Science Writers and Writing S/D

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm currently reading another book by Matt Ridley (it's free cos we publish it), and it's pretty uninspired writing, yet it gets all the usual superlative verbiage in the blurb: "Finest thing since sliced bread - the author's friend, and also (coincidentally) a rather dull writer". I mean to say, the content is interesting, but his style is so... workmanlike. It lacks engagement.

The last pop science book I can remember finding a genuinely exciting read was Steve Jones The Language of Genes -- way back in 92 was it (and coincidentally also published here, hem, hem).

I even find Dawkins (these days) frankly dull. Again nothing wrong with the content -- the man is right -- but it's the way he says it. He has two modes, dull, recycled analogy or SOUNDBITE TO ANNOY THE TITS OFF RELIGIOUS RADIO 4 LISTENERS.

Hm, those were all bio/genetics authors. I mean this to cover other science. I've "recently" read other books, on strings and cognitive science, eg

Has the "awe" of pop science books gone, or have I become inured to its charms.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

don't judge it by ridley = my advice

if u need a endorsement for the pb here is mine:

"fck off Matt Ridley with yr bag-of-dicks eating u r rub luv mark s"

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not really judging by Ridley -- his Genome was a study in prosaic science writing -- but the blurb took me back in it's lavish praise. I haven't got the jacket w me, if I did I'd give you some quotes.

I've just remembered another recent(ish) genetics pop science that I liked, but it wasn't by any of the big names http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0224050648/qid=1054044093/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_0_11/202-7006859-0059006 (basically doing Ridley's job better)

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 13:02 (twenty-two years ago)

pop science lit is a mental disease ;)

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Brian Greene's book is supposed to be quite good (physics/string theory etc.). My dad read it and loved it(he knew nothing of string theory before). My brother in law works for Brian, and thinks highly of the book as well.

I'd been looking for some good pop science books having to do with bio/biochemistry type things, as my Dad is interested in learning about a wider range of sci (he's a chemical engineer). He expects me to know of what to read, since I was a biochem major, but I know nothing about pop sci books. I got him _Genome_ last Father's Day after reading some very positive reviews, and he's barely read any of it. He was concerned that Matt Ridley is a journalist rather than a scientist. It sounds like Matt Ridley sucks anyway.

It seems that there's a lot more to bio than genetics, though genetics is certainly a hot topic. I'd love to find a good bio sci book that wasn't so limited to genetics or behavioural science.

― JuliaA (j_bdules), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I used to like John Gribbin. Simon Singh's okay, but Dava Sobel must lic fuc. Paul Davies is pretty dull.

HAHA STEVEN WOLFRAM WHAT A TWAT.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

(Stephen Hawking isn't very good at ALL)

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Books written by journalists vs books written by scienists FITE.

(I prefer the previous.)

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm just looking for a geekariffic Father's Day gift...

I'm not sure about my own preferences in science writing. I tend to read articles rather than books, and in some newspapers it's very clear that the writer doesn't fully understand the topic he's addressing. The articles in the New York Times Science/Health sections are good. I tend to like Gawande's articles in the New Yorker but he's a doctor rather than a fulltime journalist.

― JuliaA (j_bdules), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Search: Any of the James Burke books (and his Scientific American columns)

― Chris Barrus (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i am mental. proof. "HAHA STEVEN WOLFRAM WHAT A TWAT" made me think of another book which I thought was excellent (http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html) but it turns out he's not the editor/author. However the copy I had had a light-bulb on the cover, light-bulb=filament=tungsten/wolfram. twunt.

james burke is probably deeply responsible for my interest in hist/phil of science. his Scientific American columns are sometimes interesting, but often read like a Craig Brown parody of his usual TV narrative.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 May 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Just finished Hyperspace by Michio Kaku; he's a good writer, and he tackles the interesting/fun parts of multi-dimensional physics, string theory, theoretical time travel, parallel universes, and stuff like that. And he throws in personal anecdotes and talks about the influence of physics on philosophy, art, and religion (and does it well). Good job Michio. It's been a long time since I've read them, but I remember liking John Gribbin's books (In Search of the Big Bang, In Search of Schrödinger's Cat). Yeah, I was really puzzled by the popularity of Hawking's A Brief History of Time...his writing style just puts me to sleep. I don't think I made it past chapter two.

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)

In terms of layman reading, Richard Feynman's The Character of Physical Law can't be beat.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 02:11 (twenty-two years ago)

The thing I remember most about Hyperspace is that he talks about building an atom smasher in his garage when he was a teenager! After reading this in high school I actually wanted to do this for a science project: never worked out for some reason.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

for genetics how about "botany of desire" by michael pollan? it's not particularly biochem oriented but then again neither was genetics until the 1970s either.

for natural history you want john mcphee's 'annals of the former world'. massive, massive book and easy as a remainder.

no such thing as good "pop" physics or cosmology. all meaning and conceptual clarity is lost, i think, without mathematical basis. though you could do worse than to read "the rise of the new physics" (two volumes, dover press i think) and courant's "what is mathematics?"

― vahid (vahid), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 07:46 (twenty-two years ago)

the above should read "easy to find as a remainder".

― vahid (vahid), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anyone tried to read the Feynman Lectures on Physics?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 07:49 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, i have. i think they're INCREDIBLY difficult to understand.

― vahid (vahid), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the Feynman Lectures are fantastic -- I only threw mine out last year -- but that isn't popular science. not really. and i disagree about "no such thing as good "pop" physics or cosmology. all meaning and conceptual clarity is lost" the job of popular science isn't to relay the actual science at all -- go read a textbook for the real deal.

― Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 08:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I only threw mine out last year

WHY?

― Sam (chirombo), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 08:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i was being v v v ruthless about my book collection in a move. in fact they were going to go to charity. it's a long horrid story about property letting agent bastards.

― Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 08:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I loved The End Of Sicence by John Horgan. A controversial (purposely) thesis on how all the big ideas of science have been discovered which is why it is now all boring. But does well of capturing the personalities enthusiasm for their fields.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201626799/qid=1054120811/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_0_5/202-8454096-4504634

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 10:21 (twenty-two years ago)

my dad (= actual real botanist) liked botany of desire

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Me, ( =real actualy desirable person) liked Botany Of Desire.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 10:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Murray Gell-Mann did a great job with The Quark and the Jaguar. In general, any book written about complex systems theory is going to be an accessible, fun read. The subject matter never becomes too technical and there are loads of real-world analogies that can be used.

Also, Flatland and Flatterland, Like Flatland Only More So are fun mathematics stories.

― Dale the Merciless (cprek), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

i highly recommend edward tufte's books. they don't quite fall into the category of science, being more concerned with the presentation of information, but i think they should get a bye in here as frequently it is scientific information that's under discussion. they are also things of beauty in and of themselves.

― angela (angela), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked Frontiers Of Complexity by Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield, and one called Superstrings And The Search For The Theory Of Everything. When I finish eating I'll try to remember to pop upstairs to the library to find who wrote it. Ah, F. David Peat.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 28 May 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.