Stephen Hawking is perhaps the pre-eminent physicist of the last half of the 20th century. No, strike the "perhaps"; there should be no doubt. His contributions to cosmology and stellar evolution alone are enough to guarantee him an honored space in the scientific pantheon.
There aren't many who could have written this book, and that Hawking has done it in the grips of a stable but still cruel malady, Lou Gehrig's disease, is a testament to his will and mounting intellect. He almost manages to carry it off.
Probably this is no fault of his own. The subject matter is, in the hands of ordinary physicists, incredibly abstruse stuff. Scientific prose is fragile; one has to handle it carefully and reread it numerous times even to begin to understand it--and that only if one is an expert in the field. To try to translate that into ordinary English, so that we mortals might understand--that is when scientific writing becomes the calling of saints.
Add onto this task the incredible popularity of this book (it, or Cosmos, I forget which, is the best-selling non-religious book of all time) the first time it was published, and you can get a feeling for what Hawking was up against. He isn't just writing for the Scientific American crowd, but for the Parade crowd and the People crowd. This is populist science.
The *Illustrated History* improves on its predecessor in a number of respects. It expands on a number of explanations that were incomplete in the first edition. It adds a new section on developments that have occurred in the meantime. And of course there are those full-color pictures, where there was previously only black and white.
(Don't pooh-pooh the pictures. Never underestimate the lasting impression of a picture that the reader *understands*.)
But there are flaws. Small flaws, but flaws nonetheless. Hawking is an engaging writer (and even, despite the voice synthesizer he uses after an operation on his larynx, a passable speaker), but he does not quite have the flair for explanation of a Sagan or a Feynman. The analogies he uses are hardly original, but long-standing ones that have withstood the test of time, and they serve him well.
When he has to stand on his own, though, as he must when he explains his own concept of imaginary time, he seems less sure of his footing. It all seems quite simple upon first inspection, and yet, when you examine it closer, it doesn't totally make sense.
But this is a minor quibble. The book is an excellent introduction to cutting edge research in cosmology, and if Hawking is not a Carl Sagan or a Richard Feynman, that is hardly a knock on him. His work, in the end, will speak for itself.