A Flushed Dignity

image from here

I don't know why so many cultures view aging as a bad thing- I love it.  The older I get, the less I care about what others think of my appearance, which is why, when necessity dictated, I walked around a decent-sized town recently with a potty strapped to my back without embarrassment.  That comment bears explanation- more on that later.  I want to start today with how we view ourselves in relation to others, and how it changes over time.

To this day, I look back on my middle school years and cringe.  I cared so much about my appearance and what others thought of me.  I feared a bad hair day or poor outfit would scare girls away.*  It wasn't until a bad haircut in high school- one I dreaded sporting in public, but, to my delight, elicited no derogatory comments from the general populace- made me realize that most people don't notice or care.  What a freeing revelation!  It didn't occur to me that maybe nobody cared because I wasn't popular enough to be noticed, but hey, ignorance (and, often, anonymity) is bliss. 

The college years were much better, though I still wanted to put my best foot forward.  But, at that point "my best foot forward" was not awkward hairstyles or nice clothing, but just the opposite- uncombed hair, thrift store t-shirts (the weirder the better), and exuding an attitude (often accurate) of "not giving a rip." I still cared, but I cared about looking like I didn't care.  One step in the right direction.

Once I got married, the appearance question became less of "how do I look" and more of "how does my wife think I look," which I quickly realized was more important than my personal opinion.  Though Beth's desire for me to be presentable was occasionally annoying- I am, after all, by nature unpresentable- I still took one more step- now, I only cared because my wife cared.

Then the kids came, and any concern about my appearance- indeed, about my dignity in general- is gone.  I have taken the final step in the road to apathy.  My primary thought as I walk down the street with my family isn't "how do I look?," but "I didn't realize it was possible for my child to scream that loudly for so long," or "I wonder if the police will be summoned?"  

You may think that this turn of events is unfortunate, but I argue that it's fantastic.  So often our inhibitions are based solely on what other people think.  Once we don't care about the latter, we can do so much more.  That's why I was free as a bird as I walked through York with a toilet strapped to my back.

Now, the circumstances need expounding.  My daughter Natalie is potty training, which means we've been engaged in psychological warfare for the last month.  We've taken baby steps, in the sense that she now will at least pee on the potty- but only on her green potty- no other.  Though she has demonstrated an impressive ability to 'hold it' for hours on end, it's still a good idea to have the potty on us at all times, in all places.  We normally stow it in the stroller, safely out of view, but this time, our itinerary made such an arrangement impractical, and so I put some "child necessities" in my backpack, strapped Natalie's potty to the outside, and off we went.

As Nat and I walked through York, the thought that I had a toilet on my back caused me no shame- indeed, I hardly even thought on it.  I took care only in the narrow store aisles- I had, perhaps rightly, assumed that the owners wouldn't been tremendously happy if a toilet was swung through their wares, and so I kept unusually aware of it while in such establishments- other than that, it was never on my mind.  I did see a group of girls point and giggle, but one day they'll have children of their own, and they have to birth them, so I didn't begrudge them their fun.

Did people notice?  Surely.  Did I care?  No.  Because you know what?  In the end, nobody really cares.  Those that did notice may have made a comment or two, or even gone home and posted on facebook about it, but at the end of the day, they won't remember.  They'll live their lives; I'll live mine.  And, years from now, when we're both in the ground, it's likely that neither of our tombs will reference the incident.  In fact, as I stroll through graveyards now, I notice that not one of them say things like "had bad hair in high school," or "didn't get asked to prom."

I suspect living my life based on others' perception will always tempt me in some fashion.  The desire to be liked, admired, and respected is in all of us, whether we admit it or not.  But, in the end, we shouldn't be living our lives to gain the approval of others, and my children help me live that every day.  So thank you, Natalie, for helping me flush my dignity.  After all, we're not here to glorify ourselves, and it's hard to be proud when you have a potty strapped to you.

*little did I realize that my personality, temperament, and hygiene were doing that just fine on their own

His Last Bow (Arthur Conan Doyle)

Are short stories as popular today as they were 100 years ago?  I'm not sure, but I'm starting to really enjoy the format.  Reading a good short story in 30-60 minutes is like the latest episode of a favorite TV show- easily digestible and often satisfying.  So it is with His Last Bow, another Sherlock Holmes short story collection from Arthur Conan Doyle.

