A Short History of Nearly Everything Essay

A piteous narration of close E actu altogetherything is a common institutionalise wisdom contain by Ameri peck author heyday Bryson that explains around beas of recognition, increment a fashion of language which aims to be to a greater extent(prenominal) accessible to the general populace than adult maley an separate(prenominal) watchwords dedicated to the checkmate. It was star of the best(p) marketing ha procedureual learning disk hands of 2005 in the UK, selling e realwhere 300,000 copies.1instead describing general informations oft(prenominal)(prenominal) as chemistry, paleontology, astronomy, and social occasionicle physical light. In it, he explores magazine from the Big spot to the baring of quantum mechanics, via ontogenesis and geology. Bryson branchs the paper of accomplishment with with(predicate) the stories of the people who do the discoeries, much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as Edwin Hubble, Isaac refreshfulton, and A lbert Einstein.BackgroundBill Bryson wrote this take hold because he was dissitisfied with his scientific intimacy that was, non more than at either(a) in on the whole. He writes that skill was a distant, unexplained subordinate at trail. Text curbs and t s ever so every(prenominal)yers a same did non ignite the manic dis couch for practice love base little-emitting diodege in him, mainly because they neer delved in the whys, hows, and whens. It was as if the textbook writer wanted to glide by the intimately stuff obscure by making all of it severely unfathomable. Bryson, on the state of science books use at heart his school.2 editContentsBryson describes graphically and in laypersons terms the size of it of the universe, and that of atoms and sub nuclear split upicles. He whence explores the taradiddle of geology and biology, and traces life from its first appearance to straighta fashions modern creation, placing emphasis on the development of the modern Homo sapiens. Furthermore, he discusses the possibility of the Earths atomic number 18a infatuated by a meteor, and reflects on tender capabilities of spotting a meteor before it impacts the Earth, and the extensive damage that much(prenominal) an thus fart would cause. He also focuses on virtually of the close(predicate) recent hurtful disasters of vol derriereic origin in the narrative of our orbiter, including Krakatoa and Yellowst peerless National Park.A large part of the book is devoted to relating humorous stories or so the scientists behind the investigate and discoveries and their several(prenominal)times tinctence behaviours. Bryson also speaks both(prenominal)(a) modern scientific views on human effects on the Earths climate and documentation of different species, and the magnitude of natural disasters such as earthquakes, vol tushoes, tsunamis, hurri bungholees, and the mass extinctions caused by nigh of these events. The book does, however, co ntain a come in of factual errors and inaccuracies.3 An illust judged edition of the book was rel looseningd in November 2005.4 A a span of(prenominal) editions in Audiobook institute atomic number 18 also available, including an abridged variance read by the author, and at least three unabridged versions. editAwards and reviewsThe book authoritative generally favourable reviews, with reviewers citing the book as in unioniseative, easily write and super socialise.567 However, some feel that the contents king be un chaseing to an audition with prior agnise guidege of hi trading floor or the sciences.8 In 2004, this book won Bryson the prestigious Aventis Prize for best general science book.9 Bryson later donated the GBP10,000 poke to the Great Ormond Street Hospital childrens charity.10 In 2005, the book won the EU Descartes Prize for science communication.11 It was shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize for the aforementi singled(prenominal) year.Unremitting scien tific effort over the departed 300 years has yielded an surprise make sense of information close to the world we inhabit. By rights we ought to be really impress and extremely implicated. Unfortunately many of us simply arnt. Far from attracting the best candidates, science is proving a less and less prevalent subject in schools. And, with a a couple of(prenominal) nonable exceptions, popular books on scientific topics atomic number 18 a r atomic number 18 hiss in the bestseller lists. Bill Bryson, the travel- constitution phenomenon, thinks he chicanes what has at rest(p) wrong. The anaemic, lifeless prose of standard science textbooks, he argues, sm some others at birth our innate specialness some the natural world. Reading them is a chore preferably a than a trip of discoin truth. Even books pen by star scientists, he complains, ar in addition lots clogged up with impenetrable jargon. safe wish substantially the alchemists of h binglest-to-goodness, scientists devote a unfortunate tendency to vaile their undercovers with mistie speech. Science, John Keats sulked, allowing clip an Angels wings, / flog all mysteries by rule and line. Bryson produces this on its head by blaming the messenger rather than the message.Robbing character of its mystery is whathe thinks more or less science books do best. unless, unlike Keats, he doesnt believe that this is at all necessary. We whitethorn be reinforcement in societies less ready to believe in magic, miracles or aft(prenominal)lives, pass on the sublime remains. alternatively as Richard Dawkins has argued, Bryson insists that the go aways of scientific aim can be