...
Show More
It is interesting to me how, despite our best efforts, our preconceptions can totally shape our experiences. I was impressed when two biology majors in my school independently recommended this to book to me. Must be good, I thought. So, in the interest of honesty, I must disclose that my inflated expectations were probably the biggest contributor to my lackluster reaction. I had high hopes, and Ridley only partially delivered.
tt
In popular science, an easy way to divide books is by the occupation of the writer: scientist or journalist? Dawkins represents, to me, the high point of the scientist end; he does not pepper his books with interesting anecdotes and trivia, but concentrates on real theories and real dilemmas in science. He succeeds in making the reader feel like an insider rather than an outsider. On the other end of the spectrum is Bill Bryson’s wonderful Short History of Nearly Everything, which is overflowing with anecdotes and trivia; read that book, and you’ll be spewing interesting stories and facts to your friends for months. Where Dawkins is focused on the theoretical, Bryson concentrates on the human side of things. Bryson doesn’t pretend to be any kind of expert; rather, his journalistic background has honed his appreciation for the fascinating backstory, the compelling character, the revealing tidbit. He brings the scientists to life, and focuses on their personalities and circumstances. The reader is not left feeling like an insider to the world of science, but a very appreciative outsider.
tt
Ridley walks an uncomfortable medium in this book, and the result is decidedly mediocre. He has clearly spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with the subject, and it shows; nevertheless, he is no expert. Ridley’s appreciation for the subject matter is not for its theoretical beauty, but for its social significance. He is exclusively interested, apparently, in humans (an unscientific prejudice!). This book combines research findings about the human genome with little biographies of scientists and narratives of their research. By the end, the reader feels neither like an insider nor an appreciative outsider. Rather, the reader feels like she has just read several science sections of the New York Times back to back.
tt
I’m really finding it difficult to say anything concrete about Ridley; it’s far easier to say what he is not. His writing is neither incompetent nor exceptional; the reader is never struck by a malformed sentence, nor do any sentences stick in the mind after the book is put down. His understanding of the material is neither superficial nor deep; the reader is given some discussions of the logic of the theories, but as quick sketches rather than detailed diagrams. His feeling for a good anecdote is neither substandard nor superb; he presents many interesting stories, but none so shocking, hilarious, or dramatic as could be found in, say, Bryson. In sum, this is an eminently mediocre book.
tt
To reiterate my above warning, I think my underwhelmed impression is due as much to my overblown expectations as to the quality of the book. By no means is this a bad book, and I’m sure it could be read by many with great interest; yet I expected a detailed exploration of the field of genetics, and instead got a series of stories about particular discoveries, which didn’t end up adding into a thorough picture of the field. Ridley perhaps stands in a much-needed middle ground between ‘deep’ scientists and ‘superficial’ journalists; but it is a middle-ground that I found fairly uninteresting.
tt
In popular science, an easy way to divide books is by the occupation of the writer: scientist or journalist? Dawkins represents, to me, the high point of the scientist end; he does not pepper his books with interesting anecdotes and trivia, but concentrates on real theories and real dilemmas in science. He succeeds in making the reader feel like an insider rather than an outsider. On the other end of the spectrum is Bill Bryson’s wonderful Short History of Nearly Everything, which is overflowing with anecdotes and trivia; read that book, and you’ll be spewing interesting stories and facts to your friends for months. Where Dawkins is focused on the theoretical, Bryson concentrates on the human side of things. Bryson doesn’t pretend to be any kind of expert; rather, his journalistic background has honed his appreciation for the fascinating backstory, the compelling character, the revealing tidbit. He brings the scientists to life, and focuses on their personalities and circumstances. The reader is not left feeling like an insider to the world of science, but a very appreciative outsider.
tt
Ridley walks an uncomfortable medium in this book, and the result is decidedly mediocre. He has clearly spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with the subject, and it shows; nevertheless, he is no expert. Ridley’s appreciation for the subject matter is not for its theoretical beauty, but for its social significance. He is exclusively interested, apparently, in humans (an unscientific prejudice!). This book combines research findings about the human genome with little biographies of scientists and narratives of their research. By the end, the reader feels neither like an insider nor an appreciative outsider. Rather, the reader feels like she has just read several science sections of the New York Times back to back.
tt
I’m really finding it difficult to say anything concrete about Ridley; it’s far easier to say what he is not. His writing is neither incompetent nor exceptional; the reader is never struck by a malformed sentence, nor do any sentences stick in the mind after the book is put down. His understanding of the material is neither superficial nor deep; the reader is given some discussions of the logic of the theories, but as quick sketches rather than detailed diagrams. His feeling for a good anecdote is neither substandard nor superb; he presents many interesting stories, but none so shocking, hilarious, or dramatic as could be found in, say, Bryson. In sum, this is an eminently mediocre book.
tt
To reiterate my above warning, I think my underwhelmed impression is due as much to my overblown expectations as to the quality of the book. By no means is this a bad book, and I’m sure it could be read by many with great interest; yet I expected a detailed exploration of the field of genetics, and instead got a series of stories about particular discoveries, which didn’t end up adding into a thorough picture of the field. Ridley perhaps stands in a much-needed middle ground between ‘deep’ scientists and ‘superficial’ journalists; but it is a middle-ground that I found fairly uninteresting.