His Last Bow features seven short stories, the first six of which are set in the standard turn-of-the-century England (one in Cornwall, one in parts of Europe, but the rest are in/near London, as usual).  The last, the title story, is set during the onset of WWI, with Holmes helping the British in a counter-espionage role, taking on the Germans.  As usual, all stories are good, and the entire work can be read easily in a day.  Only one more work left for me in the Holmes collection, and I'll be sad to see it end.

Rating: A-

Revan (Drew Karpyshyn)

A New York Times Bestseller (which suggests, but does not mandate, quality), Revan is a sequel of sorts to the Knights of the Old Republic video game series.  In the game (apparently- I never played), Revan begins as a Jedi, falls to the Dark Side, and is redeemed at the end, though with the cost of the Jedi Council wiping his memory.  In Revan, we see the title character haunted by flashes of confusing images- presumably from his forgotten past- which he believes speak of a grave threat to the Republic.  He enlists old friends to help investigate these visions, and his queries lead him on a quest across the galaxy, deep into realms unknown by the Republic.  In the end, his fears are confirmed, and he does what he can to prevent catastrophe.

The story was good; the execution was left lacking in some places.  The main problem was the ability of several characters to make implausible connections and unerringly know what to do/where to go next.  These "plot leaps," as I call them, enable the author to move the story along quickly, but take away from an otherwise enjoyable tale.  The ending, especially, was satisfying- this is not your typical "happy ending" story- at least, not in a traditional sense.  This was the rare book that I feel could benefit from being longer- taking more time to develop the story, and avoid the plot leaps.  Those who have played the video game(s) may enjoy the story even more, as they will see many familiar races (Sith, Mandalorian, Human) and characters (Revan, Canderous Ordo, Bastila Shan, T3-M4, even HK-47) crop up here.  Overall, this is a decent Star Wars read, and if you're a fan of "KOTOR," you may like this quite a bit.

Rating: B

The Valley of Fear (Arthur Conan Doyle)

Another Sherlock Holmes tale; another gem.  In The Valley of Fear, John Douglas is murdered in his ancient, moat-surrounded manor home in England.  This American has a storied past, and the story is unusual in that the first half is the present-day accounting of the murder and Holmes' genius in solving it, and the second half is a flashback set in mid-west America, explaining how John Douglas came to be such a wanted man.  It's unusual that so much of the story would be devoted to the backstory, but not unheard of- in fact, Conan Doyle does the same thing in A Study in Scarlet.  Any Holmes story is a good one, so read with delight if you're a fan of the famous sleuth.

Rating: A

Gulliver's Travels (Jonathan Swift)

Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is a satire through which the folly of man is examined.  Gulliver, through a series of unfortunate events spanning several sea voyages, meets a variety of fantastic species in exotic lands.  First up is Lilliput, where the inhabitants are exceedingly small compared to humans; next, Brobdingnag, where a race of giants resides; a floating island follows, and we finish in Houyhnhnmland, where the horses are rational, and the human-like Yahoos are brutes good for little.  Being fond of discourse on human nature, I was very excited to read this.  Sadly, I was a bit disappointed.

There was some excellent insights, certainly, into the human condition.  My main beef with this work is that the insights occupied so few pages- perhaps 10% total- and the rest was an "adventure tale" wherein (to quote Swift) "my principal design was to inform, and not to amuse thee."  And so, while the 10% of interest was excellent, I don't think it was worth slogging through the other 90%.

If you are interested in the reflections on human condition, it's best to read Part IV, where the author ends up in the lands of the Houyhnhnms.  That portion, sadly occupying only 20% of the book, was excellent, and where the majority of interesting discourse resides.

Rating: B-

Captain America

Continuing my recent trend of superhero movie reviews, the next up is Captain America.  "Cap," originally a runt from Brooklyn, participates in an Army experiment to create a super-soldier.  The experiment succeeds, and the scientist involved is killed, making Cap the lone product.  He gets down to business, fighting in WWII against Hydra, a Nazi research organization led by the evil Red Skull, who has world domination plans of his own (quite separate from Hitler's).

This movie is okay.  Parts of the plot were underdeveloped, cheesy, or overly implausible (even for a superhero movie).  Part of the problem is the nature of this hero: he's a strong guy with a shield- not much else to it.  The greatest value I got from the movie was the back-story it provided to Captain America's character in The Avengers.

Rating: C+

Thor

Thor, released a few years ago by Marvel Studios, is the "origin" story of the hero of that name.  Unlike most superheros, Thor wasn't created by a freak accident, or enabled by riches; he's the son of Odin, ruler of Asgard, and his heritage has granted him phenomenal powers.  Pretty cool, eh?

