Brave new world -- Aldous Huxley

This books is a dystopic novel set in a future society driven by pragmatism and coldness. To be perfectly fair, I must say that I did not find the plot very convincing. The base story is a love story with some evolution and discoveries of the characters. However I found the plot hard to follow because of the numerous significant characters in the story. What I liked the most in this book (and I think that this is its strength) is the description of the features of this future society, where social relations (mostly family ones) are reduced to the minimum, emotional beliefs (including religion) are regarded as dangerous for society, and the happiness of individuals is ensured by the state by a systematic distribution of drugs. Another quite interesting feature of this society is that individuals are created in the lab, and that they are conditioned to fit the job (and the role within society) that they have been assigned before birth. Another way of looking at the (lack of) libero arbitrio. Overall, I personally liked this book a lot: I think it's inevitable for me to compare it to "1984". While 1984 had a powerful story and some important warnings about the future (and dangerous) directions our society might take, "Brave new world" has a less involving plot, but a more accurate investigation of the risks of the evolution of our society. The number of predictions that by now are almost facts is quite amazing, given the fact that this book was published in 1932.

As usual, I am reporting below the passages that I found to be the most interesting ones.



"We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future..." He was going to say "future World controllers," but correcting himself, said "future Directors of Hatcheries," instead. (pg.13)

"Stability," said the Controller, "stability. No civilization without social stability. No social stability without individual stability." (pg.42)

"Yes, I know," said Bernard derisively. "'Even Epsilons re useful!' So am I. And I damned well wish I weren't!" Lenina was shocked by his blasphemy. [...] "what would it be like if I could, if I were free--not enslaved by my conditioning." (pg.91)

Bernard looked, and then quickly, with a little shudder, averted his eyes. His conditioning had made him not so much pitiful as profoundly squeamish. The mere suggestion of illness or wounds was to him not only horrifying, but even repulsive and rather disgusting. Like dirt or deformity, or old age. Hastily he changed the subject. (pg.138)

"[...] He's being sent to an island. That's to say, he's being sent to a place where he'll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own. Every one, in a word, who's any one. I almost envy you, Mr. Watson." (pg.227)

"[...] Universal happiness keeps the wheels steadily turning; truth and beauty can't." (pg.228)

A political life -- Norberto Bobbio

Curiously enough, I found this book on sale at the PU store, and I thought it would be interesting to read, because Bobbio is one of the best known thinker and professor in Torino.
The book was OK, but not great: there are quite a few passages that are interesting because they allow the reader to get an idea about Bobbio's thought, how his opinions came into being. On the other hand many passages are not very interesting (unless you are a specialist, I think), in particular when he writes about his speeches/communications/letters with people who are now perfectly unknown (but they probably were well know in the past, or in the philosophical/academic environment).

I report below some of the passages that I found the most interesting.

"On the right there is the the error of agnostic or conservative liberalism, which leads to freedom without justice. On the left there is the error of authoritarian collectivism which leads to justice without freedom." [pg. 40]

However, I am also unsuited to politics, because I suffer from the academic's typical profession deficiency, that of being an eternal doubter. If you carry out research, especially in the field of human sciences, you can, once you have examined all of the pros and cons, end your study with a question mark. As can be seen, there are profound existential reasons that have contributed to keeping me from public office: a politician has to be a man of action, which I am not by any stretch of the imagination. [pg. 141]

Day by day, I could see a moral problem emerging in which the Socialist were mixed up: the enforcement of moral standards in public life was a question of good government, and the basis of democracy. <...> (letter to Craxi) "It is not that I am an unaware of the objective difficulties that the party faces, caught as it is a rock and a hard place, and I therefore consider your concern over safeguarding the party's independence by not taking my part in any preconceived electoral programme to be correct. But the problem is that your unscrupulous exercise of power has made you less and less credible. Even you good intentions seem increasingly the ones that pave the way to hell. [pg. 148]