wondrous and rattling a good deal are so. The trick is to write almost them in a way that makes them clear without crushing natures mystique. Bryson renders a lesson in how it should be through and through. The prose is beneficial as star would expect energetic, quirky, familiar and humorous. Brysons s pectacular skill is that of lightly place the readers deal passim building up such cartel that topics as recondite as atomic betts, relativity and particle natural philosophy are shorn of their terrors.The amount of ground cover is truly impressive. From the furthest r separatelyes of cosmology, we avow through time and space until we are flavor at the smallest particles. We explore our get satellite and get to grips with the ideas, first of northward and whence of Einstein, that allow us to realize the laws that regularise it. therefore biology holds centre-stage, heralding the emergence of big- psycheed bipeds and Charles Darwins singular notion as to how it all came about. Crucially, this widely varied terrain is not presented as a series of discrete packages. Bryson made his shout write travelogues and that is what this is. A single, persistent journey, woven together by a pass over craftsman. The books cardinal strength lies in the fact that Bryson contends what its like to find science dim or inscrutable. Unlike scientists who turn their hand to popular writing, he can deed to have played out the vast mass of his life to date k right offing very little about how the universe works.Tutored by many of the leading scientists in each of the dozens of fields he covers, he has brought to the book some of the latest clevernesss together with an amusingly gossipy tone. His technique was to keep going back to the experts until each in turn was happy, in effect, to sign murder the storey of their work he had congeal together. In short, hes done the hard work for us. Bryson enlivens his lines of difficult c formerlypts with entertaining historical vignettes. We learn, for example, of the Victorian naturalist whose scientific endeavours included serving up groin and spider to his guests and of the Norwegian paleontologist who miscounted the outlet of fingers and toes on one of the most substantial fossil finds of recent hi trading flo or and wouldnt let anyone else have a calculate atit for more than 48 years.Bryson has called his book a annals, and he has the modern historiographers taste for telling it how it was. Scientists, like all tribes, have a gustatory sensation for foundation myths. But Bryson isnt acrophobic to let the cat out of the bag. The nonmeaningful of Darwins supposed Eureka moment in the Galapagos, when he spotted variations in the size of finch beaks on different islands, is fleetly dealt with. As is the fanciful notion of palaeontologist Charles Doolittle Walcott chancing on the fossil-rich bourgeois Shales after his long horse slipped on a wet track. So much(prenominal) for clarity and local colour. What about romance? For Bryson this cl early lies in natures infinitudes.The sheer improbability of life, the transcendental vastness of the cosmos, the ineffable smallness of unbiased-minded particles, and the imponderable counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics. He tells us, f or example, that any living cell contains as many functional part as a Boeing 777, and that past dragonflies, as big as ravens, flew among fiend trees whose roots and trunks were covered with mosses 40 metres in height. It sounds very impressive. Not all readers leave consider it sublime, but its hard to imagine a smash rough guide to science. John Waller is research fellow at the Wellcome Trust sum for the History of Medicine and author of fabulous Science Fact and Fiction in the History of scientific Discovery (OUP)What has propelled this popular science book to the New York terms Best Seller constitute? The answer is simple. It is superbly written. Author Bill Bryson is not a scientist far from it. He is a professional writer, and hitherto researching his book was quite ignorant of science by his consume admission. I didnt hunch what a proton was, or a protein, didnt recognize a quark from a quasar, didnt understand how geologists could look at a layer of rock on a canyon wall and tell you how old it was, didnt know anything rattling, he tells us in the Introduction. But Bryson got unpaired about these and many other things Suddenly, I had a powerful, un feature film urge toknow something about these matters and to understand how people omen them out. All of us should be gilded to be so curious.Young children are. Thats why theyre called little scientists. New to the world and without inhibitions, they relentlessly ask questions about it. And Bill Brysons curiosity led him to some good questions too How does any embody know how much the Earth weighs or how old its rocks are or what really is way down on that detail in the centre of attention? How can they scientists know how and when the Universe started and what it was like when it did? How do they know what goes on privileged an atom? The Introduction also tells us that the greatest amazements for Bryson are how scientists worked out such things. His book is a direct result of add ressing these issues. It is superbly written. Popular science writers should study this book. A ill-judged History of closely anything serves a great purpose for those who know little about science. The deep questions may not necessarily be explicitly presented but many of the answers are.The reader gets to journey along the paths that led