

Ask HN: Experiences with 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' (GEB)? - mbm

I've heard so many good things about Hofstadter's famous book and I'm about to begin it myself.  Anyone care to share their experiences with GEB/whether reading it was as transformative as I've heard it is?  Also, any suggestions for how to approach the book itself?
======
diiq
I love it. But:

The book is NOT a good introduction to the incompleteness theorem. It is not a
book about M.C. Escher. It could, barely, be said to be about papa Bach.

If you read it for math or science, you will be disappointed. It's a
horrendous textbook.

Read it paying attention to his words, how and why he choses them, and GEB is
a pretty marvelous thing. If the English language excites you, then read it,
and read Le Ton Beau de Marot. GEB is a _demonstration_ of ideas, not a
discussion of them.

Hofstadter is not a computer scientist. He's a philosopher, a linguist, and a
gedankenspiel-smith. Read him to laugh and play. Expect pretension because big
words are fun.

Or skip it. I don't think it will change your life.

------
plinkplonk
I finished it, but found it pretentious, boring as hell and thin on content.
In my opinion (which is not shared widely ;-)) it would have made a good 15
page pamphlet. The rest is turgid verbiage(imo). I can understand someone for
whom recursion(say) is some kind of mind blowing concept getting some value
out of the book, but I've never understood why _programmers_ find it
fascinating. It has a few ultra basic concepts, stretched across multiple
pages with lots of padding, then endlessly repeated in minor variations with
lots of faux insight.

~~~
mreid
Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you
started reading it? Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and
RNA transcription "ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you.

I'm a programmer with a maths background[1] and I've read the book twice–once
when I was 19 and again when I was 26. Both times I really enjoyed the
digressions, language games, dialogues, and playfulness of the book. I got the
sense Hofstadter was deeply curious and enthusiastic about the topics he
explores and did a wonderful job at sharing that enthusiasm.

In my opinion it is a great example of writing for the sheer joy of exploring
ideas. I can see how approaching such a book with a "just the facts please"
attitude might end badly.

[1]: I've been told I'm a strange math/programmer though. I enjoy a wide range
of literature too: Cervantes, Nabokov, Wallace, and Coetzee being some of my
favourite authors.

~~~
plinkplonk
"Out of genuine curiosity, what were expecting to get out of it before you
started reading it? "

I wasn't expecting anything but a good read.Which is exactly what I didn't
get.

The writing style is (imo) very turgid on the other end of the spectrum from
(say) pg's crisp and incisive style. Feynman is another example of a writer
who exposes his interest in a wide variety of stuff(Brazilian drumming for eg)
but he isn't yawn inducing. I hate writing that tests readers' patience by
prolonged aimless meandering. Fwiw I didn't like _why's book on Ruby either.So
there does seem to be a pattern there somewhere ;-)

I have no problems if other people like such books. Different folks different
strokes and all that. I was just expressing _my_ opinion.

"Also, if you found the proof of Gödel's incompleteness and RNA transcription
"ultra basic concepts" my hat is off to you."

I am sorry but these were basic to me or I could find crisper explanations
elsewhere. It has been a while since I read the book (I read this when I was
19 or so iirc) but I would guess that a few hundred pages could be lopped off
with "computer programs, music and some kinds of drawing exhibit recursive
structure" and giving a few examples each.

I don't remember the RNA transcription bit, but I would be very surprised if
it didn't meander all over the place without saying anything much for a few
dozen pages or so.

There is plenty of popular science and non fiction written crisply,
interestingly and in an uncondescending fashion which explores ideas without
boring the reader silly.That said I completely acknowledge this is a matter of
taste and that one man's food is another's poison.

The question to which that post was a reply _did_ ask for opinions of HNers on
the book. And my _opinion_ is that GEB is overhyped and overblown and I said
as much. YMMV.And that is as it should be.

~~~
mreid
Thanks for the answers. I wasn't disputing your opinion, I just wanted to know
your experience differed so much from mine. De gustibus non est disputandum.

It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering
digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. For me, understanding the
topics (computation, recursion, use/mention, self-reference) wasn't the main
reason for reading the book. The blurring of form and function in the writing
and general playfulness were just as important and anything but boring.

PG, Feynman, and _why are useful points of reference. I like all three but
recognise how different the latter one is to the former two. A similar
distinction would be between Coetzee (precision) vs. Wallace (verbosity). I
strenuously suggest you avoid Wallace even though I think both authors are
amazing. :) Having enjoyed Wallace's non-fiction book on infinity, "Everything
and More", I recommended it to a work mate (also a programmer) and he hated
it. Upon reflection, I think he has similar tastes to you and would probably
not like GEB either.

Out of interest, what style of fiction (if any) do you enjoy?

~~~
plinkplonk
hey I didn't think you were disputing either. Just trying to say that I was
tossing off an opinion without thinking too much about it because that was
what the OP asked for.

"It seems the main point of difference is that you found the meandering
digressions annoying whereas I really enjoyed them. The blurring of form and
function in the writing and general playfulness were just as important and
anything but boring."

I agree. Our tastes differ.

