Bill Lovett

New writers working with the Royal Academy of Arts, bringing short stories to illuminate these times, wonderful? Alas not. A disappointment. Yes, there was good writing, carefully crafted words. But was there a catching of the zeitgeist? No. Much was depressing rather than satirical, or even polemic. The illustrations more diversion than illumination. The Afterword describes the book as "the marriage (or at least the passionate coupling) of art and literature." The actualisation was more an indifferent one night stand. Pity.

Fascinating book about a fascinating, dangerous giant of a person. This is a long book, but Isaacson's very short chapters and the constant drama of his subject make it go very fast indeed. So Isaacson makes the book easy to read. But the Musk quite frankly is a like a Greek God (and that is NOT flattery). But what kind of giant? There is a terrific intelligence mixed with a drive or mania, and consistent physical energy. And it is focused on *several* visions at once (space travel, electric driven ecology, AI, "civilisation"). In this regard he is greater than Steve Jobs, Zukerberg, Besis, Gates, Brin, all of whom are amazing (not all nice!) people. Isaacson never really digs deep into the character and morality of Musk. Musk's vision of future threat - is it anything more than an intelligent reformulating of childhood space comics? For all Musk's reading, we see no evidence of intellect. His emotional complete un-intelligence seems permitted because he gets incredible things done. His treatment of women (shoddy) and of children (loving, sporadically) is not of a modern man but a great medieval baron. This man is a colossus, creative, but also dangerous. He is akin to Joseph Stalin. When young, Stalin was energetic in his cause, ruthless too, cunning, but cultured (yes). But later in life became paranoid, and commanded the killing of even more people. No - Musk is not in the trade of killing, and the analogy has real limits. But Musk's negatives will become much more apparent as he enters the public arena more and more, and his life revolves around engineering less and less. Read the book now. So when The Giant slides down The Beanstalk, you will not be surprised!

Interesting and horrible. Interesting as it is a standpoint of a French older male intellectual (author, and the main character), with lots of references to Paris, fine wines, haute cuisine, literature, Greek philosophy, Christian religion, contemporary politics, economic rural decline, and women, and sex (talked about a lot, not a lot happening). Horrible as the narrator sees himself declining, and accepts it. A man who knew pleasure and real joy, but lost both in the seeking of more of it. And he knows it. Not about the EU, not about economic decline. But about the decline of the male when he has let go of relationships of value. A grim message for today.

Spy thriller set in the fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS - except this is a true story. Told well, with sympathy not only for the citizens of Iraq, but also mindful of the reasons that led ordinary people to do terrible things to their neighbours, on both sides. No one comes out smelling sweet in any of this, but there is understanding for even the local Islamic militqnts. Not a depressing read, though by the end, the sadness of it all does touch. The comment "Truly masterful", for once is well deserved.

Fascinating story of a movement of the IRA from militant/violent politics into party politics, from sad grisly stalemate into hope, peace and likely long term success. Moore knows the inside, is sympathetic, but is no toady. She writes well, and the stories are there to tell!. However she sees it as a journalist, not historian. She pulls out skeletons from cupboards. A secretive controlling organisation is exposed for its tendency to hid its sins. But she does not really tell us why the rise SF got in popular acclaim. Why the growth of support, despite the child abuse and rape accusations to some individuals. I am no Irishman, but all in all, have admiration for Sinn Fein. A pattern other parties and bodies, could lean from. Worth reading.

He makes some excellent points on the idolatry of activism, restlessness. Avoids Sabbatarianism, ie it is not all bout a v still Sabbath, stressing instead the daily, weekly, annual breaks which is v helpful. He reimagines well what we gain and lose. However, like so many writers from this stable, he is weak on his social insights: social media is not examined enough; and the impact of house prices pushing families into both parents working full time to feed 1 large mortgage, plus 1½kids. And the folksy personal sharing is sentimental rather than revealing.

Good book, marred by ending. If you are a Faulks fan, read this. His characterisations are a bit weaker this time. But he had made a lot of research looking into our near futures. Not just on the ideas he is exploring, but say on what we eat and how we travel. V interesting. Yes, he can be wordy in dialogue, but it is in exploring the issues on human diversity and it's impact. So it is well worth reading carefully. Yes, he is pessimistic in how people react to new revelations when they came. But his selected outcome has the unintended consequence of casting a shadow over much good material that has brought us to the end. Just note this - then read the book.

Rather lame book on a great man of God. Too much personal detail intended to give "colour" which was trivial. Not enough context about the state of religion in UK. The critical insights (from other people) at the end, should have been given more as the book progressed. The real stature of Stott tended to be lost. Not an original theologian, but an outstanding synthesizer of orthodox faith. Worth comparing with CS Lewis. Stott the organiser gets revealed towards the end. Stott called for double reading and preaching, the Bible on one side, the newspaper on the other side. He shoght to get faithful believers to connect with Current Issues Facing Christians Today. We have rather retreated from that today, become generally more politically conservative and more narrow in our social critique. Weak book, but a great subject.

Gay guy sticks with orthodox Christian faith, which he says gives him his true identity. But is not ashamed that he is same-sex attracted. This short book (90 pages) tells you why. An easy read but thoughtful, both with insight and cross referring not only to the Bible but also to secular professional articles. Sees the choices between identity formed by: [1] those around us or by society; [2] by our own ego-ideal (I can be anything I want to be); [2] God's best pattern. He is comfortable being gay and a celibate Christian, celebrating God's ideal. Two things Andrew does not unpick. In a way, Andrew is making the same choice as everyone else. Just that he chooses Jesus. Being gay is one thing, how to act is... another. The second is what is a "real man"? This concept is a real hindrance to male identity. He makes reference to it. He implies freedom from it. It should be knocked down.

In parts a thrilling. But he covers a period that covers much drama: civil unrest, revolution, civil war, regicide, restoration, suppression, more religious turmoil, plague, Great Fire of London, wars with both the Native Americans and the Dutch. Yet Harris gives us in a long book the sameness of a long long chase story. Strange really. He has done his homework. As someone who is familiar of the Puritan faith, and understand the Royalist religious perspective, I see Harris has succeeded in presenting the Puritan believers without parody. But there needed to be more personal touch. And the ending was a bit abrupt. "Bang", and its all over.