So-and-so is wrong because of this-and-that, blah blah, until at the very end we get to the author's theory. Most of the book consists of long boring explanations of how this or that old theory of smell is wrong.
Let's talk about the structure of the book. Maximum cringeworthiness all the way.ĥ) Seriously though, what an ass. Many, many comparisons in there that are non-sequitur and make zero sense. Like some molecule or another doing something is "like asking Tommy Lee Jones to play a nun." WHAT? What are you talking about? Really? And "calling yourself a theoretitian in biology is considered a perversion, like preferring erotic literature to real sex." Really? Okay. Which leads me to:Ĥ) All those garbage similes and metaphors. Except of course when he tries to use similes and metaphors with everyday things. I know enough chemistry to understand what he was saying and it was very clear to me that he most certainly does not do that, and uses terminology that only an expert would understand. One marker of a good science writer is that when you start explaining a difficult topic, you have to constantly remind readers WHY you are explaining that, and how is that relevant to what you're ultimately trying to say. Seriously, what is it? Is the explanation in here where he's explaining how to make one? I really don't know.ģ) The explanations are not well written.
After he talks about himself a bunch, and how important the polarograph is, he starts explaining how easy it is to make one, before explaining what the hell a polarograph even is. One example is when he starts talking about the polarograph. He says he hopes non-scientists will read his book, and he starts off at a level so basic in the beginning that I skipped over it, but then starts explaining things really, really terribly. So challenge accepted, ass.Ģ) The science is not well explained. O YA? I Knew 3 right away by scent alone and can make a mean cocktail that VERY much resembles coke just by using stuff in my cupboard. Oh and he "defies" anyone who's not an expert in the field to name any ingredient in Coke. Talking so much about how a book was written about him, the endless figures in the book that have no reference to the text or explanation (I guess he's too good for that), how great he is for making an acid-resistant citrus scent, and talking about scents as metaphors that make no sense, like "so and so smells like the essence of brown," or "if you add this to that the smell goes from grey to pink." What does that even mean? I'll tell you. It's not a good book, it's not well written, and only maybe 5% of it is interesting at all.Īs someone who has a science job and reads and writes about science all the time, let me explain why:ġ) What an arrogant ass. But I started reading and quickly became disappointed with it. I was really interested in this book because I consider myself a supersmeller and love to read about the science behind things.
0 kommentar(er)