As for fiction, I generally like fiction which has a strong plot and/or
characterization. Taking fantasy as a random genre, I like the first few books
of George Martin's "Ice and Fire" fantasy series (the last two books meander
too much imo :-P) and I can't stand Robert Jordan. I hate cardboard cut out
characters and too predictable plots.

But, I digress too much from the OP's topic here so will stop now.

------
unoti
Frankly it made me feel like I'm not smart enough much of the time. But trying
not to let that bother me, I plowed ahead anyway. I found quite a few things
actually quite mind expanding. His exposition about infinite recursion was
worth the price of admission alone. A small segment of that is here:
<http://amberbaldet.com/uploads/little-harmonic-labrynth.html>

Another book which I did find truly transformative include "The Art of Game
Design" by Jessie Schell. Also Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, is also a very
worthwhile mind-broadening scientific read. A New Kind of Science by Wolfram
is also quite a bit of fun.

But by far my most prized techie book is Genetic Programming, by the legendary
John Koza (if you're not a Lisp person like I wasn't when I read this, then
you really need to read it!). Braid and all of the books I mentioned have
something in common: They are all fat, heavy, meaty, thought-provoking tomes.

~~~
gaulinmp
Seconded, this book caused me to do more research to cover my ignorance than
any text book I've ever picked up, but I absolutely enjoyed every minute of
it. I also think Anathem is Stephenson's best book by far.

------
larryfreeman
I've read it two times through. The first time, I thought it was one of the
most brilliant books I had ever read (I read it the first time in the early
80's). I became especially fascinated with Godel's Proof and the thoughts of
E.O. Wilson on whether an ant colony was in reality a single organism. I was
very, very excited about the possibilities of artificial intelligence and
especially natural language processing.

The second time I read it (somewhere in the 90's), I enjoyed it tremendously
but I was surprised by how excited I had been before. The second time through,
I caught a lot of additional insights but somehow, it felt less revolutionary.

I plan to read it again in a few years. It's been over ten years since the
last time I read it. I have no idea how I'll react to it.

------
mullr
I read the last ~1/3 of it while recovering from food poisoning in a Buenos
Aires hotel room. The simpsons was playing on TV, in spanish. Although the
context was trippy, the content seemed pretty reasonable to me. It made a lot
of sense from a theory of computation perspective; my response was mainly "oh,
just like turing machines." Of course, I may have missed something.

------
ivanzhao
My major was Cognitive Science, so I always had to read excerpts of this book
as part of course requirement, but never finished the whole thing.

Now I read it by jumping between pages and hoping the individual
sentences/paragraphs could spark my own thought process (this is how I read
most of the time nowadays).

For a much more concise overview on the similar subject matters, checkout this
book by Andy Clark [http://www.amazon.com/Mindware-Introduction-Philosophy-
Cogni...](http://www.amazon.com/Mindware-Introduction-Philosophy-Cognitive-
Science/dp/0195138570)

------
PixelJ
You should read GEB like a playful, mathematical Alice in Wonderland full of
puzzles, philosophy and sometimes self-indulgent wit. Once you go down
Hofstadter's rabbit hole you'll get a mind-expanding romp through the meta-
logical underpinnings of modern mathematics, information theory and computer
science. At the end, whether you find it deep or simultaneously twee and
pretentious is a matter of taste, but you'll definitely find yourself a lot
more capable of thinking of three impossible things before breakfast.

------
scrame
The first time I read it straight through. I was in the middle of college, and
transitioning from a dual bio/chem major to a math/cs major, and the book
really hit a sweet spot for me with the nature of the universe.

If you're a programmer, then you have a big leg up on the core concepts
introduced in the first half, but its still a tough read.

The biggest piece of advice: keep going, and don't be intimidated as the
examples grow. There are examples that are drawn from many fields of study,
and the dialogues in between chapters give a more intuitive sense of the
concepts being introduced in the following chapter. Re-read those if you start
finding the main discussions too dry.

There is a _lot_ going on in that book, and you will not get it all on the
first read. You will have a feeling that you are missing something and you
are. Don't worry about that. Some is revealed in the later parts of the book,
and you might find yourself looping back to earlier passages.

Take your time with it, but get through to the end, you will not regret it,
and you will find yourself picking through parts of it for a long time to
come.

Also, check out Metamagical Themas, which is the opposite, a series of
discrete chapters on different topics, but just as fascinating. It covers
lisp, rubics cubes, the prisoners dilemma, gender roles in language and a
whole host of other good things.

------
agent86a
I highly recommend Gödel's Proof (Nagel and Newman) as a supplement. I got a
lot out of Hofstadter's book, but honestly found much of the discussion of the
incompleteness theorem more confusing than it needed to be. If you're mostly
interested in the Gödel part, I actually recommend you read it instead of
Hofstadter's book.

Gödel's Proof is very concise, and more clearly describes the core argument.

------
mtodd
GEB is a great experience. It's not a deeply technical book, though it is both
deep and technical. It's more specifically an adventure of thought.

I hear there are hidden messages in the book itself. I'm not motivated to
track them down and solve them, but this is certainly an indication of the
kind of tone Hofstadter was after: playful.

------
cypherpunks01
