Science writer Peter Dizikes reviews my book Microcosm for the New York Times. It's great to see that he gets it--i.e., he understands what I'm trying to do with E. coli in the book. I actually appreciate that more than a positive review. Fortunately, he liked the book, too, calling it engrossing, vivid, and adroit. Check it out.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
With two weeks to go till Microcosm's publication date, I'm happy to direct your attention to an adapted excerpt that's running in tomorrow's New York Times. In this passage, I discuss what I like to call E. coli's fingerprints.
We like to think that genes equal identity. If that were true, then…
Well, we're down now to seven weeks till Microcosm hits the book stores. Here and elsewhere I'm going to discuss some of the fascinating things I discovered about E. coli--and life in general--while working on the book. For instance, I came to have a grudging respect for the vicious strain of E.…
I'm in a celebratory mood. Microcosm is published today. In my mind, I can see the books moving out of warehouses onto trucks, off to book stores and front door steps. This morning I read a great review from Mykola Bilokonsky at Newsvine. ("What are you waiting for?" he asks.) And tonight I'll be…
Just a quick reminder--I'll be keeping the contest for a free autographed copy of Microcosm till 5 pm this afternoon. Think of a question about E. coli (and what it can say about life itself), and get in the running for a signed book. I'll post answers to the winning responses tomorrow by noon.
(…
Carl - Great review - succinct and positive. I'm currently in Chapter 9, Palimpsest, and just finished reading about the flagellum debate in the Dover trial. Once I finish I'll be eagerly awaiting your next book. I do hope you come to Dallas on your book tour.
Yes, it is a very nice review. It looks like a very good choice of topic by Carl. This old physicist is surely intrigued and intends to read the book. Thanks. Don
I notice that review didn't do your Amazon numbers any harm, Carl! 299 when I just checked and number 1 in three categories. That gives us fellow science writers something to shoot for. Good work!