Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!rose
From: rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Daniel Rose)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Godel, Escher, Bach
Message-ID: <834@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 04:19:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.834
Posted: Tue Apr 30 04:19:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 2-May-85 01:17:51 EDT
References: <262@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Daniel rose)
Organization: EECS Dept. U.C. San Diego
Lines: 26
Summary: 

>I'm not certain, but I don't think it was ever published as a hardcover.
>When I got my copy, I don't remember ever seeing it that way, at least.

It definitely was published in hardcover.  I know, because when
I got my copy (late 1980) it was _only_ available in hardcover.
Everyone I knew who had it, had it in hardcover.

>...two years after reading it, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's all that
>"wonderful". For one thing, it's harder reading than many college
>textbooks, and for another, it struck me that LOTS and LOTS of what he was
>trying to say was just a bunch of fluff and trying too hard for effect.

While some parts were certainly difficult, others were fun, thought-
provoking, and often entertaining.  I especially liked the anecdotes
about Ramanujan (sp?), Turing, etc.  As far as it being fluff, I've
heard this criticism from both philosophers and CS people (I was an
undergrad phil. major), and it seems to me that people who feel this
way are taking Hofstadter more seriously than he himself intended.
I've heard him speak, as well as reading some of his other articles,
and I've come to the conclusion that he was not trying to prove
anything with GEB; he was just sharing some of his favorite interests
with people.  While I have my own criticisms of the book, I think it
achieves this goal admirably.

Dan Rose
sdcsvax!rose