I really disliked the book. Probably one of the worst books I’ve ever read.
Some times HN shows well-written and researched blog pieces about events or characters in scientific history. This book felt like the author read a bunch of these and put them together in a book. Then the reality-fantasy aspect of it makes no sense to me.
The reality-fantasy aspect turned me off too. Majorly. On the other hand the writing is pretty terrific. The similies are especially evocative.
> like deducing all the rules of Wimbledon from the few balls that flew out of the stadium, without ever having witnessed what takes place on the court
Some times HN shows well-written and researched blog pieces about events or characters in scientific history. This book felt like the author read a bunch of these and put them together in a book. Then the reality-fantasy aspect of it makes no sense to me.
Why did you like it?