Hawking's first popular science book is as pleasurable to read for the casual reader/science enthusiast as it is occasionally difficult to parse. I look forward to reading A Briefer History of Time at some point in the future, as I very purposefully evaded that more available title because I wanted the "full effect" of the original text. I see now how there was certainly room to cut out some of the math for a broader audience who would not be able to appreciate it anyway.

Which is to say that this remains an important work of popular science writing even if it is not the most accessible. I get the sense that if I hadn't already read some Rovelli, Tyson or Kaku this might not have been the best place to start. I would highly recommend Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, then Tyson's Astrophysics for People in a Hurry before tackling this at a minimum. Sagan is an excellent primer for anybody who wants to get into hard science as a hobby/casual reader and IMO, Tyson's Astrophysics for People in a Hurry is the most accessible astrophysics book I've read that doesn't dumb things down too too much.

Having now read Hawking's Brief History of Time, I'm interested in revisiting Krause's A Universe from Nothing as I definitely read that long before I was ready to understand its concepts. I suppose this is my way of saying you can start reading about science where you want, but as brilliant as Hawking's work is, if you're completely new to physics, there are better places to start and scaffold your learning a bit.

As someone who has always believed that he knows what is best for himself in any given situation, I have resisted reading anything resembling a self-help book. However, I have recently admitted to myself that I have practiced yoga on and off for several years now and felt that I was cheating myself by treating yoga merely as physical practice without taking in the philosophical and spiritual aspects of yoga. With some fear of being bombarded with pseudo-metaphysical schlock by Westerners trying to make a quick buck off of Eastern philosophy, I was pleased to find that it was relatively easy to find reputable works on yogic philosophy and settled on Iyengar to start with.

The last person I can remember unironically calling "wise" was my late uncle Arturo who lived and died on a farm, listened to Vivaldi for fun and only ever emoted past a subtle smile or meaningful frown when watching soccer. But damn, Iyengar sure was wise.

That's not to say he's right about everything he speaks on in this book (or if he is, I might disagree anyway), but even when I found myself disagreeing with him, there was wisdom to be found in his words. I was frankly seeking a bit more solid information about yoga postures and their relation to yogic philosophy and beliefs so I was a bit disappointed to find that this book in particular was more about applying yogic philosophy and beliefs to everyday life.

He was clearly a learned man, but even as an amateur science enthusiast, I could tell when he was unintentionally misrepresenting certain scientific principles to make a point. Instead of aligning with astrophysics and the nature of the universe (which I understand would be much more tied to yogic philosophy about "truths of the universe") much of his discourse aligns much closer with cognitive behavioral therapy and other such psychological treatments.

Throughout, Iyengar's focus is laser-pointed on yogic philosophy which makes for a quick, illuminating read free of distractions. Yes, occasionally the book touches on politics, religion, pop culture, or what have you as it pertains to yoga, but these are fleeting mentions to illustrate a point about yoga and not about the topics themselves.

Ultimately, my voice is a mere drop in the bucket, but I would absolutely recommend this book to anybody who simply wants to enjoy their lives a bit more. There is much wisdom to be found here for any person who wishes it. It really is quite lovely.

I enjoyed this immensely. It's not Shakespeare, but it's a lot of fun to read and that's worth plenty. Despite what could be a very cotton candy premise, Rozakis challenges herself to make this book about something rather than just being a silly (though again, enjoyable) divertissement.

Protagonist Gav, nee Gavrax awakens one morning to find that he is a dark wizard with no memories of how he came to be or his life history prior to awakening. Hi-jinks ensue. And indeed they ensue, but that's not all that's going on here. Rozakis doesn't shy away from the deeper personal repercussions of what it means to lose one's entire identity and have to start from scratch in the place of a life you do not remember. Are we our memories? Is perception reality? Are we no more than what people project onto us? How much say do we really have in deciding who we are and wish to be? It's all there and provides a welcome intellectual relief from the silliness.

Unfortunately, however enjoyable the book is on the whole, the story threatens to go off the rails in the third act. There are a few too many plates spinning and watching the metaphorical plate-spinner keep them going starts to become more stressful than enjoyable. It's shaky, but Rozakis ultimately does stick the landing and we are left with a fairly satisfying conclusion that feels earned if only slightly underwhelming. It also leaves the door open for potential sequels without being obnoxious about it which is always appreciated. If there are more adventures in store for Gav, I would be interested in reading them.

Bottom line, if you want to read something fun and entertaining with just enough intellectual content to make you think between the laughs, Dreadful is a wonderful option.

It's a little frustrating to see how many reviews are about how overly academic/scientific a book written by an academic/scientist is. To be fair to them, this book is operating on perilous ground: it is a hard science book written for general audiences a la Astrophysics for People in a Hurry or The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs, but it is about dreams which is the kind of ephemeral touchy-feely subject that invites... schlock.

