At the center of the controversy is the fact that most readers found the physics in the book to be impossible to follow, and they faulted the author for either 1) including so much physics to begin with, or 2) not making it more understandable to the lay person. In other words, folks found the "Science of RF" to be confusing and frustrating.
On the other hand the book had plenty of rich narratives about the "Life of RF." His first marriage showed him as the romantic ideal worthy of Chretien de Troyes. His first wife is already wasting away to TB at the time he marries her, and he never leaves her side. Later he completely transforms into roue, fooling around with his grad students wives. In short, everyone found the "Life of RF" an engaging story of a complex man.
So was it worth having to slog through the physics? Could that have been edited out? Do we really want to read books for Fight Club that are so difficult? What kind of books do we want to for Fight Club anyway? Why are we here to begin with?
In defense of the book: the reader is made to feel the sense of fumbling around in the dark that the scientist feels when confronting the mysteries and puzzles of nature. Moreover, the curiosity and desire to learn and independently solve the puzzles were clear and aspiration themes of Feynman's life to the end. Our arguments about the book quickly became self-reflective.
Over dinner, to a man, most expressed the feeling that now was a time in their lives where they felt the greatest desire to learn. Remarkable mostly because around the table sits a group a particularly successful men, already midway through life.
For me, Dick Feynman has a permanent room in my head; I want to be like Feynman.
No comments:
Post a Comment