Re-thinking science Book

A little random, but let me start with my favorite exchange from Game Of Thrones:

Varys: 3 great men sit in a room. A king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other 2. Who lives, who dies?

Tyrion: Depends on the sellsword.

Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods.

Tyrion: He has a sword, the power of life and death!

Varys: But if it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey, the executioner, or something else?

Tyrion: I've decided I don't like riddles.

Varys: Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall.

Rational Ritual is primarily about the concept of Common Knowledge, what everyone knows that everyone knows (… that everyone knows). Had it limited itself to that topic, the need for common knowledge, and how it's both disseminated and prevented, I think it could have been a good book, as it's a pretty interesting concept. Especially as it relates to power, because his thesis about ritual - that it doesn't just reinforce power but gives power itself by shaping common knowledge - is very compelling, and echoes the GoT reference. Power is held by who people think hold it.

Unfortunately, the book makes several digressions (oddly, the title ends up being secondary - ritual is discussed in only a fraction of the book, and rationality almost not at all) that don't add up to a frustrating read. Some criticisms:

- Its language is academic and not particularly readable.
- It's structured oddly. The title doesn't reflect the main thesis, and large parts don't seem related to either the title or thesis. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on metadiscussion, in the intro saying what he plans to do, in the conclusion saying what he intended to do, instead of just doing it.
- It's really just a big conjecture, and some aspects of it are not compelling. There are large sections devoted to advertising, his thesis being that "social" products require larger audiences because they require being known as common knowledge. It has nothing to do with ritual. And his definition of a social product seems arbitrary and unconvincing. That I buy a type of beer because I know everyone else knows what it is seems a stretch.

Random trivia: Chwe and I belong to a rare club; we both have the same Korean last name transliterated unusually. It's usually spelled Choi.