I absolutely love this book - I'm right in the middle, he's trying to answer
the question, "Can minds be mapped onto each other?".

It's very engaging and fascinating, and I highly recommend it for all sentient
beings. Admittedly I haven't finished the book just yet, but I hold the belief
that I _may_ have been better off not going to college, but instead reading
GEB two or three times.

One reason I occasionally stumble while reading it is because it's such a vast
flow of information. It's a bit hard to process all of his thoughts at once,
as it's basically a well-organized dump of Hofstadter's brain. Reminds me of
Pirsig's Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in that way.

As for how to approach reading the book, I recommend reading it outdoors in
the summertime, which is a bit tricky in the northern hemisphere these days.
And don't forget to have a LOT of coffee on-hand!

enjoy! :)

------
jordan0day
As someone who does the majority of their reading in bed, GEB took _a long_
time to get through, and I definitely didn't pick up nearly as much of it as I
should have.

That's not to say it's necessarily dry or boring, it's just, I imagine your
brain has to be _on_ to really appreciate it.

------
samdalton
I first read GEB 2 years ago and was similarly mind-blown. I found that it
didn't answer any questions, but it did ask a lot. I would consider essential
reading for anyone studying AI, and indeed for anyone with a curious mind.

I'm also in the middle of I Am a Strange Loop, and it feels very familiar.
Hofstadter's wit and skill with words comes through strongly, and the
technical depth of thought is equally as compelling.

With regards to approaching the book, I found it enjoyable and helpful to stop
every few pages and think about some of the concepts that are posed. Don't
consider it a book on AI, or computing, or Bach, or Escher, or Godel, or
quirky narratives. Instead, just go with it and follow along with the story.
It takes a while, but once you've finished, you'll want to read it again.

------
fakelvis
MIT OpenCourseWare has a couple of resources you may enjoy if you're looking
at GEB:

A _Highlights for High School_ course called _Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental
Space Odyssey_. This course has a set of 16 lecture notes and 6 video
lectures. <http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/>

The undergraduate special course, _SP.258 / ESG.SP258 Gödel, Escher, Bach_.
[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/special-programs/sp-258-goedel-
es...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/special-programs/sp-258-goedel-escher-bach-
spring-2007/)

------
throw_away
It remains one of my favorite books. I read it once my senior year in high
school and I think that it influenced (perhaps unconsciously) my course
selection at university (cognitive neuroscience/EECS simultaneous degrees). I
re-read it again as a senior in college and was amazed by how little I really
understood during my first read and how nearly all the classes I chose fit
into the subjects covered in the book.

------
eitally
I thought it was awesome when I first read it in high school; the second time,
after graduating university, I skipped all of the Achilles & the Tortoise
sections and became quite frustrated at how many page turns it took to contain
any given idea. Like Devilboy said, there's not reason it should have been
800pp.

------
zachallaun
I made an attempt to read Hofstadter's more recent _I'm a Strange Loop_ about
a year ago and didn't make it all the way through.

After being told (a few weeks ago, actually) that _GEB_ was a bit more
accessible, relative at least to _ISL_ , I started reading it, and have thus
far been blown away.

------
spacemanaki
I'm in the middle of it and reading it slowly. It hasn't quite lived up to the
hype, but I have deeply enjoyed it. I think it's wonderfully quirky and while
yes, it's probably too long, I think that's ok, because it's not a blog post
and I am happy to make room for something massive and rambly on my bookshelf.

------
brendano
Good fun but too long. I loved it when I first read it, and in college I ran a
reading course where we read it over one semester. But when I learned more and
later came back to it, I found it disappointing content-wise. I'm still glad I
read it, though; it was pretty formative for me.

------
camperman
It got me hooked on programming, classical music and Escher at a young age.
The best way to approach it is to realise the author's intention. He wants to
explore the question: what is a self? If you keep that in mind, then his
overall approach makes more sense.

------
alecco
One of the few books I've put down after less than 1/3rd. Really bad and over-
hyped, IMHO.

~~~
pgbovine
i hate to be 'that guy' who says "me too", but i felt the same way when
reading it 5 years ago. i had far higher expectations of a pulitzer prize
winning book in non-fiction. another pulitzer prize winner that's almost as
long but far more engaging is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

~~~
zizou
GGS is an amazing read. never found a more elegant and simple explanantion of
the history of mankind. in hindsight it looks perfectly rational and logical.

------
anigbrowl
Yes, probably the single most important book I've read, and by far the best
tutorial in symbolic logic that I know. Best approach: disappear for a month,
take a holiday from the internet.

------
btfh
Based on what I'd heard, I expected a lot more from it. At times, Hofstadter
somehow manages to turn what should be insanely interesting subject matter
into something quite dry.

------
rms
Great book. Like most people that start it, I didn't finish. It is a
notoriously underfinished book. Give it a try anyways.

------
tkeller
I've read it twice. That says it all, I guess.

------
Devilboy
I hated it. I felt like the author was just trying too hard. There's just not
enough actual content in a book of 800 pages.

------
rick_2047
I am 200 pages in. For now, it has just radically changed my view of the
concept of formal systems.

