Howard Burton's book is for the most part a fun and lively summary of the origins of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Institute Physics written by one of its two founding members; the other is Mike Lazaridis, co-CEO of RIM .
The initial chapters, including Roger Penrose's satirical foreword about the alleged Howard Burton, are especially humorous and animated. What I found most appealing in these chapters, although they do continue throughout the book, are the combination of Burton's self-deprecating humour, his thoughts on the regrettable "cultural divide" between science and philosophy, and his grounded insights on the practice of science ("I watched many of my colleagues publish largely insignificant results to buttress their CVs", p. 31). However, it is the bizarre and life-changing happenstance that occurred with Mike Lazaridis that I still find amazing.
As the book progresses, it becomes more concerned with the administrative details and concerns of the institute: finding the correct mix of scientists and administrators, government funding and lethargy, reconciling ideological rifts in physics, and university politics. And accordingly it loses some of its initial exuberance and humour. This is when the true business of science is discussed. However, it still retains its engaging and informative narrative.
Readers who are knowledge about the world of contemporary physics and its participants will probably find the book very entertaining: Burton names a lot of names. His dig at John Bahcall (pp. 95-96), an astrophysicist at Princeton University, is in stark contrast with Burton's usual reverence towards established physicists. I only wish I were better acquainted with who these people are.
What might have improved the book is a more substantial explanation of some of the ideas (i.e., quantum computing, superstring theory, quantum gravity, etc.) being considered as appropriate topics of study at the institute - although such an approach could have slowed the pace of the account.
Another criticism that I have is that the prose is sometimes marred with awkward, run-on sentences and cliche-ridden expressions (e.g., "That was how we wanted to `make a difference', as the saying goes. But the devil was truly in the details", p.141). These flaws become very apparent during his occasional pedantic rant. His narrative works best when he employs a whimsical, matter-of fact approach, rather than a heavy-handed moralizing one.