I thought this book was interesting, but could not find my footing nor was I really engaged. Perhaps it's just a consequence of the time, but I have to DNF this one all the same. Nevertheless, thanks for allowing me to read in advance — I really love the cover!

A good comic cable that keep me interested until the end, an unconventional read definitely not for everyone I liked it and can t wait to read more

Occasionally philosophical theories become protagonists of entire novels, sometimes explicitly, as is the case of Wittgenstein on "Wittgenstein's Mistress" by David Markson, others oblique: Wittgenstein is present in filigree on "The Broom of the System“ by Wallace, as on DeLillo's" End Zone "and DeLillo himself often happened to touch philosophy of language, Australian realism and the theory of definite descriptions, "The Flame Alphabet "by Ben Marcus is built around the theory of linguistic acts by Austin and Searle, and "The Moviegoer" by Walker Percy around a second-hand version of existentialism. THE ORIGIN OF SENSE by Adam Ehrlich Sachs does the same with Leibniz, and indeed, uses an inedited Leibniz as the protagonist and narrative fulcrum of the whole novel. We are in 1666 and a bizarre blind astronomer foresees a special eclipse for June 30, using the largest existing telescope. So begins a philosophical novel that highlights the greatness of a philosopher who is unjustly crushed on handbooks between the Cartesian Age and Humean empiricism. Actually Leibniz was not only the philosopher of the monads and inventor — along with Newton — of infinitesimal calculus, but also librarian and great diplomatic organizer of knowledge, maybe the first one who tried to systematize all those non-academic, practical and craft knowledge, he was the creator of a new "dynamic" physics against the mechanics of Newton, he was the forerunner of a viable version of Kantian epistemology, and was above all one of the first to take an interest in new instruments for observation, instruments capable of giving a different and deeper perception of the outside world: telescopes and microscope. About the microscope he wrote in a letter “I rather a Leeuwenhoek who tells me what he sees to a Cartesian who tells me what he thinks. It is indeed necessary to combine the reasoning with the observations." Adam Ehrlich Sachs invents an imaginary eclipse predicted by an astronomer who cannot see, and crafts a series of considerations on experience, reason, faith, knowledge and other philosophical themes. As often happens with this kind of books, unfortunately the theoretical part ends up dominating the novelistic, and "The Origin of Sense" ends up being a novel for the lover of modern philosophy, but it is also a good opportunity to re-evaluate one of the most important minds of the Western scientific and philosophical tradition.

But he could not stop. He felt he had a “compulsion to look,” to look closer and closer, “a looking-closer-and-closer compulsion.” What (he wondered) would it take to stop looking, “to look this closely, and no closer? Through such and such a magnification, and no higher?”

Certainly the strangest book I’ve read this year, and in fact last year. We are told that G. W. Leibniz, who was throughout his life “an assiduous inquirer into miracles and other aberrations of nature” is on a mission. It seems fitting he would want to uncover the truth behind an astronomer’s peculiar prediction. The German philosopher, mathematician, and logician, is on a quest to reveal whether or not a blind astronomer could possibly be able to study the stars so accurately as to have predicted an eclipse at noon and on the last day of 1666, that will leave all of Europe in complete and total darkness. This man’s prediction is made more shocking by the fact that he has empty sockets where his eyes should be, can you get any blinder? Sure, he has been ‘rumored’ to have built the most power telescope of the times but powerful or not, one still needs eyes to peer into telescopes, no?

Leibniz intends to remain at the observatory long enough to test the man’s reason (sanity) and if the eclipse happens he is certainly an astronomer if it doesn’t it means nothing because astronomers can be wrong. So begins the stories the old shriveled man tells Leibniz, and he discusses how one must “truly see”, what could a man with empty eye sockets know about seeing? Well, with his trusty instrument (the telescope) he has seen a lot! A lot, I tell you! And he demands of Leibniz that he “prove that I cannot see what I claim to see”, we have a conundrum tangled in philosophy and history. How did the old man lose his eyes anyway? What is truth? How do you get into someone’s head to determine what they are experiencing, what their truth is? Words, can words reveal what is in another’s head? Mere words?

Can one go through life without the ‘belief in other people?’ The astronomer tells Leibniz that what he means will become clear, I think most readers will try to grasp at the silliness and science but clarity may not be easy! Maybe a lot of readers are more like the astronomer’s father who wasn’t interested in the sky, and cannot be tangled in knots because they just don’t care to ponder. The play on faith as what we devote our existence to is evident in the astronomer’s father’s inventions…a box is just a box is a box, no matter how we decorate it, it will not open the cosmos to us. Be you a surface dweller or a plunger of depths, does it matter where we put our faith? Does madness await us all either way, what is sanitized madness? How does an Emperor, art , or an automaton head lead to the astronomer losing his eyes so that he can truly see?

This was a dizzying book. It takes a ‘discerning mind’ if you’re going to be a thinker and one must lose the eyes that deceive us even if that’s a straight plunge into ‘philosophical torment.’ This is meant to be amusing, I think it’s more scientific/philosopher’s humor and it is easy to get lost. What do we really understand about our the world or each other, whether we’re filled with genius or disinterested in anything beyond the surface? It’s okay if you can’t engage with the witty humor and philosophy within, you can always gaze at the cool book cover with your actual eyes!

Publication Date: May 21, 2019

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

I wanted so much to like this book because I love astronomy and the premise of it seemed so interesting. However, I just could not get into it no matter how much I tried. Unfortunately, the style of writing was just not for me. I had a hard time really focusing on what was happening because of it. Thank you to Netgalley and Farrar, Straus and Giroux for the ARC.

This was more of an experimental read or unconventional, if you prefer, and boy, did it not work for me. In fact, it should have had really added non in its title for a more accurate description. It was easy enough to get what the author was going for…an absurdist historical comedy, but…but it was mainly just absurd. The plot was like a one punch joke stretched out too long, it’s in fact quite difficult to adequately describe and since the book summary did the work, I’ll leave it at that. The comedy came from a sort of repetetiveness best demonstrated by the muffin man…Do you know the muffin man? The muffin man? The muffin man…etc. But with a more time appropriate vocabulary, so words like glockenspiel. It goes on and on in seemingly unending serpentine sentences, virtually paragraph and dialect free. Characters ramble on in meandering monologues. The book moves like a drunk and reads like a fugue state. I mean, objectively it is the sort of thing someone might enjoy, but at best it is very, very much an acquired taste. And otherwise it’s just a complete waste of time. An eclectic selection that didn’t pan out really. I don’t especially like the saying, but this one might have been too clever for its own good. Although it seems to have gotten great reviews everywhere. Thanks Netgalley.