It’s a really good biography of a fascinating life. I’m particularly fond of the fact that his _master_ thesis laid the foundation to rigorous circuit design. It’s been described as ”possibly the most important, and also the most famous, master's thesis of the century”.
Sadly Soni's book is reads like a precocious high school student's summer book report, and he and his coauthor (who doesn't seem any more qualified than Soni is to write such a thing) manage to misunderstand a bunch of obvious things about Shannon's work and life.
The wiki entry on Shannon's life is more interesting, readable and accurate and wasn't written by soul sick former management consultants.
Hey it seems like you have a bit of an agenda by posting this comment twice to different commenters who recommended this book. This isn’t an attack of you, what would be good is if you could explain your view a bit more than just an opinionated dismissal of the book. Is it the writing that sucks? Is it factually incorrect (And how is it?)? Some of us are interested in reading more about the history of information theory and it helps to have considered dissenting opinions to decide what to read and what to trust :)
Because I paid for the book, paid with hours of my life reading it, and am hopping mad that it is total garbage which wasted my time and money with a puerile, long winded stack of drivel.
I'll eventually take the time to write about it in detail; you can figure out some of the details on why the movie was trash by googling my name.
Tl;DR: There are no substantive criticisms, but apparently the style wasn't to the reviewer's taste.
Here's an extract:
Finally there is the title. “Bit player?” Shannon is the most important applied mathematician and inventor of the late 20th and early 21st century. Nobody else comes close. What would they call a documentary on Maxwell? “Waves haggis-man?” What would their clever title for Newton be? “Calculus apple-noggin sperdo?” Napoleon’s documentary is “big hat frog midget.” How about calling your documentary of Freud “Pervert Schlomo” while you’re at it. What fucking pinhead planet are you from calling a documentary of Shannon “Bit player?” Die in a fire, you fucking philistines!
(Apparently the author missed that "Bit Player" is a play on the idea that Shannon played with bits, and is unfamiliar with the idea that association of a title with a common saying makes people more comfortable with the idea that'll enjoy watching it)
Yeah, I didn't miss their clever little double entendre, nor did I miss they portrayed Shannon as a doddering old fool. This was not a docudrama; it was a desecration.
Are you actually defending the thing, or do you just take offence at "Calculus apple-noggin sperdo?"
I think this is a shockingly incorrect take on the book. It isn't meant to be totally technical, that isn't the audience or the point. It is a historical biography of a person for a generally lay, or technically inclined lay, audience.
(just a counter opinion)
