Thanks for the review! It's interesting to see your take. I expect that I'll manage to say something laughably ignorant in this short space—but hey, you asked if I had any comments!
1. Religion
First a disclaimer: I'm an atheist and know next to nothing about Judaism. I didn't read Unsong believing it to be educational material on Jewish thought—I probably defaulted to "this is something Scott made up" of even things that actually are part of Jewish doctrine. (That's… probably not making my case any better. 🙃)
But I can accept that after reading so many words of a story set in an (as you phrase it) interfaith-but-mostly-Judeo-Christian setting, it can leave a vibe that is hard to be aware of, and thus hard to correct that kind of misunderstanding. I like your phrasing here:
> Look, it's quite evident that the author isn't fishing for theological authenticity. He's tossing bait to pattern-hungry transhumanists who prefer to optimize reality rather than kneel before its mysteries.
After reading Unsong (~275k words) and your review (~7k words), I know that I still know next to nothing about Judaism. But now I at least got a glimpse into the kind of differences you found important to cover in your review.
2. Authorship
I'm actually the most surprised about your theory that questions Unsong's authorship. It seems that we both are long-time readers of SSC/ACX, and to me it just feels like such an amalgamation of "stuff that Scott seems to be interested in, but in fiction form".
> Is the simplest explanation here really that a single psychiatry resident somehow found time to master multiple religious traditions, several languages, programming, and Silicon Valley culture while becoming a psychiatrist?
a. This is not a randomly selected set of topics. The story is about them precisely because the author was interested in them. Makes me think of https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/05/the-pyramid-and-the-garden/ (I'm sure there's an even more relevant SSC post somewhere, you can one-up me by linking to one 😛)
b. Even if the actual writing occurred between 2015–2017, authors draw from all knowledge they have acquired in their lifetime. Maybe we just have different definitions what co-authorship means? Do you consider all the influences an author has to be co-authors, whether it was a series of conversations years ago that shaped the author's thinking on theodicy, or a beta reader who improved their kabbalistic puns in Spanish?
c. Just for fun, here's a comment thread nitpicking about whether the Ruby on Rails bit is accurate: https://unsongbook.com/chapter-9-with-art-celestial/#comment-1773. I think most programmers wouldn't consider Scott to have amazing programming knowledge, rather just enough to make (genuinely funny!) programming jokes.
I think the point of that part of the review was to parody Document Hypothesis, which attempts to do the same to the Five Books of Moses. Amd since the reviewed does not believe the Torah had multiple authors, I didn't think she was seriously suggesting Unsong did either.
Haha, so here's a data point for how easy it is to miss the point! It's funny, I even said that I'm surprised (something something noticing confusion 🙃) but still didn't stop and consider that it's a parody. I didn't miss the sarcastic tone, but I guess I just thought it was self-deprecating humor for no particular reason, or for an ironic and detached vibe. I didn't know what it was that you were parodying, and why you were doing it in this review, maybe other than you consider both Unsong and the document hypothesis to be misrepresentations? In any case, I'm sure that anyone who knows the context wouldn't miss it being parody, it is obvious in hindsight!
Thanks so much for your comment! It means a lot to me.
I wrote this review because there was a clear gap in the world where this review should be, and I felt that I could fill that gap, if imperfectly. Don't worry, as Rabbi Micha Berger noted, it was a parody. I don't actually think he got any help writing it. (But I did get a lot of help writing this review!)
Wow! I am not familiar with the book, but the time you took crafting this post was well spent. Thank you.
Thank you! That means a lit!
It's a book I will not be reading, but I'm glad that you did. You're writing is absolutely baleen.
Very well written. Some great humor too. I really enjoyed this!
Thanks! Great to see you :)
Thanks for the review! It's interesting to see your take. I expect that I'll manage to say something laughably ignorant in this short space—but hey, you asked if I had any comments!
1. Religion
First a disclaimer: I'm an atheist and know next to nothing about Judaism. I didn't read Unsong believing it to be educational material on Jewish thought—I probably defaulted to "this is something Scott made up" of even things that actually are part of Jewish doctrine. (That's… probably not making my case any better. 🙃)
But I can accept that after reading so many words of a story set in an (as you phrase it) interfaith-but-mostly-Judeo-Christian setting, it can leave a vibe that is hard to be aware of, and thus hard to correct that kind of misunderstanding. I like your phrasing here:
> Look, it's quite evident that the author isn't fishing for theological authenticity. He's tossing bait to pattern-hungry transhumanists who prefer to optimize reality rather than kneel before its mysteries.
After reading Unsong (~275k words) and your review (~7k words), I know that I still know next to nothing about Judaism. But now I at least got a glimpse into the kind of differences you found important to cover in your review.
2. Authorship
I'm actually the most surprised about your theory that questions Unsong's authorship. It seems that we both are long-time readers of SSC/ACX, and to me it just feels like such an amalgamation of "stuff that Scott seems to be interested in, but in fiction form".
> Is the simplest explanation here really that a single psychiatry resident somehow found time to master multiple religious traditions, several languages, programming, and Silicon Valley culture while becoming a psychiatrist?
a. This is not a randomly selected set of topics. The story is about them precisely because the author was interested in them. Makes me think of https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/05/the-pyramid-and-the-garden/ (I'm sure there's an even more relevant SSC post somewhere, you can one-up me by linking to one 😛)
b. Even if the actual writing occurred between 2015–2017, authors draw from all knowledge they have acquired in their lifetime. Maybe we just have different definitions what co-authorship means? Do you consider all the influences an author has to be co-authors, whether it was a series of conversations years ago that shaped the author's thinking on theodicy, or a beta reader who improved their kabbalistic puns in Spanish?
c. Just for fun, here's a comment thread nitpicking about whether the Ruby on Rails bit is accurate: https://unsongbook.com/chapter-9-with-art-celestial/#comment-1773. I think most programmers wouldn't consider Scott to have amazing programming knowledge, rather just enough to make (genuinely funny!) programming jokes.
I think the point of that part of the review was to parody Document Hypothesis, which attempts to do the same to the Five Books of Moses. Amd since the reviewed does not believe the Torah had multiple authors, I didn't think she was seriously suggesting Unsong did either.
Let's see what she says.
Haha, I see! So my hypothesis of managing to say something ignorant has been confirmed. 😛
It was interestingto see how you might read it
Haha, so here's a data point for how easy it is to miss the point! It's funny, I even said that I'm surprised (something something noticing confusion 🙃) but still didn't stop and consider that it's a parody. I didn't miss the sarcastic tone, but I guess I just thought it was self-deprecating humor for no particular reason, or for an ironic and detached vibe. I didn't know what it was that you were parodying, and why you were doing it in this review, maybe other than you consider both Unsong and the document hypothesis to be misrepresentations? In any case, I'm sure that anyone who knows the context wouldn't miss it being parody, it is obvious in hindsight!
Thanks so much for your comment! It means a lot to me.
I wrote this review because there was a clear gap in the world where this review should be, and I felt that I could fill that gap, if imperfectly. Don't worry, as Rabbi Micha Berger noted, it was a parody. I don't actually think he got any help writing it. (But I did get a lot of help writing this review!)