My tastes in literature vary a lot. In fact, I take pride in the scope of my study, whether fictional or non-fiction. I set down the Poe book of short stories I've been reading (because after dark is not a good time for me to be reading Poe, on the chance I stumbled across one of his more disturing moments) and took up an old used copy of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
I am only a few chapters into it, but I think i can already make some general comments.
This books firstly is seriously outdated (printed in 1988) but I wouldn't know the difference. That's sad, in a way, but nothing that troubles me overmuch. What amazed me was being reminded how old Eistein and his General Theory of Relativity is, about equal with the invention airplanes. There have been many steps since then, but nothing nearly as monumental. I think that the concepts of multiple universes is an up-to-date idea.
This book, A Breif History, succeeds very well I think at popular readability. The author lost me a few times, but that happens. I couldn't help but notice (from it's novelty) the vague considerations made toward a God-centered universe, or at least an Intelligent Design universe. This books was directed towards a opinionated public, so I thought the nods appropriate and becoming. I personally like to see a scientist take a humble stance on his science, and that's not to dinegrate him or her, but simply because I think modesty is prerequisite for an honestly open-mind.
Speaking of modesty and humility, I was pleased I already had a vague understanding of much of what Hawking wrote of. I think it's due to my readings in sci-fi, most notably Asimov, especially his The Billiard Ball.
I'd love to hear some comments.
Memphis in the Meantime
2 hours ago