I found Watson’s account of the discovery of the shape of the DNA molecule to be an interesting if biased personal account. At times Watson plays the part of the omniscient narrator, writing about another scientist and his own experiences, such as Maurice Wilkins and his problems with Rosalind Franklin. Most of the time he seems wrapped up in enjoying his own memories. Watson’s account is very easy to read and even enjoyable. At times in his story Watson is an innocent bystander while events happen around him, as he is directed by other scientists to study biochemistry, at other times he is manipulative or deceptive, misleading his fellowship grantors into extending his time even though he would no longer be working on things relevant to the purpose of the fellowship.
The historical account by editor Gunther S. Stent was a rather dry history of the events leading to the discovery of the shape of DNA. It does lay out the canvas upon which Watson paints his story, but it is only factual, not nearly interesting enough to keep anyone’s attention but the reader most interested in the history of molecular biology.
Francis Crick’s retrospective Double Helix is another dry history. It takes the reader back to the publishing of Watson and Crick’s scientific papers. It recounts the problems they had with describing the DNA structure and is harder to read when it gets into the details. It was interesting to read Crick's 'what-if' section: who might have discovered the DNA structure if he and Watson hadn't. I do believe (as did Crick) that someone would have found the structure if he and Watson hadn't.