As distracted as Da Vinci

I had high hopes as I've enjoyed earlier works by the author and am a fan of the artist. But it just seemed to meander from one idea to another was da Vinci unique? Yes. Was his mind unlike any other? Yes. Did this book offer a clear compelling and strong argument as to why? Far from it.

49 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Varied Approach with Surprising Results

Surprisingly interesting, varied, and enjoyable approach. A little less speculation dressed as fact would have been appreciated. Great read. Recommended even for non-Leonardo admirers.

36 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Excellent insight on DaVinci

Learned so much about a man I only really knee as an artist and inventor. The incredible list of his achievements for which he is not recognized was eye opening and shows how amazing he truly was.

34 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Fairly good until the last quarter of the book.

Any additional comments?

I was following the authors meanderings until I hit the authors claim that Leonardo was a remote viewer, or in other words, psychic. When I heard that, how much of the rest of the book is pseudo-science? How much of the history is from reliable sources.

Discounting that claim, the book is good, but mediocre. If I were a psychic believer, I would have given the book 3 stars. The merging of brain science with Leonardo's biography just didn't work all that well. I'd probably would have done better listening to a Leonardo biography or a brain science book.

15 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Quackery?

I don't know just how little of the information in here is worth anything, as the author seems to believe some rather odd things. One odd belief is that remote viewing is an established and widely accepted scientific fact and that Leonardo could thus possibly look through space-time. The author often state's that there's no other explanation for things like Leonardo's descriptions of sand dunes, or the number of houses on Crete. Really? Leonardo couldn't have heard or read accounts of these things? Beyond that the work is rather rambling. Captivating at some points, yes, but is the information presented to be taken seriously? As always Grover Gardner's voice is like butter, so you have that to look forward to, at least.

9 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

amazing

if you romance curiosity this is for you o enjoyed ever bit of this book from start to finish

8 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Outdated

The books premise, that there is a substantial difference between the two halves of the brain, is largely outdated. Thus the conclusions are mainly unsubstantiated. Toward the end of the book, the author ventures into supernatural land, arguing that Da Vinci must have had supernatural abilities such as the ability to remote view. It seems to me like the author's model of the world is stuck in the sixties. Much progress in science has been made since that time.

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

too much pseudo science for my taste

The first 2/3rds of the book is mostly an interesting history of Leonardo Da Vinci and how his innovations were ahead of his time.
I enjoyed this part even though there is no mention of the many sources Da Vinci had implying that his inventions were more original than other sources I have seen. His painting innovations, which I have not read about before, often seem to take a later movement and list one of Da Vinci's making me wonder how anachronistic some of them may be.
My main concern with the book is the last part where the author seems to promote a view that Da Vinci could actually see into the future via remote viewing and that somehow this is supported by a few studies and that he was a left handed homosexual. This is a bit too much of a leap for my belief; I need to try to look up some of the cited studies which I find difficult to believe, but even taken at face value they seem far from the concepts they were supposed to have inspired.

3 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

Wanted to like it

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

The narrator was fine, not my favorite but does a good job.

Would you ever listen to anything by Leonard Shlain again?

I doubt it. There was a lot of speculation pretending to be fact as well as a great deal of misguided interpretation. His grasp on history and religion is not great. He cherry picks a lot of information about brain science. Overall felt like a clever person with an inch deep knowledge on his subjects.

Have you listened to any of Grover Gardner’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

yes. Good job.

Any additional comments?

I was really excited to listen to this book. I enjoyed it initially, but as the book progressed the leaps in logic were just too extreme. I feel sorry for someone who reads this book and does not have a background in anyone of the various areas he addresses, as they might think that he knows what he is talking about.

2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

boring, scattered, boring

Would you try another book from Leonard Shlain and/or Grover Gardner?

No, on both counts. I am giving Mr. Shlain a very low rating, but in all fairness it seems he wrote a history of art book and I was expecting something else. I found Mr. Gardner to be the boring lecturer that you have for a history course, where they go on and on in this monotone voice. Gawd.

What was most disappointing about Leonard Shlain’s story?

I found it to just be flat and monotone. There were some very interesting parts in the book, but the last part of the book was just a waste of time.

Would you be willing to try another one of Grover Gardner’s performances?

No. Never. Not in this lifetime. (And I said that in a flat, monotone, boring voice!)

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

boredom, disappointment ... I enjoyed the parts about Leonardo, but that was such a smile part of the book.

Any additional comments?

Unless you like to sit through long lectures on art history, the social sciences, etc. skip this one.

2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile