Last Updated on June 7, 2022, by eNotes Editorial. Word Count: 509
Balazs, Nandor. Review of Chaos, by James Gleick. Quarterly Review of Biology 64, No. 1 (March 1989): 112–13.
In this mixed review of Chaos, Balazs dismisses the exaggerated importance of chaos theory and notes problems of misrepresentation and omission in Gleick's book.
Burns, David. “Computer ‘Chaos’ Bringing Order to the Mysteries of Science.” Chicago Tribune Books (22 November 1987): 10.
Burns offers a positive assessment of Chaos.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. “Think Quick.” New York Times Book Review (12 September 1999): 9.
Ehrenreich offers a positive assessment of Faster, but takes issue with the book’s frenetic pacing.
Farmelo, Graham. “On Speed.” New Scientist (30 October 1999): 52.
Framelo offers a mixed assessment of Faster.
Johnson, Dan. “Living Faster and Faster.” Futurist 34, No. 2 (March–April 2000): 18.
Johnson discusses Faster and the effect of technology on the speed and quality of modern life.
Jones, Malcolm, Jr. “Spin Doctor.” Newsweek (19 October 1992): 70.
In this review of Genius, Jones states that, while the biography has “some fine moments,” the book never grasps the spirit of Richard Feynman.
Kantrowitz, Barbara. “Putting It All in the Pipeline.” Newsweek (7 November 1994): 62.
An interview with Gleick and Uday Ivatury in which they discuss their new Internet interface, the Pipeline.
Kendig, Frank. Review of Chaos, by James Gleick. New York Times (15 October 1987): C28.
Kendig offers a discussion on the issues brought forth in Chaos.
Kirn, Walter. “Speed Read.” New York (23 August 1999): 53.
Kirk gives a mixed assessment of Faster, claiming that the work is overly repetitious and reductive.
Lemonick, Michael D. “The Physicist as Magician.” Time (7 December 1992): 76.
Lemonick offers a positive assessment of Genius, calling it a “deeply thoughtful biography.”
Levinson, Martin H. Review of Faster, by James Gleick. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 57, No. 1 (Spring 2000): 115.
Levinson summarizes Gleick's thesis and discusses the acceleration of contemporary life.
Maddox, John. Review of Chaos, by James Gleick. New York Times Book Review (25 October 1985): 11.
Maddox offers a positive assessment of Chaos.
Moore, Walter. “Great Physicist, Great Guy.” New York Times Book Review (11 October 1992): 3.
Moore offers a positive assessment of Genius.
Park, David. “The Butterfly Effect.” Nation (12 December 1987): 721–22.
A review in which Park offers a positive assessment of Chaos.
Pegoraro, Rob. “We're Just Wild About Hurry.” Washington Post (22 November 1999): C2.
Pegoraro commends Gleick's intelligence, insight, and engaging use of “anecdotes, quotes and statistics” to make his points in Faster, although he finds fault in the book's cumbersome documentation.
Porush, David. “Making Chaos: Two Views of a New Science.” New England Review XII, No. 4 (Summer 1990): 427–42.
Porush examines Gleick's Kuhnian view of scientific progress and the distorted implications of Chaos on the development of chaos theory and contemporary scientific thought.
Rucker, Rudy. “Patterns of Disorder.” Washington Post Book World (1 November 1987): 3, 8.
A review of Chaos, in which Rucker praises Gleick's comprehensive presentation of chaos theory, although he finds the book “a bit weak as popular science.”
Volk, Patricia. “Can You Spare Seven Minutes of Life to Read This?” New York Times (2 September 1999): E7.
Volk offers a positive assessment of Faster.
Additional coverage of Gleick's life and career is contained in the following sources published by the Gale Group: Contemporary Authors, Vols. 131, 137; Contemporary Authors New Revision Series, Vol. 97, and Literature Resource Center.
Cite this page as follows:
"James Gleick - Further Reading" Contemporary Literary Criticism Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 147. Gale Cengage 2002 eNotes.com 15 Aug. 2022 <https://www.enotes.com/topics/james-gleick/critical-essays/further-reading>
Note: When citing an online source, it is important to include all necessary dates. The citation above will include either 2 or 3 dates.
- If there are three dates, the first date is the date of the original publication in traditional print. The second is the date of publication online or last modification online. The last date is today's date — the date you are citing the material.
- If there are two dates, the date of publication and appearance online is the same, and will be the first date in the citation. The second date is today's date — the date you are citing the material.