Books

Last year, I read Everything Conceivable by Liza Mundy. This spring, I will be running a series of discussions about it. We have a half course on our campus which involves students reading several books over the course of the semester. Students select the books from a large number of choices, and they meet in small groups for a few weeks with the professor teaching their particular book and then write a paper. Some books are novels, others are collections of essays and still others are nonfiction. A question from a colleague last week reminded me to drop a note to the coordinator and I said I was interested in doing this book at some time in the future. She wrote back immediately and said she still had a slot left for Spring and had put me in. I was thinking next Fall or Spring, but it is too late now.

The last time I participated in the course, I decided to do Kim Stanley Robinson's The Years of Rice and Salt without having read it. Two colleagues I know have chosen to read the books for the first time with the students, so they all discover the book together. I thought this was an interesting idea, so I decided to do the same. I chose The Years of Rice and Salt because I really like Kim Stanley Robinson and because was on my "to be read" list for a long time. Only problem: I thought it was an alternative history but it was actually about Buddhism. Which I knew nothing about. I enjoyed the book and the discussions with the students, but I was expecting something different. I didn't do a particularly good job running the discussions either, something I hope to correct.

In any case, I have read the book this time around. I thought Mundy's book would be an interesting one for discussion because I get the impression our 18-22 year olds know very little about assisted reproduction and many of the topics invoke strong opinions. Additionally, they way Mundy organizes the topics into somewhat self-contained chapters will fit in easily with the course format. As for the book itself, I found it to be a very easy and interesting read. I didn't really learn much more about how assisted reproduction works beyond what I already knew, but she seems to give a relatively straightforward introduction. Mundy also had some observations about ethical issues that I had not considered, so I found the book interesting in that sense.

I'm excited about participating in this course again, but am wondering how to handle controversial topics. I have run discussions on controversial topics in class, but they are usually on topics like "should we build more nuclear power plants" and not on, say, selective reduction. The sections consist of only about 4 students, so I'm especially concerned about keeping things constructive. Any suggestions?

Children of Men

Several months ago, Dr. H. and I watched the movie Children of Men based on a suggestion on Wil Wheaton's Blog. I was intrigued by the premise: a world in which no human child had been born in decades - and the social collapse and despair surrounding the impending end of the species. The movie was very good and I would recommend it, though it was not what I expected. (From the premise - I was thinking Sci-Fi - but really it was an action/adventure movie.) It came out in 2006, but totally escaped our radar somehow.

I was intrigued enough by the premise and the movie to follow up and find that it was based on a novel by P. D. James. I quickly ascertained that the book and movie were quite a bit different, so I stopped reading things on-line until I had a chance to read the book. Immediately after acquiring the book, Dr. H and I both read it in just a few days. It is short and quite compelling. I picked it up right after it arrived - just to look at it for a few moments and I was several chapters in without realizing it. I highly recommend it.

I found the book to be more satisfying than the movie as it gives a lot more context for some of the interpersonal interactions. Many characters are different and the political issues are related, but different. The movie is said to be only "loosely" based on the novel, and I understand why some of the major changes were made. The movie does do an excellent job of presenting the feeling and overall mood of the book, despite these major differences. One funny change (this does not give anything away) is that in the book, the main character is a history professor - this is not so in the movie. I guess professors are considered to be too boring. Perhaps it has been too long since we have had a movie about the archeology professor with the fedora - but apparently that will all change this May.