This book got me through some tough times. It's one of my favorite pieces of literature. It deserves to be a classic 100 years from now.
Part of why it works is by the nature of its subject, the book and its various plot points and devices serve essentially as metaphors for almost anything-- anything related to how humans communicate and remember.
It's not just superficially a fun sci-fi romp, it's also a story about the stories we tell ourselves and each other, about how we assign meaning to events, among other things. It reminds me just a very little of Godel Escher Bach, but I like this one better. I am also reminded of Lewis Carroll, and the cryptic quote that "through the looking glass is the best book on mathematics for the layman, since it is the best book on any subject for the layman"
It is poetry. It is a Rorschach blot about Rorschach blots. I can't recommend it enough.
> the book and its various plot points and devices serve essentially as metaphors for almost anything
That is interesting. Coincidentally (or not?), I was just thinking about an excellent article about parent-child estrangement that begins like this:
Members of estranged parents' forums often say their children never gave them any reason for the estrangement, then turn around and reveal that their children did tell them why. But the reasons their children give—the infamous missing reasons—are missing.
Apparently, such reasons are a good example of antimemetic ideas in real life.
I don't know if the issue is identity as much as it is the cost of making the decision. All of those things are difficult to change. It's sort of like the sunk cost fallacy.
When having sensitive conversations I think it's important to consider how much it would cost someone to shift their belief.
Mormonism is not hard to change, it takes 5 minutes to install, all the hardware is supported, and I never had any problem with it. Plus I lost weight.
Is it just me or are these books just astonishingly good? Like… sometimes k come across media at juuust the right time and (emotional) place and they’re amazing but on review merely good.
I’m immediately re-reading them and they’re just as good - if not better - the second time.
Quickly became my favorite books of all time, which you’ll have to trust me is saying something.
Sorry, are we still talking about There Is No Antimemetics Division? I haven't read the book, but I've read the series on the SCP wiki (before seeing it here on HN) and I don't really get what you're talking about.
Other comments have referenced other books - is it possible your reply is in the wrong place?
It is you who got confused. My comment is a top level comment on a post called "There is no Antimemetics Division (2018)" and in no way references any other works. I am not interested in talking about other books right here right now.
I was talking about the final book, not any early and partial drafts you saw elsewhere.
Either tastes vary and you just don't see it as I and many others do, or you didn't read the same thing, depending on what you read and when. What you read may have been a first draft of pieces of what became the book. The book clearly benefits from pretty good editing and it's pretty clear it evolved quite a bit to its final form. It's pretty clear it benefitted a lot from having early drafts of bits and pieces on the SCP wiki, as that gave the author a lot of free editing.
Or maybe the book itself is to some degree an antimeme ;-) like any very meta piece of writing, it lends itself to such jokes... one keeps meaning to reread it but never can remember when they're near their bookcase, etc...
Finally, maybe you can't relate due to not having had tough times that had to do with memory (several other posters have elaborated in this very thread on some examples), or other circumstances in your life that became fertile ground to ruminate on in the context of the book. Or maybe you like to read purely for the literal fun of the surface level plot and aren't interested in also thinking about the metaphorical implications of the ideas that are brought to mind by a piece of writing. Nothing wrong with any of that.
But fundamentally, you can read the same book at 20 and again at 40 and get totally different things out of it. That's OK.
I don't know what to tell ya, besides everything I just told ya. "Why did you like this piece of art but I didn't as much" is a question worthy of speculation but fundamentally unanswerable
I enjoyed reading your insights. I just happen to be re-reading this book right now; I also find it both well-layered and entertaining. These stories reward repeat visitors!
to offer a contrary point of view I flipped to my review of the book and offer this line in return: "a good idea butchered at the hands of an amateur. A barely coherent series of blog posts committed to paper, bookended by real meat"
Part of why it works is by the nature of its subject, the book and its various plot points and devices serve essentially as metaphors for almost anything-- anything related to how humans communicate and remember.
It's not just superficially a fun sci-fi romp, it's also a story about the stories we tell ourselves and each other, about how we assign meaning to events, among other things. It reminds me just a very little of Godel Escher Bach, but I like this one better. I am also reminded of Lewis Carroll, and the cryptic quote that "through the looking glass is the best book on mathematics for the layman, since it is the best book on any subject for the layman"
It is poetry. It is a Rorschach blot about Rorschach blots. I can't recommend it enough.