david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (12/29/83)
In referring to Thomas' "autobigraphical book," I presume you meant "Medicine, The Youngest Science." I frankly never found Thomas' essays all that enlightening, although many were quite entertaining. "Medicine," on the other hand, afforded me greater insight to the medical world than I had previously possessed (which may, in fact, be more of an indictment of my prior knowledge than anything else). It is not an exciting book, and it requires a real live attention span, but I for one found it quite rewarding.
david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (12/30/83)
Sorry that my previous followup was truncated...my fault, not the system... Anyway, on to Stephen Jay Gould...I've read three of his "popular" books, which I believe represents his ouvre. "The Panda's Thumb" is a collection of his "Natural History" magazine columns and is, quite frankly, the best book on evolution I have ever encountered. Gould's style is crisp, bright, and entertaining. He obviously cares deeply about his topics, and wants his reader to care. With me, anyway, he succeeded. "The Mismeasure of Man" chronicles the ongoing efforts to quantify intelligence in some externally measurable way. This book is as much history as anything else; Gould ranges from 19th century efforts to measure brainpower by estimating cranial volume to more "modern" techniques such as Stanford-Binet tests. He is critical of them all as narrow and shallow; hence the title of the book. Again, Gould cares so much and handles his material so deftly that a potentially dry and limited topic comes alive. Finally, "Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes," Gould's latest book...here he returns primarily to evolutionary topics and frankly, to this reader, he spends a lot of time repeating himself. Perhaps if I hadn't read "Panda" I'd have found this one fresher...his writing is still sharp as ever, but his subject matter just didn't seem new anymore...ah this jaded age... Thomas and Gould are, I think, different kinds of writers. Dr.Thomas ranges widely (and sometimes, it seems, wildly) and, to me, seems a tad more superficial for it ("The Youngest Science" being the exception). Gould sticks more to his own track and comes off the better for it. I'd read a book by either anytime. In fact, I subscribe to "Natural History" just for SJG's column. Now then...aren't you sorry you asked??? Cheers! --- das