Hacker News Reader

Comment by mreid | Hacker News Reader

Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you started reading it? Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and RNA transcription "ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you.

I'm a programmer with a maths background[1] and I've read the book twice–once when I was 19 and again when I was 26. Both times I really enjoyed the digressions, language games, dialogues, and playfulness of the book. I got the sense Hofstadter was deeply curious and enthusiastic about the topics he explores and did a wonderful job at sharing that enthusiasm.

In my opinion it is a great example of writing for the sheer joy of exploring ideas. I can see how approaching such a book with a "just the facts please" attitude might end badly.

[1]: I've been told I'm a strange math/programmer though. I enjoy a wide range of literature too: Cervantes, Nabokov, Wallace, and Coetzee being some of my favourite authors.

View on HN

"Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you started reading it? "

I wasn't expecting anything but a good read.Which is exactly what I didn't get.

The writing style is (imo) very turgid on the other end of the spectrum from (say) pg's crisp and incisive style. Feynman is another example of a writer who exposes his interest in a wide variety of stuff(Brazilian drumming for eg) but he isn't yawn inducing. I hate writing that tests readers' patience by prolonged aimless meandering. Fwiw I didn't like _why's book on Ruby either.So there does seem to be a pattern there somewhere ;-)

I have no problems if other people like such books. Different folks different strokes and all that. I was just expressing my opinion.

"Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and RNA transcription "ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you."

I am sorry but these were basic to me or I could find crisper explanations elsewhere. It has been a while since I read the book (I read this when I was 19 or so iirc) but I would guess that a few hundred pages could be lopped off with "computer programs, music and some kinds of drawing exhibit recursive structure" and giving a few examples each.

I don't remember the RNA transcription bit, but I would be very surprised if it didn't meander all over the place without saying anything much for a few dozen pages or so.

There is plenty of popular science and non fiction written crisply, interestingly and in an uncondescending fashion which explores ideas without boring the reader silly.That said I completely acknowledge this is a matter of taste and that one man's food is another's poison.

The question to which that post was a reply did ask for opinions of HNers on the book. And my opinion is that GEB is overhyped and overblown and I said as much. YMMV.And that is as it should be.

Thanks for the answers. I wasn't disputing your opinion, I just wanted to know your experience differed so much from mine. De gustibus non est disputandum.

It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. For me, understanding the topics (computation, recursion, use/mention, self-reference) wasn't the main reason for reading the book. The blurring of form and function in the writing and general playfulness were just as important and anything but boring.

PG, Feynman, and _why are useful points of reference. I like all three but recognise how different the latter one is to the former two. A similar distinction would be between Coetzee (precision) vs. Wallace (verbosity). I strenuously suggest you avoid Wallace even though I think both authors are amazing. :) Having enjoyed Wallace's non-fiction book on infinity, "Everything and More", I recommended it to a work mate (also a programmer) and he hated it. Upon reflection, I think he has similar tastes to you and would probably not like GEB either.

Out of interest, what style of fiction (if any) do you enjoy?

hey I didn't think you were disputing either. Just trying to say that I was tossing off an opinion without thinking too much about it because that was what the OP asked for.

"It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. The blurring of form and function in the writing and general playfulness were just as important and anything but boring."

I agree. Our tastes differ.

As for fiction, I generally like fiction which has a strong plot and/or characterization. Taking fantasy as a random genre, I like the first few books of George Martin's "Ice and Fire" fantasy series (the last two books meander too much imo :-P) and I can't stand Robert Jordan. I hate cardboard cut out characters and too predictable plots.

But, I digress too much from the OP's topic here so will stop now.

"Feynman is another example of a writer who exposes his interest in a wide variety of stuff(Brazilian drumming for eg) but he isn't yawn inducing."

Do keep in mind that Feynman's biographical books (Surely You're Joking, etc.) were not written by Feynman in the classical sense. They were drawn from taped conversations and written/edited by Ralph Leighton.

Many people often speak and write with different tones and levels of formality, and this can cause a message to come across in a different way.

Perhaps Hofstadter would have done better to have a number of conversations with, say, Thomas Pynchon, and then TRP could have written a very twisted version of the same book.

I think the nerdiverse would implode upon itself as the multiplicative power of people claiming to have read books they haven't would create a third book, vaguely resembling a comic book version of Ulysses.

Just to note - thats twice now you've noted the book is 'turgid' (in your opinion) - it seems to have stuck with you from the reading of the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_B._Gebstadter ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com