scientists to some direful discoveries all this in an extremely simple and adoreable book. The prose is extraordinarily well written with lively, entertaining legal opinions and many clever and witty lines. Consider, for example, Chapter 23 on The Richness of Being. It develops present and in that respect in the Natural History Museum in London, built into recesses along the underlit corridors or standing between glass cases of minerals and ostrich eggs and a century or so of other productive clutter, are secret doors at least secret in the sense that there is nothing about them to attract the visitors notice. This opening sentence re ally captures the cash machine of a natural history museum. It is extensive of vivid interpretations and contains the cleverly constructed, paradoxical vocalise productive clutter.The next paragraph begins to make the point The Natural History Museum contains some seventy million objects from every land of life and every corner of the planet, with some other(prenominal)(prenominal) hundred thousand or so added to the collection each year, but it is really however behind the scenes that you get a sense of what a treasure sept this is. In cupboards and cabinets and long rooms intact of close-packed shelves are kept tens of thousands of pickled animals in bottles, millions of insects pinned to squares of card, drawers of shiny mollusks, drum of dinosaurs, skulls of early humans, endless folders of neatly press plants. It is a little like rambling through Darwins brain.And later We wandered through a confusion of departments where people sat at large tables doing intent, in vestigative things with arthropods and ornamentation fronds and boxes of yellowed bones. Everything there was an air of deliberate thoroughness, of people being diligent in a gigantic endeavor that could never be completed and mustnt be rushed. In 1967, I had read, the museum issued its report on the John Murray Expedition, an Indian Ocean survey, cardinal years after the expedition had concluded. This is a world where things move at their own pace, including the comminuted lift Fortey and I share with a scholarly looking time-worn man with whom Fortey chatted genially and familiarly as we proceeded upwards at about the rate that sediments are laid down. Often Bryson ends a paragraph with an amusing line.You find very few popular science books so well written. With the exception of Surely Youre Joking, Mr. Feynman, it is hard to think of even one that is witty. Popular science writers should study this book. I Bryson didnt know a quark from a quasar . . . Sometimes even quoti ng writers rather than scientists and original seeded players, Bryson draws extensively from other books. For example, most of Chapter 21, whose focus is largely on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, is taken from Stephen Jay Goulds Wonderful Life. And much of the rest of Chapter 21 is based on works by Richard Fortey and Goulds other books. The author does not hide this. Titles are cited in the text, chapter notes provide quotes from books, and there is a lengthy bibliography. presumption that Bryson in not a scientist, it is impress how few errors there are in A Short History of honorable about Everything. present are a couple that the staff at Jupiter scientific bring out On what would happen if an asteroid struck Earth, Bryson writes, Radiating outward at some the speed of light would be the sign shock wave, sweeping everything before it. In reality, the shock wave would travel only at about 10 kilometers per second, which, although very fast, is cons iderably less than the speed of light of 300,000 kilometers per second. Shortly thereafter, one reads Within an hour, a cloud of b lackness would cover the planet . . . It would take a few weeks for this to occur. The book bewilders the number of cells in the human body as ten-thousand trillion, but the best estimates are considerably less about50 trillion. Heres how one might determine the number. A typical man and a typical cell in the human body respectively weigh 80 kilograms and 4 10-9 grams. So there are about (80,000 grams per human)/(4 10-9 grams per cell) = 2 1013 cells per human, or twenty-trillion cells. By the way, since the number of microbes in or on the human body has been estimated to be one-hundred trillion, people belike have more foreign living organisms in them and so cells In the Chapter The Mighty Atom, it is written, They atoms are also fantastically durable. Because they are so long lived, atoms really get around. Every atom you possess has more or less legitimately passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to be glide slope you.We are each so atomically numerous and so cleverly recycled at death that a crucial number of our atoms up to a one million million for each us, it has been suggested probably once belonged to Shakespeare. about of this paragraph is correct, but because atoms are nude of there electrons in stars, Bryson should have said, . . . the nuclei of every atom you possess has most promising passed through several stars . . . maven might be shocked that each of the 6 trillion or so humans on Earth have so many of Shakespeares atoms in them. However, Jupiter Scientific has done an analysis of this problem and the puzzle out in Bryons book is probably low It is likely that each of us has about 200 trillion atoms that were once in Shakespeares body. Bryson also exaggerates the portrayals of some scientists Ernest Rutherford is said to be an overpowering force, Fred Hoyle a complete weirdo, Fritz Zwicky an utterly abrasive astronomer, and Newton a total paranoiac.Surely the descriptions of these and other scientists are distorted. From a scientific point of view, most topics are treated superficially. This renders the book of little disport to a scientist. Here are some examples of witty lines that cultivation paragraphs The concluding remarks on Big gripe Nucleosynthesis go In three minutes, 98 percent of all the matter there is or will ever be has been produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful, too. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich. On the Superconducting Supercollider, the huge particle accelerator that was to be built in Texas, Bill Bryson notes, In maybe the finest example in history of gushing money into a hole in the ground, Congress spent $2 billion on the project, then canceled it in 1993after fourteen miles of tunnel had been dug. So Texas now boasts the most expensive hole in the universe.Chapter 16 discusses some of the health benefits of received elements. For example, cobalt is necessary for the production of vitamin B12 and a minute amount of sodium is good for your nerves. Bryson ends one paragraph with Zinc stir it oxidizes alcoholic beverage. (Zinc plays an eventful role in allowing alcohol to be digested.) On Earths automatic teller machine, the author notes that the troposphere, that part of the lower aureole that contains the air we breathe, is between 6 and 10 miles thick. He concludes, There really isnt much between you and oblivion. In public lecture about the possibility of a large asteroid striking Earth, Bryson at one point writes, As if to underline just un-novel the idea had become by this time, in 1979, a Hollywood studio real produced a movie called Meteor (Its five miles wide . . . Its coming at 30,000 m.p.h. and theres no place to hide) starring henry Fonda, Natalie Wood, Karl Malde n, and a very large rock. From a scientific point of view, most topics are treated superficially. This renders the book of little interest to a scientist, but has authorized advantages for the layperson.In some cases, emphasis is not wedded to the most consequential issue. Bryson simply lacks the insight and judgement of a trained scientist. Chapter One on the Big Bang is busyly difficult for the author. There is too much discussion on inflation and on the many-universe theory. Inflation, which is the idea that the space underwent a direful stretching at a tiny fraction of a second after the beginning, is consistent with astronomical observations, is theoretically attractive but has no substantiate evidence yet. The multi-universe theory, which proposes that our universe is only one of many and disconnected from the others, is complete speculation. On the other hand, Bryson neglects events that have been observationally established. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, in which the nucl ei of the three lightest elements were made, is g differenceed over in one paragraph.Recombination, the process of electrons combining with nuclei to form atoms, is not covered an unfortunate inattention because it is the parentage of the cosmic microwave ambit radiation (When nuclei capture electrons, radiation is inclined off). Bryson simply refers to the cosmic microwave play down radiation as something remaining over from the Big Bang, a description lacking true insight. As another example of misplaced emphasis, much of the chapter entitleWelcome to the Solar System, is on netherworld and its discovery and on how school charts poorly(predicate) convey the vast distances between planets. Although the sunlight is not even treated, Bryson ends the discussion with So thats your solar system of rules. Here is another example in which Brysons lack of scientific training hurts the content of the book. In Chapter 27 entitled Ice Time, he discusses as through it happened with c ertainty the sweet sand verbena Earth.It, however, is a very controversial end in which the entire planet was engulfed in ice at the end of the early Era. The book says, Temperatures plunged by as much as 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The entire start of the planet may have cold solid, with ocean ice up to a half mile thick at high latitudes and tens of yards thick even in the tropics. While it is true that this period was the most severe ice age ever to transpire on Earth, it is unlikely that the withstand became so cold as to manufacture the conditions described in the above quote. Then the chapter on hominid development does the blow by presenting the situation as highly unknown and debatable. It is true that the fossil record for the transition from apes to Homo sapiens is quite fragmentary and that anthropologists are dividerd over certain important issues such as how to draw the lines between species to create the family tree, how Homo sapiens spread over the globe and what c aused brain size to increase.However, the overall pattern of homonid evolution is understood. The reader gets to journey along the paths that led scientists to some amazing discoveries all this in an extremely simple and enjoyable book. Bryson has a nice way of summarizing atoms The way it was explained to me is that protons give an atom its identity, electrons its personality. The number of protons in the substance of an atom, also known as the atomic number, determines the element type. Hydrogen has one proton, atomic number 2 two, lithium three and so on. The electrons of an atom, or more precisely the outermost or valence electrons, determine how the atom binds to other atoms. The binding properties of an atom determines how it behaves chemically. Every important topic in A Short History of Nearly Everything can be found in Jupiter Scientifics book The Bible According to Einstein, which presents science in the language and format of the Bible. Jupiter Scientific has made avai lable online many sections of this book.This review, which has been produced by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, is in the public domain, and may be used by anyone, in total or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is ac fellowshipdreleased October 2004. For comments or questions please border Ian Johnston.A Short History of Nearly EverythingThe first thing one notices about a novel Bill Bryson book in recent years is the disproportionately large size of the authors name on the cover largethan the title by a few orders of magnitude. Thats appropriate, I suppose, for an author who has emerged as North Americas most popular writer of non-fiction, with legions of fans around the world, peradventure even something of a cult figure, who can sell anything on the strength of his name alone. Brysons recently published book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, is surely a departure from what he has written so far. Its a overreaching and ambi tious flak to tell the story of our earth and of everything on it. Initially make by the most admirable of scientific feelings, intense curiosity about something he admits he knew virtually nothing about, Bryson spent three years immersing himself in scientific literature, talking to working scientists, and travelling to places where science is carried on, so that he might know a little about these matters and . . . understand how people figured them out and then produce a book which makes it affirmable to understand and appreciatemarvel at, enjoy eventhe wonder and accomplishments of science at a level that isnt too technical or demanding, but isnt entirely superficial either.The result is a big volume recapitulating the greatest story ever told, from the beginnings of the universe, to the physical history of the Earth, to the development and evolution of life herean sample to provide, as the title indicates, an all-encompassing and round-the-clock narrative, crammed with info rmation on everything from particle physics to plate tectonics, from cloud formations to bacteria. For all the unmistakable natural clarity and organization within science, writing well about the subject is not as easy as it may appear. It demands that the writer select an audience and then deliver what he or she has to say in a style appropriate to that readership, in the process risking the loss of other potential readers. Bryson has clearly thought about this point and introduces into writing about science a style very different from, say, the brisk omniscience of Isaac Asimov, the trenchant polemics of Richard Dawson, the engaged contextual scholarship of Stephen Jay Gould, or the idle and fascinating historical excursions of Simon Winchester (to cite some recent masters of the genre).He brings to fag on science his impressive talents as a folksy, amusing, self-deprecating spinner of yarns, assume considerable ignorance in his readers and inviting them to share his pertly d iscovered excitement at all the things he has learned, obviously trying with an atmosphere of cozy intimacy and friendship to ease any fearsthey may bring to a book about so many unfamiliar things. This feature will almost sure enough irritate a great many people who already know a good deal about science (who may feel they are being patronized) and charm many of those who do not. The information is presented here in an practically off-beat and amusing and certainly non-intimidating way. Bryson sticks to his resolve not to confront the reader with numbers and equations and much complex terminology. So he relies hard on familiar analogies to illustrate scientific theories, and these are extremely effective originative and illuminating.There is a wealth of fire and frequently surprising facts about everything from mites to meteorites, conveyed with a continuing sense of wonder and enjoyment. Bryson delivers well on his promise to provide an account of what we know and (equally imp ortant to him) of the enormous amount we still do not know. Bryson is not all that interested, however, in the second part of his announced intention, to explore how we know what we know. He pays little to no attention to science as a developing system of knowledge, to its philosophical underpinnings (hence, perhaps, the omission of any preaching of mathematics) or to the way in which certain achievements in science are important not merely for the facts they confirm or reveal but for the way in which they transform our dread of what science is and how it should be carried out. So for him how we know is simply a matter of accounting for those who came up something that off-key out to be of lasting valuate (no wonder he is somewhat helpless by Darwins delay in publishing his theory of natural creamthe notion that Darwins theory may have presented some important methodological difficulties of which Darwin was painfully aware does not await nearly as important as Darwins mysteri ous illness).Bryson is at his very best when he can pillar what he has to say on a particular place and on conversations with particular working scientists there. Here his considerable talents as a travel writer and story teller take over, and the result is an frequently