In Thor, we see our hero go from self-centered, headstrong crown prince to a responsible, caring ruler-in-waiting.  To affect that change, he's banished to Earth and stripped of his powers for a time, to learn his place and what it means to sacrifice.  Along the way, you have your standard array of action sequences, amusing situations, and antagonists: his adopted brother, Loki, who yearns to seize power, and the Frost Giants, enemies of the Asgard people for ages.  As you can surmise from the names, the story is full of references to Norse mythology, though I lack the knowledge to judge how true it is to the legends.

Many people hail Thor as an excellent movie; I found it to be "above average."  The story is okay, the dialogue is so-so, the action is good.  The comic relief was decent.  The scenes of Asgard are beautiful, and visually impressive.  Perhaps most importantly, viewing this film gives important back-story for last year's Avengers movie.  If you're a fan of movies in this genre, you'll enjoy Thor.  If not, look elsewhere.

Rating: B+

The Return of Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle)

Someone once said that a book by a favored author was like a visit from a best friend.  I wouldn't go quite that far, but I must admit, a "new" Sherlock Holmes story brings with it a familiarity and enjoyment that I experience from few others.

This time, it's another short story collection- The Return of Sherlock Holmes.  In the last short story of the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes and his arch-rival Moriarty square off at the Reichenbach Falls, and both (supposedly) perish.  As the title implies, The Return of Sherlock Holmes has him come back.  It turns out that Holmes didn't fall into that gorge as all believed; he had remained hidden for some years while Moriarty's chief henchmen fell victim to his crime-solving capabilities.  Once the last had fallen, it was safe for Holmes to return, and reveal himself to Watson.

The Return of Sherlock Holmes is a collection of 13 short stories, the first of which explains Holmes' reappearance in society.  They all follow the same basic structure- Holmes is summoned to determine what the police cannot.  And, like previous writings, each tale manages to hold interest and build suspense in the space of a few pages.  You can't go wrong with Sherlock Holmes.

Trivia: Conan Doyle very much wanted to be rid of the legendary character he created, which explains his decision to kill him off in 1893.  Ten years passed, and the public clamoring for more was so great that Doyle relented and, in 1903, brought Holmes back.  Read more about it here.

Rating: A

Predictably Irrational (Dan Ariely)

Did you ever have a book on your shelf that's been there for years, and you keep telling yourself "I'll get to it one day?"  Predictably Irrational is one such book for me, and after looking at it gather dust for a few years, I decided to finally see what it was all about.

Predictably Irrational discusses the results of a series of studies carried out by a behavioral economist.  The basic premise is that standard economic models- to include supply/demand, market forces, etc- would work as expected if people are rational.  The problem is, we're not, and we do irrational things, and make irrational choices, every day.  This work investigates some of those, and makes some recommendations about how we can realize what's going on, and work to stop irrational decisions from leading us down undesired paths.

Overall, it was pretty good.  My main fault with this was due to my own misperception on the book's approach- I thought it would be an in-depth treatment of the human nature, not a series of studies on economics.  I can't fault the author for that, of course.  The other issue I had was due to the nature of some of the studies- as a 'soft science,' it's hard to always draw definitive results from studies.  I didn't feel as though any studies were outright shams, but I felt that, at times, the author's conclusions were a stretch.  Still, the book provided food for thought, which was the primary intent.

Rating: B-

From e-Readers to the Folio Society

This post is a largely random/informative note about books in general, more for myself than anyone.  You probably don't want to read on.

Today, I attended another book fair.  I don't feel it necessary to elaborate on the general experience- I did that sufficiently here- but I do have to comment on one event.  In my initial report (read about it if you haven't yet), I mentioned how I had haggled for a book.  Today, as I was perusing the selection at a book stand, the vendor said "I've sold you a book before."  Without looking up, I dismissively replied "no you didn't," which, in hindsight, seemed unnecessarily short, but I don't like to be distracted when I'm "in the [book-hunting] zone."  Anyway, the vendor said "yes, I did.  The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, at the York Book Fair."  I froze.  That was six months ago.  "What an impressive memory you have," was all I could think to say.  "Not really; I remember the haggling" - at which point I laughed, until he finished- "I didn't say it was a fond memory."  We proceeded to have a good, friendly conversation- he wasn't as bitter as his comment implied- but the whole experience got me thinking about the whole experience of obtaining books.

