The Information has a lot going for it. And it has a lot going against it.
For starters, Gleick keeps the read enjoyable with his strong prose style. The author controls the pace and tone of his writing to carry readers along almost cinematically. Indeed, many passages read like the voice-over of a History Channel program, while simultaneously conjuring for readers the images that would play under the voice-over. It is a strong effect, engrossing and enjoyable.
The other big strong point of The Information is how wide-ranging -- yet unified -- its topic is. Gleick has, rather conspicuously, rounded up a huge catalog of sources and influences and subjects. I believe if a person is really going to like this book, it will be as an exuberant, unregimented romp through the jungle that is information. The book is ambitious, and looks at the world with the wide eyes of delight ... not the furrowed brow of calculation.
And given this combination of the book's ambition and approach, from The Information emerge some weaknesses. The book's treatment of its various subjects is very uneven. Gleick does a good job of impressing on readers how big a shift in mindset literacy generates. He gives an engrossing treatment of talking drums, and he gives an equally engrossing treatment of Charles Babbage and Ada Byron. These subjects together form an informal "first half" of the book, and succeed in prompting readers to think through the genesis of information as something (first) represented and (eventually) manipulated in tangible forms like scripts, tones, and gears.
Since we today generally take for granted a certain relationship between information, our minds, and our instruments, it is a major accomplishment that Gleick gets us to note that we haven't always lived this way and to think through how we got this way.
But after Gleick accomplishes this in the first portion of the book, he falters. His treatment of most subsequent topics is often not cogent. For example, in his treatment of thermodynamic information, he equivocates on what Maxwell's Demon is or isn't, and whether it exists or doesn't. Gleick ends up noting that the demon could not operate, but then he keeps referring to it as if it really does operate, a (presumably) rhetorical move that is pointless and incoherent.
Later on, Gleick gives a treatment of both genes and memes that is strangely uninspired. The fact that the book's wide scope requires the treatment of any particular topic to be fairly shallow does not combine well with the fact that almost everyone these days has a passing familiarity with both genes and memes: Gleick says no more than "the educated layperson" already knows. In a book on The Information, it seems genes and memes must be discussed as a matter of course -- but these sections don't add value to the book.
Moreover, the section on genes was even more deeply flawed. Gleick attributes to Watson and Crick the elucidation of the information content of DNA. He thereby conflates the chemical structure of the DNA molecule with the information structure of the DNA code. This is analogous to saying that the first person who figured out that a charred stick could be used to make marks on slate was the person who figured out writing. Or, it is analogous to saying that the information content of enigma-encrypted Wehrmacht transmissions was retrieved not by the codebreakers at Bletchly Park but by the radio operators who determined what radio frequency the messages were broadcast on. This is a rather profound mistake, considering the subject of The Information.
And this major mistake cropped up again and again, in different contexts. Despite his attentiveness to the father of information theory, Shannon, Gleick never got around to explicitly saying what makes something information, nor did Gleick implicitly follow any solid definition of information. This becomes problematic toward the end, where Gleick wants to unify everything under quantum information -- "it from bit" -- with the entire universe as a collection of physical-informational states. That is an interesting concept, but it actually has little to do with "information" as treated in the rest of the book: alphabets, calculators, cyphers, telegraphs, genes, Wikipedia articles. In all these contexts, something is informational when one physical object stands in for something else -- say, AAG for lysine, or dot-dot-dot for s. Gleick seems aware of this special relationship that defines information (per Shannon), but never pursues it and eventually abandons it. The sense of "information" he ends with is simply the notion that at certain levels, such as the level of quarks, the objects of study are indistinguishable from the formalisms by which we know them. That's a deep topic, but it isn't really pursued for its own sake; it is deployed as a rhetorical way to make "everything" informational ... even though it's only nominally related to the informational topics discussed in the rest of the book.
I found it intriguing that, in the final chapter, Gleick mentions in passing a perfect 1:1 map of everything as suggested by Lewis Carroll. Carroll was quite witty and this map is, of course, absurd. Its absurdity is precisely the problem that arises when Gleick conflates his two kinds of information. A perfect 1:1 map of everything A) would not be a map and B) would not be the thing itself.
So there were some deep conceptual problems plaguing The Information. Relatedly, the book lacked form. It was sprawling, and attempts at unification (aside from leading Gleick to embrace absurdities and forget what information even is) fell flat. As Gleick reminds us at the end in his excellent prose, there is a lot of information on the internet, and a lot of particles in the universe -- not exactly a parting thought that leaves readers pondering.
Finally, the references are in such bad shape that they warrant comment. None of the main body text has citations of any kind. Multiple times, I looked up authors who were quoted and found no entries in the bibliography! There is a section of "notes", which appears to be a collection of endnotes containing citations and comments, presumably for the many unsourced quotations in the book. This section is puzzling, because the text does not actually refer to any notes. I infer that the numerals which signal there is an endnote pertaining to some point in the text have all been removed from the book, but the notes themselves retained. Presumably the in-text designation of notes was removed to make the text appear readable rather than intimidating. A rigorously sourced book suggests to readers it is meant to be taken seriously; apparently it was decided that that would send the wrong impression for this book.
-
Bottom line:
The Information was fun and interesting. The first half was especially strong, even illuminating. But there were also serious conceptual and formal problems that prevented the book's content from matching the potential of such an ambitious topic. The book is much more likely to reward casual reading than serious or repeated reading.