and them as observers through their particular personal framing of living things, like desert rodents, giant kelp, coccolithophores, eastern pacific fish, etc and stories which are reread (ref. CSLewis's essay on two kinds of readers).
What’d ya think? How would you frame your framing?