Natalie Angier is an American nonfiction writer and a science journalist for The New York Times Video: Natalie Angier – The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science (May 16, Panel discussion with Neil Turok, Michael D. Griffin, Nadia El-Awady and Stewart Brand, at the Quantum to Cosmos festival. Editorial Reviews. From Publishers Weekly. Science is underappreciated and undervalued in a The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science – Kindle edition by Natalie Angier. Download it once and read it on your Kindle. Natalie Angier, a science writer for the New York Times, has written a wonderful book called The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful.

Author: Tekree Kezahn
Country: Lebanon
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 22 February 2010
Pages: 367
PDF File Size: 5.86 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.52 Mb
ISBN: 424-3-98750-321-3
Downloads: 14177
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mosida

Unless you’re talking to an eight year old, sentences like “Star light, star bright, Brown wishes you’d try this trick at night” are not really appropriate.

Book Review: The Canon by Natalie Angier | SPANISH INQUISITOR

I loved cotton candy, and only got it once a year at the county fair. The description struck me as overly fanciful, and if she had stopped there i would have given a nod to the poetry and continued to read. Why is it that worldly Manhattan sophisticates feel a working knowledge of the arts is a prerequisite for a fulfilled existence, but that the sciences are irrelevant, something for nerdy adults with no social skills to obsess about?

Consider all the people who mesh their beliefs derived from their religious upbringing concerning the origins of the universe and life, with the smattering of information they get in school, and arrive at a mish-mash of belief and fact which they call creationism, or in it current incarnation, intelligent design creationism. Everything you ever wanted to know about all kinds of scientific stuff — from the names and sizes of the tiniest of particles, to the way static electricty really works.

Not to mention that, while it’s obvious Angier is enthusiastic for her subject, she can get immeasurably preachy, letting that superior attitude get away with her. I didn’t get far, what with the small font and lots of analogies and metaphors that I either didn’t understand or were completely unnecessary and actually detrimental to anyone who seriously just picked up this book to get a basic understanding of science.

But, even if I didn’t already consider science fascinating and amazing and completely utterly awesome, I’d soon come around to that point of view. She turns guys with lab coats and pocket protectors into Daniel Craig.


Science is interesting only if you have an interest in it — creating an naalie is a worthy goal, and my kudos to her for trying.

As someone familiar with science, it wasn’t an issue, I could provide my own signposts, but I think it would be a major barrier to someone hoping to learn. But the next part of the sentence offered me a long list of characteristics including the word mesmeric.


Seussical nonsensicall-ness that extended to making up words, a ludicrous love of alliteration just like that last two clauses, in fact, but found in virtually every paragraphand pop culture allusions so obscure that I spent more time on the semiotics than the science.

Rather than just give the equation and tell what the variables mean to me nagalie wonderful way to understand how astronomy intersects historical sciencesthe author mentions, almost off-handedly, a few of the variables and then only really explains the last one. Natalie Angier is a science writer; that is, a writer who is a knowledgeable observer of science and who is able to get scientists to explain things in terms the rest of us might understand.

As someone with a background in science, and a career writing about it, she found that most people in America had the attitude that science was boring, was irrelevant to their lives, or was something they really did not need to know. This got to the point that I angoer to feel dumb, not because I couldn’t understand the science, but because I couldn’t parse her goddamn sentences. How dare she write so artfully, explain so brilliantly, rendering us scientists simultaneously proud and inarticulate!

To ask other readers questions about The Canonplease sign up. Use of the latter is a very good way to get across to the lay anguer the nuances of a highly technical matter in a way they may more readily comprehend. That would be a terrible loss, because the book shows so much potential of succeeding. I really am grateful that I know more about physics and chemistry now than I did before. Whatever science is in there, it’s not worth scrounging through this book to find it.

And that is a pity, because other books, more focused, do a much better job of enlightening beginners as to the basics of what each science does and is. Her writing is a bit facile, but it’s still a great read. In fact, the subject areas Angier chooses to describe are somewhat intuitive and logically ordered for the most part. Jul 31, Kaylee rated it did not like it. The second chapter is 29 small-type pages about how science anngier cool.


I only wish some Science is cool. There was also this gem on page natale, “It is a cold, hard, tepid, flaccid, probabilistic truth. Nov 09, Marie desJardins rated it it was ok. The Canon is exactly what its subtitle says: I feel richer already. Well, that’s interesting, yes, but so what? She couldn’t seem to decide whether she wanted to be playfully incomprehensible in a Finnegan’s Wakean way, or drolly incisive in a kind of Popish verse.

Natalie Angier

For example, it took me a few minutes to puzzle out the connection between the Earth’s core, soccer, and the name Wilson, until I finally realized she was referring to Castaway –some of the difficulty coming from the fact that Wilson was canonn volleyball, not a soccer ball–and by the time this all clicked together I had forgotten that the whole point of the weird cankn was supposed to help explain atomic nuclei.

The moderate drizzle of moralisms doesn’t focus on that chapter alone.

She didn’t deliver on this promise. Refresh and try again. Well kudos for writing creativity, but by the end of the book I was throwing it out with the last of my cotton candy. I can’t say that more strongly. Needed to get that off my chest. Jan 19, Kaitlyn Dennis rated it liked it Shelves: Second, as made clear in the first two chapters, Angier’s aim is to introduce scientific topics to a broad and perhaps unwilling audience.

But when the freq You know the joke that goes “sip, don’t gulp”? TerryWeyna 10VisibleGhost 9juli 9DisquietNight 8maribou 7leebot 7mahallett 7nocebo 7cvanhasselt 7buffer 6Kaethe 6IslandDave 6wendywordsmithy 6IslandTiffiney 6 — more. Back then I evaded chemistry by taking an earth science course Rocks for Jocks. I’ve read about several of these subjects before in some other entertaining books.

Book Depository Libros con entrega gratis en todo el mundo. The problem became there were so many bugs littering the surface, natalue was impossible to find the gems underneath. But again, to be fair, she is a science writer for a newspaper. I had not really learned anything new about cellular biology since high school except for inferred ‘facts’ from reading newspaper and magazine articles about new drugs or new viruses.

She just has this writing style that, well