And thus it begins: All the Truth That’s in Me v The Animal Book, Judge Vaunda Nelson

My prediction: “Having not read either one, I randomly picked The Animal Book.”

Was I right? YES.

My observations:

Nelson says, “I found similarities I hadn’t expected.” Nelson then went on to compare the two books based on those similarities, and ended up picking The Animal Book.

Nelson’s method — comparing two books that appear to have nothing in common — got me thinking about such comparisons based on what is similar, rather than on what is different. The looking for things that are the same, so that a judgment can be made.

Why do we do this? Why not say two things are wildly different, yet a decision can still be made?

And in looking for similarities, is an artificial narrative created just because we believe it’s easier to do apples to apples than apples to pineapples? Do we look for things that really aren’t there, to make sense of the world?

Do we see connection to control the chaos?

Enough deep thoughts.

I also liked that Nelson pointed out flaws with each books. None of this “oh, two perfect things.” No; realistically, as it always is, two things created by humans, so flawed.