As the author does, I must make an initial confession. Unlike Deborah Coen, who has never felt an earthquake, I have felt many of them, so many that I cannot really tell if I was ‘living’ or ‘dreaming’ them. As a witness, I have had to deal with the same uncertainties, questions and feelings reported by many of the observers described in this book.

Through primary sources of several kinds, including correspondence, manuscripts, manuals, newspapers, cartoons, scientific literature and philosophical tracts, among others, the author explores the relationship between human beings and their environment. The book presents different subjects related to the historical study of seismic observation. To do this, Coen alternates chapters about geographically delimited case studies with other issues that are not limited to specific territories, empires or nations. Thereby the author covers nearly two centuries of seismic observation, since the Lisbon earthquake in 1755. However, her research is mainly concentrated in the nineteenth century and the early twentieth.

In the first chapter, Coen presents an overview of the status of seismology during the nineteenth century, pointing out the lack of disciplinary autonomy and the question about what was ‘relevant’ to be observed during an earthquake. However, as the author suggests, there was no unique way to observe earthquakes during the nineteenth century. This is the most important thesis of this book. Through four case studies, the author demonstrates that political, economic and cultural aspects had a key role not only in how to observe, record and measure earthquakes, but also on the way they were studied and understood. For example, Coen presents the development of seismic observation in Scotland (Chapter 2), Switzerland (Chapter 4), imperial Austria (Chapter 7) and the United States of America (Chapters 9 and 10).

The author shows how, in general terms, the dialogue between witnesses and experts was modified throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As is well explained in the book, the holistic perception of the earthquake experience and the value that was given to the testimony of lay observers changed in the late nineteenth century. An example of this is given in Chapter 5. In this chapter, Coen explains how adventurous travellers became crucial seismic reporters in the middle of the nineteenth century. In fact, several tips and advices were incorporated into manuals of scientific observation, to teach how earthquakes should be observed. Nevertheless, at the end of the nineteenth century, the editors of these manuals were no longer interested in this type of observation.

However, seismologists were not all in agreement about such observations. While some of them suggested replacing human observations with instrumental data, others argued that the eyewitness report was still necessary. These tensions between humans and instruments are discussed in Chapter 8. Particularly through the history of the International Seismological Association (ISA), Coen shows that seismologists disagreed about the value of the subjectivity of eyewitnesses and the objectivity of the instruments. The ISA, at the beginning of the twentieth century, served as a global network but also as a space to debate and discuss. The author shows that in the ISA's meetings scientists debated the preponderance of the local versus the global study, and work in an observatory versus work in the field.

The press was also a privileged space for debate and confrontation. Chapter 3 details the close relationship between science and journalism during the nineteenth century. Exaggeration, sensationalism and contradictory information could be found in earthquake news. Earthquake prophets and those who studied the causes of tremors found in newspapers a space to pursue authority and social legitimacy.

In this thoughtfully documented book, Coen also shows how the study of the relationships between science and earthquakes should not necessarily be restricted to the history of seismology. In fact, different approaches such as the study of psychological effects of disasters prove particularly relevant. For example, Chapter 6 demonstrates how vertigo, dizziness, nausea and other sensations experienced during and after earthquakes were studied by psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

This historical research on earthquake experiences, seismic observation, the making of seismic knowledge and the dialogue between scientists and citizens is undoubtedly an important contribution to the history of seismology and to social studies of science. Coen's book covers the development of the discipline, and the creation of scales, measures, instruments and institutions. It also deals with some renowned seismologists, such as Mallet, Milne, Suess, Gerland, Montessus de Ballore, Wood and Richter, among others. Nonetheless, the role of lay observers is also underlined. In fact, it is an important issue that should not be ignored by scholars who attempt to study the history of seismology using a sociocultural approach. As the author shows, lay observers played an important role in the making of seismic knowledge. Their perception, stories and reports, and even the language used by them, had an influence on those scientists who tried to understand the subsurface movements. Likewise, the contributions of these men and women were also guided and shaped by the experts. It was through dialogue and negotiation that the discipline was built, and thus the role of these actors cannot be ignored.

It should be noted that the book is focused on northern Europe and the United States of America, but not on other peripheral territories, even more seismic than these places: Peru, Mexico, Chile, Russia and New Zealand, among others. No doubt, this book opens the door to new sociocultural researches, focused on the periphery.