Books are, I believe, in a unique category.  They're the only form of entertainment that's been around, largely unchanged, for hundreds of years (perhaps chess belongs in this category, too, but so what).  As a result, classic works have been published and re-published hundreds of times (for example, The Three Musketeers, by Alexandre Dumas, was published first in 1844, and has at least 173 editions- more than one a year, on average).  So, when it comes to reading a book, it's not always just about the words- it's also about the edition.  Is it hardback, or paperback?  Who published it?  What's the font (both style and size)?  Page size?  Is it illustrated?  If it's foreign, who translated it?  Is it a literal translation?  The questions could go on.  My point is, books stand alone in this vein, in that we may seek not just "book X" but a certain edition of "book X." 

In our quest for our preferred edition of a book, we're presented with a myriad of options.  The mainstream options- current-issue hardbacks and mass market paperbacks- I don't discuss here.  The point of this post is to discuss the "extremes," to which we now proceed.

e-Readers

Use of e-Readers, like the Amazon Kindle, have exploded in recent years.  Having owned one for several years, I've experienced the good and bad of e-books firsthand:

Advantages of e-Readers:
- Storage: the ability to store hundreds/thousands of books on a device smaller than a paperback is quite nice.
- Portability: the ability to carry hundreds/thousands of books on such a small device is ideal for travel, a long commute on public transportation, or minimizing your possessions (as one who's moved rather regularly, I can tell you with authority that minimizing the weight/volume of your personal library is a big bonus).
- Free/cheap books: out-of-copyright books are generally available for free.  This, at minimum, applies to anything published before 1923.  There are a lot of good reads out there in this category.  On my e-Reader, I have perhaps 80 books, and I think all but 5 have been free, public-domain classics.  Of the ones I've paid to own, the cost (for older works) is generally much less- many times less than $2.00.  The cost for new releases is similar (if not identical) to the cost of a physical copy.
- Convenience: if you have a wireless connection, you can browse and download books in seconds- no trips to the store, etc.
- Features: many e-Readers feature things like the ability to change text size, built-in dictionaries, and more, meaning you can easily adjust your reading experience for maximum comfort and understanding.

Disadvantages:
- Graphics: if you want to read a book with charts, pictures, etc, it's difficult to fully appreciate them on most current e-Reader screens.
- Power: like anything else that needs power, you have to keep an eye on your batteries.  Many e-Readers can last weeks on one charge, but you have to keep an eye on it.  I made a big mistake on my first trip with my Kindle- I forgot to "turn off wireless" before leaving the house.  That made the unit search for my wireless network as we traveled, and by the time we arrived at our destination, the batteries were dead.
- Referencing: any book you want to explore non-linearly, for example a reference book, is difficult to use on an e-Reader.  If you want to flip back and forth, get a physical copy.
- Sense of accomplishment: this (to me) is silly, but some people really enjoy seeing their progress by watching their bookmark as it moves through a work.  An e-Reader will tell you what percent of the book remains, but you won't get that physical sign that you're progressing, which bothers some.
-Loaning.  Some e-Readers will now let you loan your books to friends by sending it to their unit for 2 weeks before returning it to yours, but physical books are still much easier to deal with when it comes to loaning to friends and family.

Antiquarian Books

If you want an old book, you can find (as previously stated) many different editions.  Here are the pros and cons of the older books:

Advantages:
- Beauty: in general, as you go back through the decades, you'll find the releases getting more and more beautiful.  The craftsmanship is amazing.   Each book truly is a work of art.
- Value: if you have a first/early edition of a major work, it can be worth a ton of money.  That may, however, discourage you from using it, so think twice about shelling out big bucks for that first edition Dracula.
- Selection: there are many books that were famous in their day, but have since fallen by the wayside and are no longer available (like the Ingoldsby Legends).  Sometimes, the only way you can get an older, more obscure work is through the antiquarian market.

Disadvantages:
- Price: if you want a classic book in good condition, be prepared to pay a mint- perhaps, hundreds, even thousands, of dollars.
- Condition: it's easy to buy old books- even from 200 years ago- for cheap. But- and this is a big but- the condition is often poor with such cheap offerings.  The pages and cover will show wear or be damaged, but the main detractor (for me) is the mold/mildew that tends to develop.  If these books spent any time in an attic or basement- and being passed down through generations, such a thing is likely- you'll get an odor most find unwelcome.

Folio Society

I hadn't heard of the Folio Society until recently.  Their product: "beautiful illustrated books."  They've been around for decades, publishing sturdy, hardback versions of classics.

