|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
title = "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman - James Gleick"
|
|
|
|
date = 2018-10-28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
|
|
|
tags = ["books", "james gleick", "richard feynman", "reviews", "biography", "history"]
|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius):
|
|
|
|
An illuminating portrayal of Richard Feynman—a giant of twentieth century
|
|
|
|
physics—from his childhood tinkering with radios, to his vital work on the
|
|
|
|
Manhattan Project and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ stars(stars=2) }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biographies (even auto-biographies) are not without problems. But it takes a
|
|
|
|
lot of effort to lose the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine that you're drawing the life time of someone; you can't use a pen with
|
|
|
|
a thin point, otherwise you'll end up with simple "they did this, they did
|
|
|
|
that" with dates, which doesn't give the proper understanding and context of
|
|
|
|
why the subject did this and that. In the same vein, you can't use a pen
|
|
|
|
larger than a marker, otherwise you'll spend too much time on things that are
|
|
|
|
not related to the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this book draw the life of Feynman with a brush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a whole chapter about absolutely nothing but a discussion about what
|
|
|
|
"genius" mean, which seems more targeted to explain the book title than what
|
|
|
|
happened to Feynman -- or even if his colleagues and family though he was a
|
|
|
|
genius, for whatever meaning of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are other chapters than, instead of focusing of Feynman, focus on other
|
|
|
|
subjects, in points that do not related to Feynman directly. The last chapter,
|
|
|
|
focused on the Challenger explosion, in which Feynman was part of the
|
|
|
|
commission to explain the explosion, talks a lot more about NASA politics than
|
|
|
|
Feynman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, on top of that, the author is very lose with poetic prose instead of
|
|
|
|
being direct to the point. Also, the lack of a continuous timeline, with the
|
|
|
|
points moving back and forth through time, makes it hard to understand when
|
|
|
|
things happen.
|