by Bill Bryson
Book Review by Will Arntz

I need to start off this review with a disclosure: I'm a nerd. It will become apparent later why that was/is necessary. I was traveling in Europe a few months ago, had finished my books, and was in a part of Tuscany where English books were as prevalent as Buffalo Wings when a copy of this book arrived in my hands. (From the "leave one — take one" shelf at the hotel.)

The "nearly everything" in actuality means nearly everything scientific. Having those nerd-like tendencies I figured I would slowly work through a fat History of Science book and finish it about the time my four week trip was over. Wrong wrong wrong. It was a page turner. All 560 of them.

The question immediately arises — how could such a history read (at least to me) like a novel? First off — it is really interesting. How did they ever figure out the earth was more like a chocolate covered cherry than a stone? That atoms are mostly empty? That dinosaurs once ruled the world, and then disappeared? So much of this we take for granted, but when microscopes did not exist, how did anyone ever come up with the notion of germs?

Which brings me to the second reason I couldn't put it down — those "anyones." We tend to think of scientists as staid, respectable folks, who smile but don't laugh, are precise and logical, and leave parties at 10 pm. Well, it seems back in the old days they were eccentric. Very eccentric. Science did not have the respectability and glamour and money associated with it that science enjoys today. So these early scientists were usually aristocratic, eccentric fellows who spent their fortunes digging up bones, blowing up labs and performing chemistry by taste. Case in point is one early chemist who had a habit of always putting a drop of his experiment on his tongue. One day he was found keeled over his workbench — dead as a doornail — with a very surprised expression on his face.

When they did an analysis of Sir Isaac Newton's hair — it was found he had enough mercury in him to kill him many times over - which it actually didn't do. Then there was the naturalist who could not stand contact with humans. If one wanted to discuss a theory, you would approach him at the royal society meetings and position yourself in his general direction and proceed to talk to the wall. The naturalist would seemingly ignore you, then hurry off as soon as you were done. Two weeks later a detailed discussion of your talk with the wall would appear in your mailbox.

You get the point. (And at this point I'm not feeling quite so nerdy compared to…)

And there's yet another layer of drama: Scientific acceptance. It's not like a new correct theory is put forth and the scientific community senses the truth and accepts it. More than not it's the opposite. The new is SO different than the old, and scientists have built careers and reputations on the old, so when the new "radical" theory comes along, it's usually ignored or laughed at. Over and over again the reader encounters this dynamic. For readers of this newsletter this is very helpful to keep in mind. Mind/matter interface, consciousness creating reality, the observer effect have been summarily rejected by the current scientific community. It's what always happens. But in the end, the glory of the scientific project is — the truth eventually wins out.

Finally, we come to Bill Bryson's writing. He obviously loves his subject and has a style that is entertaining, incredibly clear, often funny, and clever without being cute. More than once I would read out loud to my friend a particularly outrageous paragraph. Which usually would culminate in laughter and/or head shaking bewilderment.

Interesting subject, wildly crazy characters, told in an engaging manner. If you ever wanted to know nearly everything scientific, be able to amaze your friends and be a bit nerd-like yourself — we have a short history for you.