Advantages:
- Beauty: Folio Society (hereafter, FS) books look great.  The illustrations vary from work to work, but are generally good, and the quality of the printing is top-notch.
- Construction: FS books are bound well- these are made to last.

Disadvantages:
- Price: For new FS releases, most books are 30GBP ($45) each- quite expensive.  If you're willing to buy  used, the price drops quickly- at book fairs, you can generally find volumes for 10GBP ($15).
- Size: FS books, being hardback and illustrated, take up more room than paperbacks, so you'll quickly see that a few volumes take up your bookshelf. 

A Note on Foreign Books

One final topic before my conclusion: foreign books.  Being a fan of some Russian and French literature, I quickly discovered that there's no one English version of, say, Crime and Punishment.  The translator becomes key, so if you're interested in reading a foreign book, I'd advise you to do some research on the translations available for it.  Some translators take the literal approach; some focus on conveying the original intent.  Both approaches have merits; decide what you like best and read accordingly.

Conclusion

To wrap up this largely irrelevant post, I make my judgments on this general subject.

- most books should be read as e-books- especially older ones that can be obtained for free.  It's the wave of the future: give in now, and stop fighting it.  I'm talking to myself as much as others; I've read over a dozen books on the Kindle, and I don't dislike it- I just have trouble overcoming the psychological barrier that feels like I've accomplished more when the book is physically present.
- if you have a book or two you love and read repeatedly, get the Folio Society version of it (if FS has published the title).
- if you have reference books or things heavy on graphics, get the hard copy.
- antiquarian books are, in my opinion, generally not worthwhile, unless you're seeking a title no longer in print.

George F. Kennan (John Lewis Gaddis)

It's been a long time since I've read a biography.  George F. Kennan, by Gaddis, is the story of the man who was instrumental in formulating America's containment policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Kennan's famous "long telegram" profoundly impacted the way Americans viewed Soviet Russia, and his work in the years to come, which took on a variety of forms (ambassador, professor, historian, lecturer, and more), influenced hundreds of high-ranking officials, to include several Presidents.

Kennan was a brilliant individual, but also extremely self-centered (aren't we all).  His insights were not always correct, or even consistent with himself- he appeared to oscillate quite a bit, almost acting as a balancing force when policy appeared to drift too far one way or another.  He saw the ineptitude of many people and policies in the government and was tremendously pessimistic, even as the Cold War came to a close.  He was extremely eloquent in his arguments, but didn't always have a good grasp of political realities.  In short, he was human, with tremendous strengths and noticeable weaknesses.

The book was informative, certainly.  It won a Pulitzer prize, so there is certainly an element of quality to it.  That said, I was very happy to finish it.  Part (or most?) of the reason was personal preference- I prefer overviews of history rather than in-depth examinations of one individual- and part of it was relative lack of interest in the subject matter (there's a reason I chose to major in engineering, and not political science).  Parts were very dry, and I felt the 700 pages contained, perhaps, 200-300 pages worth of valuable content.  But, that's the nature of a biography- you get a lot of good insight, and a lot you could do without (unless you're extremely interested in the individual).

Rating: B

Night Shivers (JH Riddell)

The late-winter fog of Yorkshire inspired me to read through some ghost stories, and some place J.H. Riddell's Night Shivers in the top echelon of Victorian ghost story writers.  A collection of 15 short stories, Night Shivers takes the reader through predictable ghost story fare- abandoned houses, unsolved murders, wailing banshees, and unexplained phenomena dot the pages.  Was it worth it?  For me, no.  I began intending to read the entire work, but ended up choosing six of the stories, and stopping thereafter.  The tales had some interesting elements in them, but often fell flat at the end, and failed to build suspense in some cases.  If you're heavily into ghost stories, give this a whirl, but for most people, there are better things out there.

Rating: C

The Amazing Spider-man

In 2002, Spider-man (starring Tobey Maguire) raked in over 400 million at US theaters, leading to two sequels (in 2004 & 2007, respectively) and kicking off a superhero movie explosion that has continued to present day.  Now, just 10 years after that movie's release (and 5 since the mediocre and poorly-received Spider-man 3), we get a reboot- The Amazing Spider-man.  Spidey is back, but this time, there's a whole new cast, and the story starts over.