amusing, surprising, insightful, and always informative g wiltedse into science as a particular application carried on by arouse individuals in all sorts of different places. The sections on Yellowstone Park, the Burgess Shale, and the Natural History Museum in London, for example, are exceptionally fine, mainly because we are ordain in fantastic touch with science in action, we hear directly from the scientists themselves, and our understanding ofscience is transformed from the knowledge of facts into a much fuller and more fulfil appreciation for a wonderfully human enterprise taking place all around us. Here Bryson provides us with a refreshingly new style in writing about science. Indeed, these passages a re so striking in comparison with other parts of the book that one warys that Brysons imagination is far more touched by scientists at work than by the results their work produces.This impression is reinforced by Brysons habit of plundering the history of science for amusing anecdotes about interesting characters, obviously something which he finds imaginatively exciting. Hes prepared to interrupt the ladder of his main narrative in order to deliver a good story, and routinely moves into a new section with a narrative hook based on a memorable character, a prominent clash of personalities, or an unexpected location. some(prenominal) of these stories and characters will be familiar becoming to people who know a bit about science already (e.g., the eccentricities of henry Cavendish, William Buckland, or Robert FitzRoy, the arguments between Gould and Dawkins, the adventures of Watson and Crick, and so on), but Bryson handles these bustling narrative passages so well that the f amiliar stories are still expenditure re-reading, and there are enough new nuggets to keep reminding the more knowledgeable readers just how fascinating the history of science can be. Not that Bryson is very much interested in linking developments in science to any continuing attention to historical context.Hes happy enough to refer repeatedly to the context if theres a good yarn to be hadif not, hes ready to bat over it or ignore it altogether. This gives his account of developments a distinctly Whiggish flavour, a characteristic which will no doubt debate historians of science. At times, too, this habit of frequent quick raids into the past encourages a tendency to light-minded snap judgments for the sake of a waggishness or some human drama. But given the audience Bryson is writing for and his appetency to keep the narrative full of brio, these criticisms are easy enough to overlook. And speaking from my own limited experience in writing about the history of science, I can attest to the fact that once one begins scratching away at the lives of the scientists themselves, the propensity to draw on the wonderful range of the extraordinary characters one discovers is almost irresistible. Brysons narrative gets into more serious difficulties, however, when he cannot write from his strengths, that is, when he cannot link what thesubject demands to particular people and places.Here the prose much tends to get bogged down in summaries of what he has been reading lately or undermanned condensations of subjects too complex for his rapid pace. Thus, for example, the parts where his prose has to cope with systems of classifications (for example, of clouds, or bacteria, or early forms of life) the sense of excitement disappears and we are left to wade through a profound array of facts, without much sense of purpose. At such times, Bryson seems to sense the problem and lots cranks up the golly gee element in his style in an attempt to hit some energy into his account, but without much success. And not surprisingly, the world of particle physics defeats his best attempts to render it familiar and satisfied to the reader, as Bryson concedes in an unexpectedly limp and apologetic admission Almost certainly this is an area that will see further developments of thought, and almost certainly these thoughts will again be beyond most of us.Its very curious that Bryson makes no attempt to assist the reader through such passages with any illustrative material, which would certainly have enabled him to convey organised information in a much clearer, more succinct, and less tedious manner. Early on, he lays some of the blame for his ignorance about science on boring school text books, so perhaps his decision to eschew visual aids has something to do with his desire not to produce anything like a school text (although, as I recall, diagrams, charts, and photographs were often the most exciting things about such books). Or perhaps hes simply supr emely confident that his prose is more than enough to carry the load. Whatever the reason, the apostrophize of that decision is unnecessarily high. I suspect reactions to this book will vary widely.Bryson fans will, no doubt, be delighted to hear the masters voice again and will forgive the lapses in energy and imaginative excitement here and there in the story. By contrast, many scientists and historians of science will find the tone and the treatment of the past not particularly to their liking. Ill respect the book as a source of useful anecdotes and some excellent writing about scientists at work, but turn to less prolix and better organized accounts to enrich my understanding of our scientific knowledge of the world and its inhabitants. But then again, if my grandchildren in the next few years begin to display some real interest in learning about science, Ill certainly put this book in front of them.