Reviews
The Bird: A Natural History of Who Birds Are, Where They Came From & How They Live by Colin Tudge
theaceofpages's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.5
I love birds and love reading about them but this book was just okay. The author repeats himself a lot (especially "some birds are more equal than others" and especially this phrase in the first chapter. It was fun at first but it quickly just got annoying). This book had some fun anecdotes but it was missing something and could have used some references as he keeps crossing the line between fact and opinion without stating where it changes. Especially since he states at the start that he is not actually scientist. He does provide a (partial?) reference list at the end but some statements really need the study/studies backing them up in the text itself. I don't have time to go through all of them to fact check and find out what has been shown and what he thinks.
Also, I don't really understand the need for such a long list of bird families. He really didn't provide much information about most of them. I also wonder how much the editors actually read this part in detail as I had a look at the starlings (since I have spent a lot of time studying them) and after about two sentences he says - but more on this later. This family is only briefly mentioned once or twice more in the book. I didn't see anything factually incorrect in the parts I did read (based on the then data since things have changed a bit since then) but small things like this bothered me.
While not bad and I'm sure bird lovers will still enjoy this book, I would recommend reading other books on bird behaviour over this one.
Also, I don't really understand the need for such a long list of bird families. He really didn't provide much information about most of them. I also wonder how much the editors actually read this part in detail as I had a look at the starlings (since I have spent a lot of time studying them) and after about two sentences he says - but more on this later. This family is only briefly mentioned once or twice more in the book. I didn't see anything factually incorrect in the parts I did read (based on the then data since things have changed a bit since then) but small things like this bothered me.
While not bad and I'm sure bird lovers will still enjoy this book, I would recommend reading other books on bird behaviour over this one.
catherine_t's review against another edition
5.0
This book has changed the way I look at birds. I've always liked birds, with the exceptions of gulls and pigeons, but now I can't even look at a herring gull the same way as I always have. Tudge delves into the lives of birds with humour and a keen eye. You'll learn things you didn't even know you didn't know!
pagesandprozac's review against another edition
3.0
unlike most reviewers, i did actually enjoy the homeric Catalogue of Birds.
however, the writer's style really, really grated on me - and i'm not entirely sure why. we just did not, at all, vibe. he seems to have a very high opinion of himself, and always name-drops places where he's seen these various birds in a way that doesn't benefit the text at all, just an off-hand, "oh, by the way, i WENT to AFRICA to see these BIRDS," as though that somehow legitimises what he's saying; these location name-drops never have a prurient little anecdote, just "yeah i saw these birds" which... why?
i also despise it when non-fiction books that have little to no references, especially science, and ESPECIALLY when discussing different theories. i don't expect it to be as fully referenced as an academic paper, but i do expect SOME, especially when he was discussing theories and he just said "some scientists..." WHICH scientists? and WHEN? i have read many a popular science book written for the layperson that has substantial references. there is no excuse.
one part that seriously annoyed me was, "It seems to be the case, like it or not, that in mammals the males are the more flamboyant and more variable sex. The males are usually bigger and stronger, and take more risks. Among human beings, the greatest poets, composers and physicists tend to be men, although many of the finest prose-writers and biologists are women. But there are also more seriously dim and dangerous men than dim and dangerous women. Some put all this down to expectation and upbringing but some ascribe the differences to biology." (emphasis mine.) This is clearly a very loaded topic that has all sorts of different opinions, so if there was any time for some references, it would be now. but there is not. who, exactly, are "some?" this would get me castigated in goddamn high school essays, let alone an actual published book, academic or not.
there were also some very nitpicky and personal things i didn't like, such as when he implies the brits are effete and soft - no we fucking aren't, Tudge; we go fox hunting and all sorts of shit so don't even try with the whole "brits aren't savages uwu" implication. there were also some implications about the "battle of the sexes between birds"; it should be noted that everything humans do are subject to humans' implicit biases, including (especially?) science, which he doesn't really address - he mentions it in the context of darwin, but seems to imply that we have risen above such biases in the modern era. not so. i am also against the use of the word "rape" when referring to animals, as it is a very human concept and i find using it to refer to animals is biologically inaccurate and anthropologically irresponsible. "sexual coercion" would make more sense, as it conveys the same thing but is very literal and descriptive, as opposed to "rape" which, as mentioned, is a very human concept with very human parameters. indeed, the term "sexual coercion" and terms other than rape are used by biologists; if the term rape is used, there are specific parameters that differentiate between human and animal rape.*
again, those things in the past paragraph tie in with my opinion on social and political issues, and therefore are personal and may not be an issue to other people.
