(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The more I learn about the history of science, the more I realize why it has such a precarious, semi-mystical reputation with so much of the general public by now; because when the modern "scientific process" was first formed in the 1600s, the first few generations of "scientists" were starting almost from scratch, meaning that the average member of the public could go out and replicate the experiments these people were doing, and understand for themselves what science is and why it's so important. (Indeed, it was this activity that got us both the terms "gentleman scientist" and "dilettante," descriptions you hardly ever hear applied to members of the general public anymore.) But as we all know by now, the collective body of scientific knowledge we now have actually grows exponentially, not in a linear fashion; and that means, for example, that 400 years after the subject was invented, most working scientists anymore are forced to devote their entire adult lives to studying and understanding everything that came before them in their field's history, leaving their current work looking in the eyes of most laypeople like incomprehensible gibberish. How nice would it be, then, to have a simple yet smart guide to just the basics of science all over again, the building blocks of each field first discovered back during the Renaissance and Enlightenment by the exact proto-scientists just mentioned, the same material covered in school during childhood but in this case written expressly for grown-ups.

Well, that's exactly what The Canon is supposed to be, the newest book by Pulitzer winner and New York Times columnist Natalie Angier, in which she approached a whole series of scientists and asked them, "What are the four or five most basic things about your profession that you wish the general public all knew?" But unfortunately I wasn't able to actually get through much of The Canon, because it's sadly written in a style that I simply can't stand, the "quirky narrative magazine feature journalism" style -- you know, where every interview has to start with a description of what the person is wearing, and some funny metaquote from the beginning of the interview about the ground rules of the interview ("The first thing," Prince said to me as we sat down at the cafe, "is no questions about the baby"), and is just filled with inane psychoanalysis and personal observations by the quirky journalist in question, all of it infused with what's supposed to be a jokey sense of humor but is more often snide little passive-aggressive statements of jealousy concerning the people being interviewed.

I can't freaking stand this style of journalism; and unfortunately the entirety of The Canon is written in this style, meaning I could barely make it through chapter one before quickly giving up altogether. And that's why, like I always do in these cases, I'm recusing myself from giving the book a formal 10-point score, because I simply didn't read enough of it to give it a fair rating. Sigh. Dear journalism industry: Please stop teaching generation after generation of young impressionable students to write this way, and certainly please stop handing them Pulitzer f-cking Prizes when they do. Give me sober, give me reflective, give me genuinely funny -- hell, give me unedited transcripts; but enough already with the quirky narrative magazine feature style of presenting interviews. Seriously, enough.

Out of 10: N/A ( )

Very entertaining, very clever, sometimes a wee bit too cute. If you're well versed in science, it should be some pleasant amusement. If you're not, it's a great primer. Lots of wordplay and gags, but on the whole a worthwhile overview of the sciences. ( )

I found this book to be an interesting overview of many scientific topics. It was fun to read about many of the important ideas of science all in one place and learn some things about fields other than the ones with which I am familiar. I also thought she did a good job giving understandable explanations, included humor and wit, and expected her readers to be able to follow the discussions. Well done! ( )

This is bad science writing, I'm afraid. Not because the material covered is ill-chosen (it's no more and no less than one might expect from a popular science book), nor because it's inaccurate (though there are some tremendous howlers, such as the assertion on (my copy) p 189 that the outer shell of eggs is made of calcium chloride), but because Angier seems to believe that the wonderfulness of science can best be conveyed by whizz-bang wow-gosh prose, and that her credentials as a writer are proved by cuteness, weak puns and linguistic playfulness.

As creative writing, I might give it a B. As *science* writing, however, it's a C- at best. ( )

The Canon is A very well written popular science book.

instead of dedicating a whole book to a specific scientific topic like usually done by popular science writers, the author chose to dedicate each chapter of the book to another topic.

The book covers the basics of all the important natural sciences : physics, chemistry (which is usually neglected by writers of popular science books), evolutionary biology, cell biology, geology (also a rarely discussed topic) and astronomy. preceding these chapters are two introductory chapters about the nature of science itself and probability.

Being the scientific writer for the times magazine, Natalie Angier writes like a journalist - in a good way. the book is witty and funnym drawing analogues and associations from everyday life, but in the same time extremely clear and thorough.

This is the book i would recommend as an introduction to science in general and the major topics it addresses. ( )

Fascinating material, tedious, wordy presentation. Best read in small doses. ( )

All you need to do is roll your eyes at every attempt to be witty and pay attention to what she is really saying. The book truly makes science enjoyable and memorable as she touches on just about every topic. Excellent introduction to science that makes me want to investigate further into some of the topics she does cover. ( )

This book SUUUUUUCKED. I felt like she thought she was SO SMART, and that she had to use the flowery metaphors to get the "dummies" to understand her vast intellect. ( )

Really good, very easy to digest the basics of science...would highly recommend even for those that find science daunting.