I argued that there had never been such a trend in democratic countries towards the integration of a great economic power and an equally great cultural power, through an extremely powerful instrument like television, with political power, as was occurring before our very eyes.This was the result of Berlusconi's 'entering the field', and, within the few months of an election campaign, becoming the prime minister of a government that even claimed to represent the quintessence of a liberal state. [pg. 158]

The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins--"The God Delusion"

When I started this book I was a little skeptical, since in the introductory part the author claims that he wants to prove some kind of rationale for an argument against religion. That sounded weird to me, as I was used to think that religion is usually part of a domain which is disconnected from the rational/scientific land. However I must say that the arguments that he brings are very convincing, and they tend mostly to point out the sociological/psicological/economical etc. consequences of religion. The book is divided in 10 chapters, which go from a description of the most important religions, to the confitation of the usual proofs of God's existence, a discussion of "morality", and the abuse of religion on most of the people. I copy below some of the passages that I liked the most.

"Here is an idea or a notion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about it; you're just not. Why not? because you're not! [...]Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be". (pg.42)

Far better, of course, would be to abandon the promotion of religion altogether as grounds for charitable status. The benefits of this society would be great, especially in the United States, here the sum of tax-free money sucked in by churches [...] reach levels that could fairly be described as obscene. (pg.53)

"The priests of the different religious sects...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live." (Thomas Jefferson) (pg.137)

The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps. [...] Other find this unsatisfying [...]uses the analogy of a man sentenced to death by firing squad. It is just possible that all ten men of the firing squad will miss their victim. [...] `Well, obviously they all missed, or I wouldn't be here thinking about it.' But then he could still, forgivably, wonder why they all missed, and toy with the hypotesis that they were bribed, or drunk. (pg.169-173)

Is religion a placebo that prolongs life by reducing stress? [...] It is hard to believe, for example, that health is improved by the semi-permanent state of morbid guilt suffered by a Roman Catholic possessed of normal human frailty and less than normal intelligence. (pg.195)

The antropologist Helen Fisher, in Why We Love, has beautifully expressed the insanity of romantic love, and how over-the-top it is compared with that might seem strictly necessary. Look at it this way. From the point of view of a man, say, it is unlikely that any other one woman of his acquaintance is a hundred times more lovable than her when 'in love'. Rather than the fanatically monogamus devotion to which we are susceptible, some sort of 'polyamory' is on the face of it more rational. (pg.214)

The following is a partial list of religious memes that might plausibly have survival value [...]: (*) You will survive your own death (*) Heretices, blasphemers and apostates should be killed (*) Belief in God is a supreme virtue (*) Faith is a virtue (*) Everybody, even those who do not hold religious beliefs, must respect them with a higher level [...] of belief. (*) There are some weird things that we are not meant to understand. (pg.232)

Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' (pg.235)

Why should a divine being, with creation and eternity on his mind, care a fig for petty human malefactions? We humans give ourselves such airs, even aggrandizing our poky little 'sins' to the level of cosmic significance! (pg.270)

As the Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Steven Weinberg said, `Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' (pg.283)

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man--living in the sky--who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time...But he loves you! (George Carlin) (pg.317)

"There is in every village a torch--the teacher: and an extinguisher--the clergyman. (Victor Hugo) (pg.348)


"I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own." (Bertrand Russell) (pg.397)

"That it will never come again/Is what makes life so sweet." (Emily Dickinson) (pg.405)

In the end: I enjoyed a lot this book, for the good points that it brings to the discussion, and for some of the awesome quotations that are in there.

Animal Farm

George Orwell -- "Animal Farm"

This book is awesome. It was first published in 1946, but it is still (or even more) actual nowadays.
The book is about the story of a farm where the animals, tired of being exploited by the owner (Mr. Jones), organize a rebellion, and kick him out of his property. The animals start then to manage themselves, with laws (the seven commandaments), with the organization of the work to be done, and planning the future. Even though everything is working perfectly at the beginning, when each animal is performing the task which best fits to his/her species, things start to become more complicated when the pigs, who are supposedly the smarter animals, and therefore are the ones leading the farm, start to take advantage of their position, and an oligarchic/dictatorial regime is established.
The power of this book, at least in my opinion, lies in the great representation (in between a tale and a sci-fi story) given by Orwell of the different attitudes of the animals, which reflect and represent the ones that human being have in a society. This representation also gives an excellent description of the steps that usually lead to any tyranny--and those steps have been and are always the same ones...

I report here few of the passages that I liked the most.

And remember also that in fighting against Man, we must not come to resemble him. [...] And above all, no animal must ever tyrannise over his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal. (pg. 11)

The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr.Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know the existence of a misterious coutry called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. [...where] it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain [...]. (pg. 17)

But doubtless it ahd been worse in the old days. They were glad to believe so. Besides, in those days they had been slaves, and now they were free, and that made all the difference, as Squealer dod not fail to point out. (pg.113)

A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day. (pg. 118)


I enjoyed it at the same level as "1984", and it's richness is somewhat different: while 1984 is very powerful, but has to be read by somebody who is into this kind of topics, "Animal Farm" is powerful and easy to read at the same time. It would be a perfect book even for somebody in middle school.

The letters of Vincent van Gogh

Vincent van Gogh -- "The letters of Vincent van Gogh"

I read this book, with much pleasure I must say, over the past few months. This is the collection of letters that Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) exchanged from 1872 until his death. Those letters were mostly addressed to his brother Theo, with whom Vincent had a very close connection. I won't copy and paste here the details of van Gogh's life, but one thing that I want to keep in mind is the fact that his path started as a failed pastor, with delusions here and there, and mostly, with a long and intense training of himself (by himself for the most of it) as an artist. I jot down here few of the passages that I liked the most.

When I compare the state of the weather to our state of mind and our circumstances, subject to change and fluctuations like the weather, then I still have some hope that things may get better (pg.64)

And I don't think it ever occurs to her that God may only appear once we say the words, those words with which Multatuli ends his prayer of an unbeliever:`Oh God, there is no God.' [...] but you see, I love, and how could I feel love if I were notalive myself or if others were not alive, and if we were alive there is something wondrous about it. Now call that God or human nature or whatever you like, but there is a certain something I cannot define systematically, although it is very much alive and real, and you see, for me that something is God or as good as God. (pg.124)

What is drawing? How does one come to it? It is working through an invisible iron wall that seems to stand between what one feels and what one can do. How is one toget through that wall--since pounding at it is of no use? In my opinion one has to undermine that wall, filing through it steadily and patiently. (pg. 206)

I tell you, if one wants to be active, one must not be afraid of making mistakes now and then. Many people think that they will become good just by doing no harm--but that's a lie, and you yourself used to call it that. That way lies stagnation, mediocrity. (pg.281)

[About one of his paintings] So the last thing I would want is for people to admire or approve of it without knowing why. (pg. 291)

Enjoy yourself too much rather than tool little, and don't take art or love too seriously--there is very little one can do about it, it is chiefly a question of temperament. [...] For me, for instance, it's a relief to do a painting, and without that I should be unhappier that I am. (pg. 338)

And if, deprived of the physical power, one tries to create thoughts instead of children, one is still very much part of humanity. And in my pictures I want to say something consoling as music does. I want to paint men and women with a touch of eternal, whose symbol was once the halo, which we try to convey by the very radiance and vibrancy of our colouring. (pg.394)

The day will come, however, when people will see they are worth more that the price of the paint and my living expenses, very magre on the whole, which we put into them. [about his paintings] (pg. 419)

Even though some of the letters are not particularly interesting, I still enjoyed the book very much. The life of Vincent van Gogh has been a real adventure: the struggles, doubts, and reflections of this painter are very intense, and very much close to what human beings in general experience, making it a source of comfort and inspiration. We feel less lonely in our little life, if we that know that other people, at some point, posed the same question which righ now seems to be so hard to ourself.

Invitation to a beheading

Vladimir Nabokov
Invitation to a beheading

This books is about the last few days of a man, Cincinnatus, who is condemned to death. He doesn't know when his execution will take place, neither the reason why he was condemned. The incipit of the book is the following:

"In accordance with the law the death sentence was announced to Cincinnatus C. in a whisper. All those, exchanging smiles. The hoary judge put his mouth close th his ear, panted for a moment, made the announcement and slowly moved away, as though un-glueing himself."

The novel evolves with the narration of "the last few days", with flashbacks and nightmares of the main character providing some background on the situation. For example we know that Cincinnatus' wife was cheating on him, but we don't know precisely what he has done to get to jail (neither does he).

Another interesting fact in the plot is the fact that at some point another prisoner (inmate) is brought into the cell, and he tries to be nice to Cincinnatus. Later on we discover that this person is the executioner of the sentence to death who, according to the law, should get to know better his victim.

All of the characters are quite surrealistic, something in between the ones in "The master and Marguerite" and the ones in Kafka's novels.

"It was then that Cincinnatus stopped and, looking around him as if he had just entered this stony solitude, summoned up all his will, evoked the full extent of his life. and endeavoured to comprehend his situation with the utmost exactitude. Accused of the most terrible of crimes, gnostical turpitude, so rare and so unutterable that it was necessary to use circumlocutions like 'impenetrability', 'opacity', 'occlusion'; sentenced for that crime to death by beheading; imprisoned in the fortress in expectation of the unknown but near an inexorable date (which he distinctly anticipated as the wrenching, yanking and crunch of a monstrous tooth , his whole body being the inflamed gum, and his headthat tooth); standing now in the prison corridor with a sinking heart--still alive, still unpimpaired, still Cincinnatic--Cincinnatus C. felt a fierce longing for freedom, the most ordinary, physical, physically feasible kind of freedom, and instantly he imagined, with such sensuous clarity as though ti all was a fluctuating corona emanating from him [...]." (pg. 61)

"He went on, batting his eyelashes: 'I need not to explain how precious to the success of our common undertaking is that the atmosphere of warm camaraderie which, with the help of patience and kindness, is gradually created between the sentenced and the executor of the sentence. It is difficult or even impossible to recall without a shudder the barbarity of long-gone days, when these two, not knowing each other at all, strangers to each other, but bound together by the implacable law, met face to face only at the last instant before the sacrament itself.'" (pg. 148)

"'Just an instant more. I find it ludicrous and disgraceful that my hands should tremble so--but I can neither stop nor hide it, and, yes, they tremble and that's all.[...] I feel only one thing--fear, fear, shameful, futile fear...' Actually Cincinnatus did not say all this; he was silently changing his shoes. The vein on his forehead was swollen, the bold locks fell on it, his shirt had a wide-opened embroidered collar, which impairted a certain extraordinary youthful quality to his neck and to his flushed face with its blond quivering moustache.
'Let's go!' shrieked M'sieur Pierre.
Cincinnatus, trying not to brush against anyone or anything, placing his feet as if he were walking on bare, sloping ice, finally made his way out of the cell, which in fact was no longer there." (pg. 181)


The book maybe is a little too sophisticated for my English, using a rich and varied vocabulary. Apart from this, the book is a good "inviation to a behading", in the sense that it gives to the reader the feeling of being part of something which is going on, without having a clear point of view, moving between reality and nonsense, nightmare and imagination. The book is excellentin stimulating a reflection on the way we usually perceive capital punishment, in particular the "clean and neat picture" of it that our society is giving of the procedure.

Religion and science

I have read this book by Bertrand Russel in the last few weeks, and I am jotting here my impressions about it. This book is short (which most of the times is a good thing, as long as there is enough content) and dense (which is usually good, as long as the contents are well expressed and understandable). Well, in this case, I think both of these characteristics can be considered as qualities, and highly considered ones. In ten chapters, the author goes through the historical and and philosophical events and issues which have marked this long dialogue/conflict. I found this book to be so good and rich, that I cannot summarize it in few sentences. Also, I have so much stuff underlined, that it is hard to pick few excerpts from it. Anyway, I'll try to write here the sentences that I liked the most from each chapter...
1)The grounds of conflict. Creeds are the intellectual source of the conflict between religion and science, but the bitterness of the opposition has been due to the connection of creeds with Churches and with moral codes. [...] Secular rulers, therefore, as well as Churchmen, felt that they had good reason to fear the revolutionary teaching of the men of science. (pg.9)
A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.
2)The Copernican revolution. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was the most notable scientific figure of his time, both on account of his discoveries and through his conflict with the Inquisition. (pg.31) There can be no question that the clergy, if they had had the power, would have used it to prevent the spread of Copernicanism. (pg.43)
3)Evolution. But on the subject of animal life theology had a number of very definite views, which it was found increasingly difficult to reconcile with science.[...] all animals now existing belong to species represented in the ark[...] This opinion was not without difficulties. St.Augustine confessed himself ignorant as to God's reason for creating flies. Luther, more boldly, decided that they had been created by the Devil, to distract him when writing good books. The latter opinion is certainly plausible. (pg.65)
4)Demonology and medicine. The scientific study of the human body and its diseases has had to contend--and to some extent still has to contend--with a mass of superstition, largely pre-Christian in origin, but supported, until quite modern times, by the whole weight of ecclesiastical authority. Disease was sometimes a divine visitation in punishment of sin, but more often the work of demons. (pg.82) The harm that theology has done is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic, and to confer an apparently sacred character upon practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages. The intervention of theology in medical questions is not yet at an end; opinions on such subjects as birth control, and the legal permission of abortion in certain cases, are still influenced by Bible texts and ecclesiastical decrees. (pg.106) The consequent improvement in health and increase of longevity is one of the most remarkable and admirable characteristics of our age. Even if science had done nothing else for human happiness, it would deserve our gratitude on this account. Those who believe in the utility of theological creeds would have difficulty in pointing to any comparable advantage that they have conferred upon the human race.
5)Soul and body. Thus "true" freedom, as opposed to mere caprice, was identified with obedience to the moral law. (pg.126) The question of "consciousness" is perhaps rather more difficult. (pg.130)
6)Determinism. [...]such matters, it is now held, are inessential. But there are three central doctrines--God, immortality, and freedom--which are felt to constitute what is of most importance to Christianity, in so far as it is not connected with historical events. (pg.144) We can now state the hypothesis of determinism[...]: There are discoverable causal laws such that, given sufficient (but not superhuman) powers of calculation, a man who knows all that is happening within a certain sphere at a certain time can predict all that will happen at the centre of the sphere during the time that it takes light to travel from the circumference of the sphere to the centre.[...] For the first time in history, determinism is now being challenged by men of science on scientific grounds. (pg.151) People imagine that, if the will has causes, they may be compelled to do things that they do not wish to do. This, of course, is a mistake; the wish is the cause of action, even if the wish itself has causes. (pg.163)
7)Mysticism. I cannot admit any method of arriving at truth except that of science, but in the realm of the emotions I do not deny the value of the experiences which have given rise to religion. Through association with false beliefs, they have led to much evil as well as good; freed from this association, it may be hoped that the good alone will remain. (pg.189)
8)Cosmic purpose. Many questions are raised by this theory. Let us begin with the most definite: in what sense, if any, is biology not reducible to physics and chemistry, or psychology to biology? (pg.199) As for the view that God's eternal blessedness should be a comfort to the poor, it has always been held by the rich, but the poor are beginning to grow weary of it. Perhaps, at this date, it is scarcely prudent to seem to associate the idea of God with the defence of economic injustice. (pg.210) And even if we accept the rather curious view that the Cosmic Purpose is specially concerned with our little planet, we still find that there is reason to doubt whether it intends quite what the theologians say it does. (pg.217)
9)Science and ethics. [...] science has nothing to say about "values". This I admit; but when it is inferred that ethics contains truths which cannot be proved or disproved by science, I disagree. (pg.223) But in fact conscience is a product of education, and can be trained to approve or disapprove, in the great majority of mankind, as educators may see fit. (pg.227)
10)Conclusions. We have seen that, in the period since Copernicus, whenever science and theology have disagreed, science has proved victorious. We have seen also that, where practical issues were involved, as in witchcraft and medicine, science has stood for the diminution of suffering, while theology has encouraged man's natural savagery. (pg.244) New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.

Cosmology - A very short introduction

Over winter break I've read this book by Peter Coles, so I am writing here what my impressions about it. First of all I must say I am again impressed by the good quality of the collection "A very short introduction..." by Oxford University Press. These books are able to provide a good introduction and overview on many different topics, providing just enough details to get an idea, and avoiding obscure jargon. That said let's talk business, the book.

It opens with an historic overview of our conception of the cosmos, and of the methods used by mankind to investigate it. Then it presents in one chapter the main ideas of general relativity: Eistein's revolution, the equivalence principle, the curvature of space and its connection with gravity, completing the chapter with a paragraph on black holes. Chapter 3 ("First principles") introduces the cosmological principles (i.e. the universe is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales), and--by using the Friedmann models to unravel the evolution of the universe--the idea of singularities and the open/flat/closed universe. Chapter 4 ("The expanding universe") describes Hubble's law (v=H_0 * d) and its observation with the Doppler's (red)shift. Then he explains why the measurement of H_0 is difficult, and how one can infer from its value the age of the universe (around 15 billion years). Chapter 5 is fully dedicated to the Big Bang theory, and its experimental evidence from the cosmic microwave background. The CMB also provides insight for the understanding of nucleosynthesis and bariogenesis (when considered along with our knowledge of the standard model of particle physics...). In chapter 6 ("what's the matter with the universe?") Coles introduces the main role played by Omega in cosmology (Omega = "ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical value that marks the line dividing between eternal expansion and ultimate recollapse"). Omega and H_0 are not provided by the Friedmann's model or by the BigBang theory: equations work for whatever values they assume. Their determination is still nowadays a hot topic, related to old (cosmological constant) and new (dark energy) topics. The origin of "Cosmic structures" (chapter 7) or large-scale structures (i.e. how galaxies are distributed) can be investigated by studying the CMB precious insights about their formation. "So why is the microwave background not smooth after all? The answer is intimately connected to the origin of large-scale structures and, as ever in cosmology,gravity provides the connection." The concluding chapter 8 ("A theory of everything?") illustrates how crucial has been quantum mechanics in all this picture, and how the link between standard model and gravity is still missing.

Particle physics: a very short introduction

I've read this book by Frank Close (Oxford U.), so I am jotting down few impressions about it.
This is its structure, with my opinion/excerpt inlined:

1. Journey to the centre of the universe. Historical-like introduction describing atoms, nuclei, fundamental particles and forces.
   
2. How big and small are big and small. Setting the scales; something interesting to think about:
   
• scale-jumps at the cosmic level are 1/10^2, at the micro-level are 1/10^4 (much emptier scale).
• energies/temperatures: room temperature = 0.025eV or 1eV = 10^4K
  
3. How we learn what things are made of, and what we found. Energy and waves, Planck, elastic collisions.
   
4. The heart of the matter. Everydays life building blocks: u, d, e + nu. Interesting number: the production rate for neutrinos in the sun is 10^38 (something huge, like the relative size of the universe to a single atom).
   
5. Accelerators: cosmic and manmade. History and basic principles of accelerators. Interesting thing to know: Lawrence's original cyclotron was only 13cm diameter.
   
6. Detectors: cameras and time machines. Geiger, scintillator, cloud chamber, emulsions, bubble chamber, spark chamber, more advanced stuff.
   
7. The forces of nature. 4 Forces with few examples (beta decay).
   
8. Exotic matter (and antimatter). From strange-ness to top-ness: who ordered that? and then the antimatter puzzle.
   
9. Where has the matter come from? "We exist because of a series of fortunate accidents: the fact that the Sun burns just at the right rate (linked to the mass of the W boson) [...], the fact that neutrons are slightly heavier than protons [...].
   
10. Questions for the 21st century. Dark matter question, SUSY, mass-Higgs, QGP, CP, gravity as effect of extra-dimensions.
    

I found this book interesting, at the right level for an introduction to a reader who is interested and has a minimum of basics knowledge and intuition.