but personal or not, there is no excuse for the absolute dearth of references. it makes it impossible to sort out which of his statements are his own opinion (singular opinions shouldn't be relied too much upon anyway, let alone those of a non-scientist - which he is; he studied biology at university decades ago, which does not a scientist make) and which have arose from actual scientific studies. a science writer who is not a scientist should be absolutely peppering references everywhere, otherwise how the hell can i trust anything they say? with some things - "parrots are good mimics" that is of course not necessary, but (and this is verbatim) "Pigeons can distinguish paintings by Monet from paintings by Picasso" - i mean, i'm sure they can, but can you give a goddamn REFERENCE to the study that SAYS THAT? in a way, this kind of ties in with what i said before - the author seems to have such a high opinion of himself that he takes it for granted that whatever he writes down should be taken as rote. no thank you, mr tudge; i wouldn't take anything richard dawkins says as rote without a reference, let alone you.
something else nitpicky - he correctly says "cold-blooded" and "warm-blooded" are inaccurate and idiomatic terms, but he says that homeopathic equals warm-blooded and poikilothermic equals cold-blooded. this is broadly true, but it would be more precise to use the terms ectothermic and endothermic. i know that the MAJORITY of ectotherms are polikiotherms and endotherms homeotherms but they are not ABSOLUTE SYNONYMS, whereas warmblooded = endotherm and coldblooded = ectotherm are. yes, this is a bit nitpicky, but when i read about science i want absolute precision, especially with things like this, where it isn't even difficult or complicated. come on.
the content was very interesting, especially as i love birds, but the writing style prevents me from giving this five stars. it was written a decade ago, not six decades ago - where are the REFERENCES???
this review may seem rather harsh. but god fucking dammit if i hate it when "science writers" don't back their statements up with SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. it takes three seconds to reference where you got your information from. it's pure laziness.
this book only didn't get one star because i love reading about birds.
* some references about this, in spoiler so not to make this even longer. although this is not by any means anything scientific, it would seem hypocrtitical of me to not give references when talking about the use of "sexual coercion" rather than "rape" when referring to animals, so here we are.
-
- Smuts, Barbara B. (1993) "Male Aggression and Sexual Coercion of Females in Nonhuman Primates and Other Mammals: Evidence and Theoretical Implications." Advances in the Study of Behavior 22
there is also this interesting article that specifically discusses human vs. non-human "rape" and highlights differences between the two "without making implications about human rape," which i believe is very important: Palmer, C. (1989). "Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications." The Journal of Sex Research, 26(3), 355-374.
however, the writer's style really, really grated on me - and i'm not entirely sure why. we just did not, at all, vibe. he seems to have a very high opinion of himself, and always name-drops places where he's seen these various birds in a way that doesn't benefit the text at all, just an off-hand, "oh, by the way, i WENT to AFRICA to see these BIRDS," as though that somehow legitimises what he's saying; these location name-drops never have a prurient little anecdote, just "yeah i saw these birds" which... why?
i also despise it when non-fiction books that have little to no references, especially science, and ESPECIALLY when discussing different theories. i don't expect it to be as fully referenced as an academic paper, but i do expect SOME, especially when he was discussing theories and he just said "some scientists..." WHICH scientists? and WHEN? i have read many a popular science book written for the layperson that has substantial references. there is no excuse.
one part that seriously annoyed me was, "It seems to be the case, like it or not, that in mammals the males are the more flamboyant and more variable sex. The males are usually bigger and stronger, and take more risks. Among human beings, the greatest poets, composers and physicists tend to be men, although many of the finest prose-writers and biologists are women. But there are also more seriously dim and dangerous men than dim and dangerous women. Some put all this down to expectation and upbringing but some ascribe the differences to biology." (emphasis mine.) This is clearly a very loaded topic that has all sorts of different opinions, so if there was any time for some references, it would be now. but there is not. who, exactly, are "some?" this would get me castigated in goddamn high school essays, let alone an actual published book, academic or not.
