there’s this kind of a recognition
Some thoughts on recent books I’ve read:
Believe, Ross Douthat: It’s difficult to pin down who the author’s intended audience is. Christians reading the book are already persuaded, and non-believers will accuse him of fatal bias. To the extent that there’s a very small persuadable minority of open-minded non-theists, they might find it interesting; compelling is another matter. Still—Douthat’s style is appealingly nerdy and philosophically compact, but it falls short of being the “Mere Christianity for the 21st century” many have been hailing it as. Douthat simply doesn’t have Lewis’s everyman tone (he writes from a more academic, white-collar perspective), nor Lewis’s genius for analogy. The best parts of the book are where the author meditates on the relevance of current developments like AI and what that means for the case for a noumenal layer to the universe, probably because those events are immediate to his day job as a newspaper columnist. I’d still recommend the book, but mainly for those looking to buttress their faith against accusations & doubts, both from within and without.
Project Hail Mary, Andy Weir: Hoo boy. Take The Martian, add an existential crisis for humanity and a funny alien sidekick, and you have this pulpy sci-fi romp. As with his earlier (and vastly superior) book, it purports to be scientifically grounded, but the amount of Gary Stu-ishness completely breaks suspension of disbelief and, ironically, makes for a worse read than if he had simply stuffed the book less full of techno-babble. And I say this as someone who loves thoroughly nerdy sci-fi that revels in its in-world precision. The characterizations were desperately thin as well; everyone was a cardboard cutout, a cultural stereotype without any arc to speak of, and the protagonist was simply the author’s self-insert fantasy, Mark Watney Part 2. The only bright spot was the chemistry between himself and his alien sidekick; it was genuinely funny and touching at times. Otherwise yeah, a brisk, low-calorie read.
Out of Sight, Elmore Leonard: The movie’s one of my very favorites, basically perfect in every way, so I’d been eager to read the source material for a while. So how does it compare? It’s both better, and worse. It’s worse in the sense that the film definitely tightened up the plot. The movie really benefits from Steven Soderbergh’s (the director’s) non-linear structure, the chronology is more compressed, and many of the secondary characters (like Adele, Glenn, or Chino) feel more real on screen, even though there’s technically less of them than exists in print. The book is better in that it feels like a director’s cut of the scenes involving dialogue—which are the core of the story. The lines are fleshed out, and you hear their internal monologue. The movie has the luxury of showing that, versus telling, but the book does an equally good, if not slightly better job given the constraints of its medium. Leonard’s style is conversational, clipped, choppy, well-researched and seems to assume some familiarity on the part of the reader with crime dramas or police procedurals, which I’m not, and I couldn’t help but wonder if I’d been able to follow the plot without having been familiar with the film. I might try another Leonard book to test myself on that front, one that hasn’t been adapted to a movie. Oh, and by the way, Jack & Karen’s romance is every bit as compelling and sexy—without being lurid or graphic—in print as it is on screen. Recommended.

