Industrial Deals HPC Save up to 90% on textbooks Womens Ski Trip Essentials nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Garnet Jewelry modern furniture and decor Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon startrek startrek startrek  Echo Dot Fire HD 8, starting at $79.99 Kindle Paperwhite The Evil Within 2 Shop now



Showing 1-10 of 18 reviews(1 star). See all 183 reviews
on June 8, 1999
It shouldn't take anyone terribly long to figure out why the New York Times has given this book not one but two rave reviews: the author is one of the paper's star reporters. And it's well known that the Times killed a bad review of the book, saying that it wasn't "fair". But what about being fair to us readers? Bad reviews of the book abound in the British and science press, and they are well deserved. This book is self serving and half baked--the author never misses an opportunity to brag about how strong she is, or what a good mother she is, or how she dated an Olympic swimmer in college. And the writing is just plain embarassing. But what really grates is Angier's paranoia--she swings wildly and fiercely at everything and everyone from Fred Lebow (former president of the New York Road Runner's Club who, Angier gloats, died of a brain tumor before he could irritate her further) to suitcases with wheels (which she considers whimpy). What's with this woman?
11 comment| 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on August 29, 1999
This book reminds me of many movies you go to see based on books you have read, because when you come out you are shaking your head and wondering what the heck was THAT?? Angier's has written a book, which as a social commentary, would have been amusing, and make you think, truly think, about some of the ideas she presents. The problem is that her science is awful. Instead of facts and research leading her to conclusions, she has seemingly instead gone and found facts and statistics to justify her ideas. This is science of the worst sort. Every argument she makes just left me waiting for some one else to chime in with a counter-point. Anecdotal evidence, circular arguments, half-baked reasoning, this whole book truly pales when compared to fine books such as Guns,Germs, and Steel, which actually try to explain how humankind ended up the way it has, and also explain the journey it took to get there. Call this book social commentary, drop the self-serving science, and I'd give it 3 1/2 stars. As it is though, not a chance. Hopefully some other writter is out there right now finishing up the book that all these other reviews want you to believe that this one is.
0Comment| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 29, 1999
I must say that if this book had been written by say, a comic, I would not have half the objections to it that I do. Since the author is a science writer, I was VERY disappointed in the science and how it was both presented and handled in the book. I felt like I was reading P.J. O'Rourke, but without the disclaimer at the beginning of "I may not have all the statistics and science correct." If one seeks to be entertained, and basicly blips past all the attempts at science, then this book is for you, espescially if you are a woman. If, like me, you are a stickler for scientific accuracy in a "scientific" orientated book, then avoid this book, or you'll be kicking yourself when done with it.
0Comment| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 26, 2000
i was given this book as a graduation present. as a feminist, i was excited to read something indepth (and praising) of the female body.
to put it nicely, i was highly disappointed. . .
angier's psuedo poetic tone became really annoying really quickly. in fact, in order to get to the real information, i had to get past that. that is hard to do. therefore i found the book very uninformative.
i understand that many people have nothing but praises for this book, but if you get annoyed with rambling and a run around approach, then you will not enjoy this book.
(well, maybe you can use it as a humor book, as my friend and i did...)
0Comment| 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 15, 1999
I would think this book ironic, if I believed the author were capable of irony, but she clearly is not. Given that I have no scientific credentials, I cannot comment on the book's scientific credibility, but as a professor of English literature, I can say that the book is so poorly argued that it had no credibility for me. As well, it is written in an over the top style one associates with eager freshmen, not seasoned journalists. One hopes this author will return to straight forward reporting on science, and redirect her "poetic" impulses to late night scribblings in a personal journal.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on April 22, 1999
While the author does manage to work in some interesting analysis of evolutionary psychology, the bulk of this book is a mix of patronizing anatomy lesson with self serving speculation on all things female. And as the following passage makes clear, the writing is often just awful. "But, gals, there's no denying it: sometimes we stink, and we know it. Not like strawberry yogurt or a good Cabernet but like, alas, albacore. Or even skunk. How does this happen? If you haven't bathed for a week, I'll let you figure it out for yourself." This is the work of a Pulitzer winner?
0Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 3, 1999
It always amazes me how one writer can choose selective data and make something look different than it really is. An exercise by the insecure for their own aggrandizement perhaps. I agree with those who say this is mainly another attempt of NYC's acedemic promotional machine to push one of their own.
0Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 4, 1999
This book is politically predictable, and I don't care how good or bad the science is; Angier is such a bad word-stylist you can't get to the science. If you think this is good writing you should read more and watch less TV. Barf.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 2, 1999
Yes, I read it all, as boring as it is. This woman needs to get a refresher course in scientific methodology. As bad as it gets no one seems willing to critize the book: After all it's feminist ideology and literary reviewers have to pay their mortgages too.
11 comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 6, 1999
Scientifically inaccurate, poorly reasoned, and dreadfully written, this is quite possibly the worst popular science book I have ever read -- a huge disappointment and a real disservice to a fascinating and important subject.
11 comment| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse