Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Lewis Thomas/Stephen Jay Gould
Message-ID: <1596@randvax.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 29-Dec-83 16:46:47 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.1596
Posted: Thu Dec 29 16:46:47 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jan-84 03:25:33 EST
References: <2595@yale-com.UUCP>, <1595@randvax.ARPA>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 41


    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