I didn't get on with this book because it is written in what can be described as blank verse - that is no style or literary panache. For example, how would you start a book about the biggest subject ever - the universe - how to express its immensity and grandeur and draw the reader in? This is how Gribbin starts it "What do scientists mean when they say they 'know' what goes on inside an atom, or what happened in the first three minutes of the life of the universe? They mean they have waht they call a model of the atom, or the early universe, or whatever it is they are interested in, and that this model matches the results...."

Enough, that shows how dull the writing is.

And talking of models I just don't follow Gribbin's logic. I know what he is trying to say but he gets bogged down in models that obey mathematical equations and those that use physical laws - he could be clearer. He's also confusing on page 5 - is it a wave or not or both! It's page 42 before he mentions the birth of the universe and there is what I think must be an editing error on page 12 as the charges on the quarks are incorrect. Redshift doesn't get a mention until page 115!

As a biologist I think he is wrong when he says that everyone knows what life is - that's news to the biologists.

I was dissapointed, not by the science, which is mostly recycled anyway, but by the lack of a narrative structure in which it is presented and by the lack of flair and style in which the science is presented. There is not much 'writing' in this science writing. It was hard work, didn't really want to turn the page.