This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins - Comments

Janus's Avatar Comment 1 by Janus

?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:08:00 UTC | #397076

SmartLX's Avatar Comment 2 by SmartLX

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:09:00 UTC | #397077

daverussell's Avatar Comment 3 by daverussell

Was this a review?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:30:00 UTC | #397079

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 4 by zeerust2000

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:32:00 UTC | #397080

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 5 by prolibertas

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?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:33:00 UTC | #397081

hoops mccann's Avatar Comment 6 by hoops mccann

"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".

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:40:00 UTC | #397083

Sp!tfire's Avatar Comment 7 by Sp!tfire

2. Comment #415159 by SmartLX

Oh, and First.

Edit: Second.



FAIL

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:50:00 UTC | #397085

Sp!tfire's Avatar Comment 8 by Sp!tfire

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:56:00 UTC | #397086

Sheol99's Avatar Comment 9 by Sheol99

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. ?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:01:00 UTC | #397088

Moq's Avatar Comment 10 by Moq

A not entirely inept attempt at satire.

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:22:00 UTC | #397093

skepticato's Avatar Comment 11 by skepticato

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:28:00 UTC | #397095

Hegelmon's Avatar Comment 12 by Hegelmon

Some of his columns are actually quite funny.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:51:00 UTC | #397097

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 13 by Alternative Carpark

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:05:00 UTC | #397100

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 14 by zeerust2000

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:14:00 UTC | #397103

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 15 by SaintStephen

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:26:00 UTC | #397104

beebhack's Avatar Comment 16 by beebhack

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?

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:44:00 UTC | #397107

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 17 by SaintStephen

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!

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:55:00 UTC | #397108

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 18 by Richard Dawkins

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:00:00 UTC | #397109

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 19 by SaintStephen

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:21:00 UTC | #397111

AshtonBlack's Avatar Comment 20 by AshtonBlack

Not funny enough (IMHO!) to be satire.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:49:00 UTC | #397113

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 21 by Chris Roberts

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.......

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:07:00 UTC | #397116

fossil-fish's Avatar Comment 22 by fossil-fish

Was it a good review?

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:31:00 UTC | #397121

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 23 by Richard Dawkins

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:47:00 UTC | #397125

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 24 by SaintStephen

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!)

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:58:00 UTC | #397129

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 25 by Nunbeliever

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!

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:09:00 UTC | #397131

fretmeister's Avatar Comment 26 by fretmeister

mmm.

Not nearly strident enough really!

(Running for cover!)

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:24:00 UTC | #397134

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 27 by ukvillafan

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:39:00 UTC | #397137

mattmason75's Avatar Comment 28 by mattmason75

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

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:04:00 UTC | #397142

gos's Avatar Comment 29 by gos

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:23:00 UTC | #397143

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 30 by Laurie Fraser

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.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:38:00 UTC | #397146