Attempting to be witty - and perhaps appeal to those who do not normally pay attention to science - Angier ends up mind-numbingly flippant. ( )

Too chatty with too many suburban life details thrown in for my taste. And the narration (I have the audiobook version) perfectly reflects these qualities. In style, it's like an episode from some tv show about life in the suburbs. But then, I'm not the target audience. The content is generally good, though it errs on the side of preconceived notions about empiricism and fact being truth. I did enjoy, though, taking a little tour through the current basics. Ms. Angier's brief is to popularize science, and she does a good job of it. So, if you don't know much about sicence and generally find it to be somewhat intimidating but would like to know more, this book is for you. ( )

If you can stand the 20 or so puns on every page, this is a great introduction to all the big ideas in the hard sciences. ( )

Minireview: Angier's "whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science" is slim, but jam-packed with a high density of interesting information. Beginning with a discussion of just what science is and a review of basic statistics and probability, it outlines the various scales at play in the universe, and then goes through them one field at a time -- from physics to chemistry, biology, geology, and finally astronomy (and back to physics, to an extent). Unfortunately (and somewhat oddly, considering Angier is a science journalist), The Canon lacks the sub-chapter organization that would have helped make its density more manageable. It is also jam-packed with as many puns, bad jokes, plays on words, and silly stories as Angier can fit, which before long becomes more distracting and irritating than amusing and engaging. But overall, I was considerably more impressed withThe Canon than I was with Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything, the most similar work I've read. ( )

An excellent general knowledge, presenting scientific ideas in a readable concise manner. even here, some parts will interest you more than others, but very well written and authoritative. ( )

Somewhat long in the tooth in its colloquial explanations, but generally enjoyable. Angier has asked a good question ("What should people know about your field?") of scientists and has lots of fun summarizing the results. Unfortunately, her enjoyment is a self-contained at times and forgets to take the reader along. Nevertheless, the good outweighs the bad. ( )

My father-in-law was a reader. Before his demise, bless his soul, I used to love talking to him about books. One of his favorite authors, Patrick O'Brian, wrote 23 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series with Master and Commander as the anchor. Mr. Moran was in a happy seafaring knot as he would read all 23 then turn around and start again.

A very curious thing was pointed out to me during a visit in the summer of 2003. On Mr. Moran’s nightstand was a textbook titled Ionic and Non-Ionic Surfactants. When asked about the book, he said he read it when unable to sleep.

This is the first thing I thought when picking up "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science" by Natalie Angier. The premise is promising, but sleep is certain.

I am happy to report this is one of the most engaging science books read. Angier won a Pulitzer Prize Beat Reporting award in 1991 for her compelling science writing at The New York Times. It was well deserved as she tackles topics in this book such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and astronomy with intelligence and humor.

The book begins with discussions on critical thinking, probability, and calibration before delving into major topics. In the probability chapter she demonstrates how one can predict whether a class of students, broken into two groups, tosses a coin 50 times or pretends. Both groups must record the number of heads and tails in sequential occurrence. Within seconds of looking at the two results, she has an answer. How?

The first topic, physics, is the foundation on which other sciences are built. Angier explains, “Physics is the science of starter parts and basic forces, and thus it holds the answers to many basic questions. Why is the sky blue? Why do you get a shock when you trudge across a carpeted room and touch a metal doorknob? Why does a white T-shirt keep you cooler in the sun than a black one, even though the black one is so much more slimming?”

Angier advocates teaching physics before all other topics. She likens beginning with chemistry and biology as to building walls and a roof before pouring the slab. I like the idea but wonder if students have enough math skills to accomplish physics first.