That's right- The The Amazing Spider-man starts completely from scratch.  It's the origin story all over again- take Spider-man, change the cast, tweak some things, and there you have it.  The villain is different (The Lizard instead of The Green Goblin), the main players are slightly different (no Mary-Jane this time- here Gwen Stacey is Peter Parker's love interest), but the essentials remain the same.  Peter Parker, science wizard and social outcast, lives with his Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben, as his parents have passed away years ago.  While visiting Oscorp, he gets bitten by a spider, and, well . . . you know the rest.

It's gutsy to "re-do" a popular movie only 10 years after its release.  How do you tell the same story and hold interest?  Well, this time around, there's a noticeably darker and grittier feel to the film- I think The Dark Knight has influenced more than one action/superhero film in recent years.  And, supposedly, this reboot holds more true to the comics (I'm not familiar enough myself to know)- for example, Spidey has to build his web-shooters (like in the comics) rather than have them naturally develop in his body.  Finally, we also get a little more insight into Peter's parents, and what may have happened to them all those years ago.  So, while the story is the same, there are enough variations to make it interesting.

So, was the risk worth it?  I think so.  The movie, overall, is solid.  The humor throughout is good, and the action is stellar.  The story is good, if not surprising.  In fact, I really enjoyed the first half of this movie.  In the second half, it tapers off a bit- some elements of the plot seem rushed or unnecessary- but the film is worth it on the whole.  Critics and moviegoers gave it an almost identical rating to the 2002 movie, implying that most people were at least as satisfied with it as with the original.  It is somewhat surprising, then, that the 2012 film grossed much less- "only" 262 million stateside.  Why?  I think the answer is timing.  No matter how good this film was, the original three movies are still relatively fresh in people's minds.  The comparatively poor box office showing may be in part due to a backlash of fans, intent on resisting the film based on principle alone.  Is such action warranted?  I'm not sure.  But, it is what it is.  If you're into superhero movies, and/or Spider-man, check out this flick. 

Rating: A

God's Undertaker (John C. Lennox)

Science and religion- two areas that spar often in modern culture.  Quoting the back of the book:
"If we are to believe many modern commentators, science has squeezed God into a corner, killed and then buried him with its all-embracing explanations.  Atheism, we are told, is the only intellectually tenable position, and any attempt to reintroduce God is likely to impede the progress of science.  In this stimulating and thought-provoking book, John Lennox invites us to consider such claims very carefully."

In this work, John C. Lennox, Professor in Mathematics at Oxford, investigates a variety of areas in his investigation, to include:
- the scope and limits of science
- irreducible complexity
- micro- and macro-evolution
- the origin of the universe
- the genetic code
- information and the relationship to matter
- origins of information and life

Lennox shows in many areas of science how, regrettably, some scientists have fallen from the scientific ideal of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, and moved instead to trying to force evidence into preconceived notions on "how it ought to be."  He discusses the inconsistencies and/or self-contradictory nature of some scientist's claims, and examines evidence for everything from the extremely large (the universe) to the extremely small (the simplest organisms).  He argues that science is "overstepping its bounds" in some areas, and resorting to rhetoric and ideologies rather than sound scientific method, in a quest to (at all costs) eliminate the possibility that there may be a design to the universe.

Why would science do this?  Why do some scientists care so passionately about eliminating the possibility of intelligence behind life?  I believe there are two main factors:
1) a design implies a designer, which in turn implies a being that is more powerful than ourselves.  We, as humans, don't like to consider such possibilities- we want to be "top dog."  If there is a God, He's stronger than we are; humans have never liked that idea.
2) in the Middle Ages, the Church was known for overstepping its bounds, and in some cases impeding science through its edicts.  Today, I'd argue science is doing the exact same thing.  Like the Church of old, anyone who points out weaknesses or inconsistencies in current mainstream scientific thinking is ostracized or called a fool.  Interesting that most scientific progress has been made by departing from mainstream thinking of the time.  The saddest part of it is, no matter how much we claim to have progressed in recent times, we still hold the same basic mindset that has plagued humanity for centuries- "what we currently believe is correct.  Yes, there are gaps, yes, there are inconsistencies, but this is correct- you're a fool to think otherwise."

As one who believes in God, of course I enjoyed this work.  But, I daresay, I do try to be as analytical as possible about such arguments.  I have read (and will continue to read) works from both sides of the issue, and would encourage all to do the same.  And, Lennox's work is a good starting point to understand the claims of those who believe there is a design inherent in the world.  His style is both scientific (there are calculations in this book), but relatively accessible, and his tone is (to me) "friendly"- it's not a confrontational, Bible-thumping work.  He's debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (among others), and is highly credible.  Overall, this is a worthy read.

Rating: A