Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
42 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A massively wasted opportunity, December 13, 2006
Amir Aczel is as frustrating an author as you will find anywhere. The man is bright, no question about it. He also has impeccable taste when it comes to interesting subjects to investiagte. He has written books on various mathematical subjects: Fermat's Last Theorem, Descarte, and now Nicolas Bourbaki. Yet his followthrough and his writing habits are infuriatingly inconsistent and shows signs of discordant chaos in his reasoning. He also has a disconcerting proclivity towards doing a hack job on a subject to get paid and then moving on to better things.
The story of Bourbaki is a fascinating one, so I was eager to read this book. The miniscule size of this book should have been a red flag, Aczel's reputation, at least in my head, should have been another, but I proceeded to buy it because I am an eternal optimist and I believe that people can and will surprise me and change my preconceived notions.
It didn't work this time, nor any other times when I placed my faith in Aczel. So where to begin?
1) As the previous reviewers had stated, there are no math in this book. No explanation of what Bourbaki was up to. How do you write a book on mathematicians without writing about mathematics? I understand that one does not wish to populate the book with excesive mathematical details but the power of math is in its compact notations. He does try to explain things in general terms, but a few figures and a few lines of math would have done wonders to his narrative.
2) Not enough back ground material was covered. When Aczel is trying to explain the application of structuralism in linguistics and in psychology, he was doing some extremely fine narration of extremely dense and abstract ideas and putting them into the context of what Levi-Strauss and others are trying to do, but he was not consistent in narrating the other parts of the book, he did a lot of hand waving and hot air generating.
3) As an author writing about people, one can definitely become enamoured with certain people and grow to dislike certain others. Aczel definitely fell in love with Alexander Grothendieck's story and disliked Andre and Simohne Weil. It is irresponsible, however, for Aczel come out and say that the reason for the demise of Bourbaki is because Grothendieck left the group without explaining fully WHY category theory is a more reasonable foundation. It is equally irresponsible for the ad hominem attacks on Andre Weil's character without citing specific instances of his behavior.
4) The book reads like a very bad draft, there is no continuity to the history and the book is not built around mathematical logic nor is it based on chronological order, it is as if Aczel decided to put all these bits of stories and mathematics together haphazardously. The writing is very jagged. Reading and making sense of the story is extremely fatiguing because the author made every effort to confuse the reader. Many anecdotes are repeated for no apparent reason and they are repeated without qualifiers or additional information.
5) There does not seem to be any care taken to build a case for or against anything. The author just scattered facts and his own opinions out and it was up to the readers to figure out a logic for themselves.
6) As in his previous books, the author seem to be building toward a conclusion, a crescendo in the narrative, yet after the build up, there is no crescendo, nor a diminuendo, there is just a monotone white noise in the background.
Like I said, this is a massively wasted effort towards a very interesting subject. The only thing that I have gotten from this book is the germination of various subjects that the author mentioned in passing, so thank you Amir Aczel for your bibliography and a desultory book report.
|
|
|
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Worse even than the previous reviewers indicated, January 2, 2007
I picked it up at my local library without previously having looked at reviews online. What a mistake! I kept thinking it had to get better, and it didn't, really, altho as one reviewer noted, the explanation of the influence of structuralism on Levi-Strauss was useful (but irritating).
In addition to no explanation of the math (which meant I kept looking stuff up online -- Aczel's choice makes some sense. Trying to explain category theory in a short, mass-market book would be even worse than what Aczel did do), choppy jumping around from person to person and within a person's lifetime (like he was trying to invent cliffhangers) and generally not being what the cover matter would lead you to believe (somehow explaining New Math, which it only barely does in passing, or telling an entertaining story of an academic prank, which it kind of does, but isn't what the book is really about), Aczel's attempts to place Bourbaki and structuralism in a larger cultural setting are intellectually bankrupt. You just cannot show that Bourbaki and a bunch of French mathematicians somehow convinced the rest of the arts and sciences of the need for structure/rigor/whatever, and ignore the fact that this was all occurring at the same time as Nazism/fascism/Stalinism. Like that is somehow an accident or coincidence? I think not. And I suspect that Aczel didn't think this through, which, given the people he's writing about, might be ironic, but apparently he's famous for this so it can't really be considered unexpected.
|
|
|
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poorly titled, poorly written!, December 21, 2006
Unlike the other reviewers, I was not interested in detailed discussions of the mathematics that the Bourbaki group wrote. I heard the author plugging his book on the radio and the topic sounded interesting. However, when I started reading the book it did not cover what he was talking about in much detail. The first half of the book is a poorly conveyed life history of the various mathematicians in the group. The book lacks cohesion and continuity. The book is not very long, but the author repeats material in later chapters that was covered in earlier chapters. I can not believe that any publisher would publish such a poorly written book.
I am a Physics instructor that emphasizes the importance of good writing even in technical fields. This is a perfect example that I often cite to my students of someone in a technical field that does not know how to convey his thoughts because he failed his English course.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|