There is no shortage of books about what your dreams mean that are variously insightful, amusing or downright predatory and this is none of those things. Dreams are a real phenomena that can be studied, measured and understood like much else that human beings experience. The science of dreaming has come to a place where lucid dreaming and dream engineering is taking its first steps out of the realm of sci-fi/fantasy and into the real world. This book puts forth the current science on what dreams are and how they occur, the experiments that have been done and their results especially re: lucid dreaming and the ways you can become a lucid dreamer through practice and intention.

To that end, I confess that I found the first two thirds of these things the most interesting. The science of dreams truly is a fascinating subject and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the various experiments done to arrive at some conclusions about the way dreams work, our perception of them, and what purpose they may or may not serve. The final third of the book is what I imagine most people will be picking this book up for: how to lucid dream. On that front, I have good news and bad news:

I'm a "the bad news first" kinda guy, so first the bad news: a lot of the "how to lucid dream" techniques are already available online through a simple internet search. You will have to parse the real advice from the made up metaphysical crap, but it's there if you want it. Dr. Carr's book does you the courtesy of telling you which are the ones that actually work. The good news: while you can find legitimate ways to induce lucid dreaming online, Dr. Carr provides a few extra tips shown to be helpful in a lab that I have not found online. Whether that is enough for you to pick this book up is thoroughly your own choice.

Frankly, the guide on "how to lucid dream" is just not that long and largely available online (though it might be buried in nonsense) so I can't recommend this book if all you want is to learn how to fly on command in your dreams. BUT for those who are interested in genuine dream science: the body's response to dreaming, the probable purpose of dreaming, the applications of lucid dreaming re: treating anxiety and trauma, and several other things that I am not quite remembering, this is a fascinating read.

In different hands, this premise had the potential to be silly, fetishistic, or downright moronic, but in Ashton's capable hands it turned out to be an incredibly thought-provoking bit of sci-fi comedy that wrestles with the ephemeral nature of freedom, agency, and what the "natural order" really looks like.

Ashton accomplishes this by not shying away from the more difficult aspects of presenting humans as pets. Example: humans are not dogs; we are able to articulate very specifically the things we want, need, feel, we can think in the abstract and speak on abstract concepts, we can accomplish incredible feats of engineering and creativity. As a result, Ashton pushes past the notion of humans as dogs, and tries to imagine what keeping a human as a pet would ACTUALLY look like, rather than simply lobotomizing humanity to cast them in the role of "dog." The result is as shockingly nuanced as the relationship between humans and their pets. Some people love their pets, some abuse them, some think of them as status symbols or keep them for a task or purpose. And so it is with keeping humans, though we do lean a bit overmuch on how casually abusive the alien Greys can be.

With perhaps the exception of Six, the cast is very enjoyable, though even Six plays well off of John for the most part. Our protagonist, John, deftly walks the line between neurosis and insufferability, concern and whininess while Martok, his "employer," is played very sincere throughout. Against these two characters, Six - a child - can feel a bit overly whiny, petulant, and frankly, annoying. This is not entirely a bad thing: it is the role that she is meant to serve in the narrative. But, she becomes frustrating in certain scenes especially as her facade of worldliness and antipathy towards the Greys comes undone in the face of opposition. It is obviously very realistic for a child to cave when faced with actual adversity, but it doesn't make it easier to like such a smug and self-satisfied character that we should ostensibly have some sort of impulse to protect.

The strange (but wonderful) thing about such a thoughtful and philosophical piece is how it never loses its humorous tone. While there are definitely moments where things "get real," it never feels too maudlin or overwrought. However much death may be eternally present as a possibility, John's acceptance of that fact transfers over to the reader in a very matter-of-fact "if I die, I die" kind of way that is well-illustrated in one of his encounters with a wolf in the wild. That particular encounter is mirrored in the third act of the novel prompting one to wonder about the morality of everything you've red.

It's a thinker. Is Ashton saying keeping pets is immoral? Maybe. Is he saying that when we inevitably are kept as pets to higher life forms we will be in no worse position than the canines of our world and therefore there is a certain amount of acceptance and "life-goes-on" that we should embrace? That feels a bit bleak, but maybe. So often in books like this, the point is that the human spirit is unbreakable, that we can triumph over any evil and tyranny that challenges us. Ashton's vision is more of a world where humanity has lost. We presently live in such an anthropocentric universe that will probably last until we are extinct, but if we ever fall under the yoke of visitors from beyond, is this the kind of future that might await us? When we fail, and have no hope of overthrowing our new masters, do we accept a new order? Would that be so bad? Would it be what we deserve?