Jennifer Senior, a daily book reviewer for the New York Times, has appraised Siddhartha Mukherjee’s latest book The Gene: An Intimate History, in the New York Times. Since it’s in today’s paper, I suspect there will be another review next Sunday.
This review is mixed, but you can see for yourself. I hope for two things: that the stuff about gene regulation is correct in the book, and, if so, that it sells well. We need popular works on genetics, which is becoming an immensely complex (but rewarding) field. I haven’t yet read the book, but will.
I’m looking forward to reading it.
I should add a couple of caveats about that. I may be weird, but I was unmoved by the prose in the NYer’s distorted version. In fact, it was a turn off. I got bored. I want clarity over extended narrative, and I’d be reading Gene to increase my own ability to communicate about genetics.
Also, should a follow-up piece be published by the NYer, I hope the framing goes beyond a postmodern apologetic of “epigenetics narratives.” Such a frame would be bad for public health. We don’t need more translators in public health spouting postmodern perspectives on science.
I hear you, prose bores me to tears. What is the point then?
The one time I can stomach it in small doses at a time is when I read creative literature like hard scifi.
From the review:
“Personally, I wish he’d dedicated 50 pages to this question — it’d have offered a potentially moving story line and a form of emotional engagement I badly craved.”
Ick.
So yeah, all my life I hear “read this or that, it is soo exciting and well written, it is a famous author and it is part of the shared world heritage”. But most of it doesn’t stimulate or populate my mind-scape at all, all it shares with me is how to fall asleep faster.
I think of the paper less internet as my kind of literature heaven.
and scifi puts me to sleep. A chacun son goût.
I really liked the way Mukherjee’s Cancer book was written, and did not mind the prose in the NYer article.
I share your hopes. I will almost certainly read it.
Just Pre-ordered on Amazon.
The staff at my local greengrocer/supermarket, Longo’s, have new green T-shirts which also say “Give peas a chance.”
Vizualize Whirled Peas
Ha ha! I like the cakes from Longos
I did not find it a particularly informative review. I think I will await a few more before ordering. Telling stories is nice, but ultimately one wants to know “Where’s the beef?”
I’m going to let Jerry read it and tell us if it’s good because I don’t want to read something that’s wrong and then start spouting wrong stuff like a wrong person.
That would be wrong.
Interesting. You don’t seem to have a problem with being wrong about toilet paper installation procedure. (I’ll get my coat)
Leaving right behind you, mordacious…
Ugh. Because I’m right about that, of course.
Well said!
I’ve been waiting for this to be published, but (like our good friend Diana) I now have concerns. I’m sure though, that it’s a fine book and will probably order it anyway.
Has anyone put the covers of Mukherjee’s and Chopra’s books side-by-side? (Sorry if someone already has and I missed it.)
As far as memes go, Supergenes and The Gene are two covers coming from physician/researchers, one a woo maven and one, were it not for the NYer debacle, a sound reputation. If you aren’t an expert and do a search in Amazon, how do you know what is what? Further, I wonder if Mukherjee addresses this problem in his book? If not, it glosses over the “intimate” history of woo-author use of genetics to make a buck.
Of course, the public isn’t stupid. But for those who have drunk the epigenetic spirituality Kool-aid, these two books look–by their covers–to have comparable science chops.
http://www.dropbox.com/s/l36nigw3ieirux1/side-by-side.png?dl=0
(On the side, some people don’t like that I’m raising the comparison between Mukherjee and Chopra. But I think it is irresponsible to repress this discussion and that Mukherjee should do his part in dispelling myth, precisely because the literate public trusts him.)
> This review is mixed, but you can see for yourself.
Well if anything, the reviewer faults him for putting too much “dense” science in it and too little storytelling. That might be a good sign.