Philip Austin <paustin at eos.ubc.ca> writes: > Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> writes: > > Gould is a great writer, even though in his later works he often gives in to > > unstructured rambling (I can of course well sympathize with THAT > > temptation:-) -- Dawkins, IMHO, isn't, even though in "The selfish gene" he Seems we have different metrics... I don't read science books (even popular ones) for pretty prose ;-) As a result, I regard Dawkins' writing as the more elegant, useful, and fun of the two, thanks to its extreme clarity. [...] > > presented by a truly great writer, try Matt Ridley -- "Genome", "Origins of > > Virtue", "Red Queen", all superb writing (haven't read "Nature via Nurture" > > yet -- I'll wait for the paperback). Not to be confused with *Mark* Ridley, > > who also writes (quite worthwhile books and antologies) in exactly the > > same field, mind you. > > > See Allen Orr's New York Review of Books article for a cogent > critique of Ridley's "Nature via Nurture": > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16522 Can't resist mentioning (even though I haven't read it yet) "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. Pinker's writing is Dawkins + jokes :-) John
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4