elwoodblues

Okay. I've got 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene' sitting in front of me. Which should I read first?

Note: I've already read 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

Amen-Moses

Well if you've read the other two then the Blind Watchmaker is just revision.

Amen-Moses

bluefugue

Blind Watchmaker is better than either Mt. Improbable or Unweaving the Rainbow, IMHO. Although BW and CMI can be seen as two halves of the same coin, each a companion piece to the other. UTR is clearly Dawkins' attempt to emulate "Demon-Haunted World" (one of his favorite books), and while one of the chapters ("Unweaving the Uncanny") is as good as anything in the Sagan book, not all of it is at the same level.

Of the two you mentioned, Selfish Gene is the better book, insofar as it is more original and influential than Blind Watchmaker (BW is basically just an explanatory book, whereas Selfish Gene kinda sorta puts forth a thesis). I find BW much easier to read, however. Selfish Gene gets into some pretty complicated questions of game theory, evolutionarily stable strategies, etc.

Really it's just a matter of what mood you're in. If you want something lighter and fun in a "preaching to the choir" sort of way, read BW. If you're feeling frisky, go for Selfish Gene.

Oolon Colluphid

And after that you'll just have to read Extended Phenotype It follows on from SG, and expands many of the ideas about phenotypes which follow from the selfish gene idea.

And it kicks Rose et al's straw man arguments against so-called genetic determinism into touch in chapter 2.

Oolon

bluefugue

I still haven't read Extended Phenotype, though I know Dawkins has called it "probably the finest thing I shall ever write."

DMB

I think Climbing Mount Improbable and Unweaving the Rainbow are pitched pretty much at the level of intelligent 11-year-olds. The first one started life as a series of Xmas lectures for children at The Royal Institution (a tradition since the days of Faraday). Both books seem to me to have been written in response to the sort of criticism Dawkins gets.

I think The Selfish Gene The Extended Phenotype and [/i]The Blind Watchmaker[/i] are more for adults.

cricket

Which means, for many adults I know, these books would be wayyy over their heads.

I have read (only) The Blind Watchmaker; plan to find River Out of Eden next, unless y'all recommend reading a different one next. I look forward to reading them all.

bluefugue

I think Dawkins should try writing children's fiction. Like his lamented friend Douglas Adams (or any of the Pythons), he has a highly developed sense of the absurd, and his precise prose style would, I think, be just right for a children's book. And Lalla Ward could do the illustrations.

tronvillain

No way are Climbing Mount Improbable and Unweaving the Rainbow aimed at eleven year olds - I just flipped through them both. I read Dawkins' Books in the order they were published.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Correct, absolutely. It's UTR that has more in common with what I remember of the Christmas lectures, but is definitely aimed at adults -- all the stuff about poetry, and the concepts involved (refraction of light in raindrops, DNA fingerprinting etc), make it too sophisticated for all but the brightest youngsters.

As for CMI... what sort of 11-year-olds do you know DMB?! After Selfish Gene (game theory) and Extended Phenotype (throughout) -- both of which were written for professional biologists (but are clear enough for the intelligent lay reader) -- I'd say it's the hardest to follow... I guess I'm mostly thinking of the chapter on figs and their wasps, but the sheer complexity of what's being explained made me have to re-read several bits rather than grasp them first time... and I'm used to reading pop science boooks. The point being, he explains clearly enough that you can get it if you put in the effort.

The other point being, they ain't for kids . I wouldn't discourage them, but they'd go over the heads of many (most?) adults even. (Example: my father-in-law. Educated, bright, well-read, discerning (well he loved the Robert Aickman I lent him )... and baffled and turned off by UTR. Dawkins -- indeed science books in general -- just ain't the sort of thing most people read... perhaps it's a Two Cultures thing?)

Dawkins's simplest book by far is River, and is the best place to start if one isn't used to reading that kind of thing. It came out in the UK as part of the uniformly excellent Science Masters series, aimed at the less sophisticated general public (ie not pop science regulars).

Basically though, if you are interested in biological science, like literate Pokemon (an oxymoron?), gotta read 'em all!

I read each as it came out. (Except SG, I was only 10 when that was published!)

TTFN, Oolon

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>