The August 28 New Yorker has an article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber about the mathematicians who have contributed to the proof of the Poincare' conjecture: Hamilton the playboy, Yau of the infinite ambition, and Perelman the Pure (somehow Thurston escapes scrutiny, appearing merely as a mathematician with a brilliant conjecture). Yau comes off badly in this article. He and his students have undertaken the usually thankless task of fleshing out the proof sketches for major results like Perelman's. Yau added the twist of giving themselves the lion's share of the credit, relegating the original thought to an "important contribution". Both Yau and Perelman acknowledge Hamilton as having had the key idea, the Ricci flow. But in the subsequent 25 years he couldn't finish off the work. Too much windsurfing, perhaps? More importantly, a blindness to the young Russian. Perelman figuratively tugged at his coatsleeve, "Sir, I did some work that might apply." Hamilton was friendly but immersed in his own world. The contrast between Perelman and Yau makes for a great story. Perelman is younger and so unambitious that he has caused consternation. "Reclusive", "ascetic", "obsessed" are common descriptions. It's misleading. The reporters have an amusing story of trying to lure him out of his apartment for a meeting, acting a bit as though they were out to trap a squirrel. After three days, as a last resort, they knocked on the door and asked to see him. He was most gracious. I don't think the article will lead anyone to become a mathematician and I don't think it explains the mathematical ideas particularly well, but it's interesting to see mathematicians portrayed as personalities. Non-mathematical people will read this article and realize that there's drama to be had in even purest of academic pursuits. Hilarie