there were also some very nitpicky and personal things i didn't like, such as when he implies the brits are effete and soft - no we fucking aren't, Tudge; we go fox hunting and all sorts of shit so don't even try with the whole "brits aren't savages uwu" implication. there were also some implications about the "battle of the sexes between birds"; it should be noted that everything humans do are subject to humans' implicit biases, including (especially?) science, which he doesn't really address - he mentions it in the context of darwin, but seems to imply that we have risen above such biases in the modern era. not so. i am also against the use of the word "rape" when referring to animals, as it is a very human concept and i find using it to refer to animals is biologically inaccurate and anthropologically irresponsible. "sexual coercion" would make more sense, as it conveys the same thing but is very literal and descriptive, as opposed to "rape" which, as mentioned, is a very human concept with very human parameters. indeed, the term "sexual coercion" and terms other than rape are used by biologists; if the term rape is used, there are specific parameters that differentiate between human and animal rape.*
again, those things in the past paragraph tie in with my opinion on social and political issues, and therefore are personal and may not be an issue to other people.
but personal or not, there is no excuse for the absolute dearth of references. it makes it impossible to sort out which of his statements are his own opinion (singular opinions shouldn't be relied too much upon anyway, let alone those of a non-scientist - which he is; he studied biology at university decades ago, which does not a scientist make) and which have arose from actual scientific studies. a science writer who is not a scientist should be absolutely peppering references everywhere, otherwise how the hell can i trust anything they say? with some things - "parrots are good mimics" that is of course not necessary, but (and this is verbatim) "Pigeons can distinguish paintings by Monet from paintings by Picasso" - i mean, i'm sure they can, but can you give a goddamn REFERENCE to the study that SAYS THAT? in a way, this kind of ties in with what i said before - the author seems to have such a high opinion of himself that he takes it for granted that whatever he writes down should be taken as rote. no thank you, mr tudge; i wouldn't take anything richard dawkins says as rote without a reference, let alone you.
something else nitpicky - he correctly says "cold-blooded" and "warm-blooded" are inaccurate and idiomatic terms, but he says that homeopathic equals warm-blooded and poikilothermic equals cold-blooded. this is broadly true, but it would be more precise to use the terms ectothermic and endothermic. i know that the MAJORITY of ectotherms are polikiotherms and endotherms homeotherms but they are not ABSOLUTE SYNONYMS, whereas warmblooded = endotherm and coldblooded = ectotherm are. yes, this is a bit nitpicky, but when i read about science i want absolute precision, especially with things like this, where it isn't even difficult or complicated. come on.
the content was very interesting, especially as i love birds, but the writing style prevents me from giving this five stars. it was written a decade ago, not six decades ago - where are the REFERENCES???
this review may seem rather harsh. but god fucking dammit if i hate it when "science writers" don't back their statements up with SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. it takes three seconds to reference where you got your information from. it's pure laziness.
this book only didn't get one star because i love reading about birds.
* some references about this, in spoiler so not to make this even longer. although this is not by any means anything scientific, it would seem hypocrtitical of me to not give references when talking about the use of "sexual coercion" rather than "rape" when referring to animals, so here we are.
-
Spoiler
Knott, C. D.; Thompson, Emery, M.; Stumpf, R. M.; McIntyre, M. H. (2010). "Female reproductive strategies in orangutans, evidence for female choice and counterstrategies to infanticide in a species with frequent sexual coercion." Biological Sciences 277, 105–13.- Smuts, Barbara B. (1993) "Male Aggression and Sexual Coercion of Females in Nonhuman Primates and Other Mammals: Evidence and Theoretical Implications." Advances in the Study of Behavior 22
there is also this interesting article that specifically discusses human vs. non-human "rape" and highlights differences between the two "without making implications about human rape," which i believe is very important: Palmer, C. (1989). "Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications." The Journal of Sex Research, 26(3), 355-374.
hilaritas's review
2.0
I didn't finish this book. The author gets points for being exhaustive, but... he loses points for being exhaustive. A lot of the book is just lists of things some birds do. And since birds are so diverse, those lists get LONG. And not necessarily organized by any particular principle. While I usually like this sort of infodump, I just couldn't get into it here. There needs to be some narrative structure or hook that keeps you awake. Sadly, I didn't find one before Izzzzzzzzzzz
cspiwak's review
5.0
An excellent book. After an introduction to evolution and bird physiology and an overview of species, it gives information on mating, child rearing, migration, feeding and social structure. A nice mix, primarily of science, but with a bit of philosophy for good measure
More...