Scan barcode
octavia_cade's review
3.0
First off, this book has a seriously good title. How can you not want to read a book with a title like that?
The rest of the book doesn't quite live up to it. Don't get me wrong: I did like it, for the most part. The writing was clear and explanatory, even if it did get a little bogged down when describing the statistical reasoning behind some of the cyclical extinction arguments. It's just a very hard title to live up to.
That being said, the book's a few decades old now, so how the theories it describes fit in with astronomical understanding today is something I just don't know. I'll probably be Googling after writing this, though, and that should say something - that the book interested me enough to Google, at any rate. Edit: I've looked it up, it appears the Nemesis theory today is pretty much assumed to be unreliable. Oh well, interesting idea while it lasted, and yay science for being self-correcting!
The rest of the book doesn't quite live up to it. Don't get me wrong: I did like it, for the most part. The writing was clear and explanatory, even if it did get a little bogged down when describing the statistical reasoning behind some of the cyclical extinction arguments. It's just a very hard title to live up to.
That being said, the book's a few decades old now, so how the theories it describes fit in with astronomical understanding today is something I just don't know. I'll probably be Googling after writing this, though, and that should say something - that the book interested me enough to Google, at any rate. Edit: I've looked it up, it appears the Nemesis theory today is pretty much assumed to be unreliable. Oh well, interesting idea while it lasted, and yay science for being self-correcting!
More...