This is the perfect book to prop up on your chest while in bed. No need to worry about the effects of gravity. ( )

This is a nice opinionated review of the current state of science. I am happy to have something to recommend to my non-science friends that is so very accesible and fun. Sometimes the tone was just a bit too precious though and I was tired of all the jokes by the end. ( )

The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science by Natalie Angier is a great book that does exactly what it says on the tin, whirling through the sciences from quantum physics to geology, from evolutionary biology to the statistics that underpins it all, offering up a view of what it is about the sciences that is truly beautiful. It's written in a very accessible style, and touches on many of the current major scientific theories, explaining things in clear, sensible terms that at the same time conveys very well the sheer sense of wonder that some of what we have learnt imparts. I don't think I learnt anything new reading Angier's book, but I was certainly reminded why I have always been so enthralled and enthusiastic about science. A book well worth reading by everyone, no matter what your level of background scientific knowledge is. If I could, I'd make its reading compulsory in some quarters. ( )

This book is beautifully written and will captivate those who love science and those who love a good turn of phrase. Angier covers everything from physics to astronomy in a funny but very rigorous manner. There are no equations, but she teaches you how to think about scientific problems. Angier's approach is great: she talked to scientists in each field to find out what they wished the public understood about their work. I think The Canon is best read a chapter at a time; too much at once and it all starts to blur together. ( )

I bought this book after listening to a very stimulating interview of Natalie Angier on CBC Radio . The mission of the book - to introduce and explain the main principles of sciences to laypeople - may be considered accomplished. As someone who studied science with some interest in high school but let it drop in university, this book was an interesting and enjoyable introduction. The explanations are weaved together from interviews with American scientists and metaphors. There are no diagrams, illustrations or mathematics involved in this book. It is science made easy, but not dumb.

In a book which seeks to cover so much ground, I must say that it does well. The strongest points of the book are the discussion of biology (to which two chapters are devoted); one is focused on evolution while the other considers the cell. At times, the biology discussion veers into parochial American concerns (i.e. much hangwringing at the fact that many Americans hold rather unscientific views on biology). The one aspect of the book which can become bothersome is the rather chatty style. When it works, it makes the material accessible but it can become a bit irritating now and then.

Much of the book is concerned with specific science principles, but the introduction is worth discussing as well. The introduction is fascinating and accessible: reflections on the state of science literacy in modern America. In this introduction, Angier points out that many arguments can be made in favour of science literacy but she prefers an unexpected one. Namely, that science is genuinely fun and the understanding of reality it provides can only encourage wonder. This kind of argument is a welcome contrast to those who hold to the merits of the civic duty view, which posits that scientific literacy is needed to be a democratically aware citizen. While certainly true, an appeal to fun is more successful given that so many people have bad memories of science from their school days.

Some of the specific science chapters could have been stronger (the lack of illustrations in the astronomy section is particularly conspicuous), but the book is a good introduction. It could have been improved with a conclusion (ideally building on the concerns of the introduction; role of science in modern life etc) and perhaps some recommendations for further reading.

I found the book easy to read but then again, I read it as I finished my first Master's degree.

N.B. I had never read her articles in the New York Times before reading this book. ( )

I knew Angier from her Science Times byline, and got the audiobook version for a long drive. It nearly gave me an aneurysm. As the review below notes, Angier seems incapable of making the briefest point without swaddling it in fifteen anecdotes, analogies, and witticisms. This habit wears better over an (edited) Science Times column than it does at chapter length, where it is unbearable. The breathy, dramatic tone of the reader does the style no favors. Maybe it's better as a book you can skim. ( )

http://gcoupe.spaces.live.com/blog/cn... ( )

I really enjoyed this book and can't recommend it enough. The central concept is ingenious: what should a well-educated non-scientist know about science? Ms. Angier has interviewed hundreds of scientists in a wide-range of disciplines and has done a marvelous job of deriving key areas of science to discuss.

Ms. Angier is a literate and witty writer. Her prose sparkles, is utterly scintillating -- and that is the book's biggest drawback. Because while her explanations of scientific concepts are clear and straightforward, the rest of her prose is targeted at a very sophisticated audience. For those familiar with the literary and cultural references she makes, this book is a delight -- but reader's who do not share her background may be left in the dust. And for a book whose purpose, I think, is to win enthusiasts for the scientific world, that may be a significant drawback. ( )

Natalie Angier presents a scientific world full of wonder and worthy of exploration. Using thoughtfuly descriptive metaphors, imaginative prose and a steady rhythm The Canon covers topics ranging from scientific thinking and statistics to the fundamentals of geology and astrology, stopping at each major branch of science inbetween. I personally think she breaths life into some topics better than others. For instance, her biology section wasn't as enlivening to me as her other chapters, but I read plenty of biology as it is. I wouldn't be surprised if a physics person found her chapter on physics swift and prosaic. This highlights the primary audience of the book- curious adults who have for one reason or another had the thrill of science driven from their hearts. Indeed, Angier's main goal is to rekindle the flames of scientific inquiry into those who seek a rebriefing in the basics of Home sapiens sapiens' most enlightening pursuit. Those who need a refresher on the broader picture, lay person and specialized expert alike, might gain something from this nifty little book. ( )

list of books I want to read.