Reply to comment

johnbrandy,

With all due respect, your critique of my review illustrates what most book critics consider the cardinal error of reviewing. Our job is to judge the book the author intended to write, not the book we would have rather seen.

In this case, although you would have preferred a "comprehensive" review, that was not what I intended to write. I had an assignment from a newspaper with a tight word limit. Once the newspaper published it, I was free to post it online, which I did here. If you want a comprehensive review, you'll need to find another source.

In a little more than 600 words, I can hardly describe the author's case. He needs a whole book to do it. My review suggests that he does a fairly good job at it, but also notes that he entertains while tweaking his readers' interest in the "audacious claim," as I describe it in the review.

The thrust of my review is this: If you like to be entertained while exploring an intriguing idea, then the book is for you. If you are only interested in a scientific exposition, then it is not.

And if you want facts that support the author's case, read the book, not a review.

I hope this puts my posting in perspective for you.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)