Skip to main content

Seven Wonders of the Universe – C. Renée James ***

There is a certain approach to writing popular science that I come across a lot in reviewing children’s science books. They belong to what I think of as the ‘Hey isn’t the universe wonderful!’ bright and breezy style. This often works well for children, but in a book for adults I can find it a bit wearing. If not pitched just right, it can feel rather condescending, as if the readers are being treated like children. Whether or not it’s condescending we will discover, but ‘Hey, wow, gee whiz!’ is certainly the style of this book.
We start with a little trip out into the backyard, doing a mundane task (putting out the trash), but Renée James reveals to us that there is nothing mundane about the experience when you really take in what’s going on. This is rather nice. From it, she derives seven ‘wonders of the universe’ which will form the structure of the book. The division into these seven topics is sometimes a bit arbitrary, so the section on Night (not exactly much of a science concept) ends up skating around gravity ( which is another section) when talking about tides (no, I don’t know what tides have to do with night either).
What is certainly true is that despite the breezy approach, the author manages to pack a lot in, and doesn’t shy away from relativity and quantum theory and all those good things, even though she also tackles the more mundane aspects of science. In this respect it’s excellent (although there have been so many ‘all of science’ books recently that it’s perhaps time we got back to focussing in on a bit more detail). However to do this in the book’s style does tend to result in over simplification. So, for example, she blithely says that because of the expanding universe all galaxies are moving away from ours, which isn’t really factually accurate.
To help make it more approachable and cuddly it is scattered with rather strange illustrations by Lee Jamison. These are full page sketches in a sort of comic form, often anthropomorphising physical objects like particles, giving them rather hideous faces. I’m not sure there is a lot of benefit from the illustrations, which don’t really add much, other that to emphasize that this is an ‘approachable’ view on science.
There seems to have been limited communication between the writer and the illustrator. I deduce this because on a little section on ‘Why is the sky blue?’, James gives the correct explanation – because the light is scattered by the air molecules, and blue light is scattered more than red. (It’s a good illustration of the writing style that we are told: ‘Because of its longer wavelength and easy-going personality, red light tends to be bothered less… than more energetic, hyperactive blue light… Blue light [...] has a panic attack when it hits molecules in the air…’ Easy-going personality?? But on the whole, apart from one slip, the main text correctly ascribes the blue sky to interaction with air molecules. But the illustration says that ‘Longer wavelength photons, like red are disturbed less by dust in the air.’ It is reverting to the incorrect Victorian explanation that the blue sky is caused by dust. (The main text mentions dust once, but seems to have been corrected to air molecules elsewhere.) Practically every book has a few mistakes, but this is made more glaring by the illustration.
Overall, in terms of the information that’s put across there really is a lot going for this book, but the style is one that you will love or hate, and it tends to be too summary in many aspects of what it’s covering (an almost inevitable side effect of trying to cover everything). It’s not a bad book by any means, but I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about it. I would much of preferred with half the content and more detail, or reworked as a children’s book.
Paperback:  
Also in hardback:  
Review by Jo Reed

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quantum Space: Jim Baggott *****

There's no doubt that Jim Baggott is one of the best popular science writers currently active. He specialises in taking really difficult topics and giving a more in-depth look at them than most of his peers. The majority of the time he achieves with a fluid writing style that remains easily readable, though inevitably there are some aspects that are difficult for the readers to get their heads around - and this is certainly true of his latest title Quantum Space, which takes on loop quantum gravity.

As Baggott points out, you could easily think that string theory was the only game in town when it comes to the ultimate challenge in physics, finding a way to unify the currently incompatible general theory of relativity and quantum theory. Between them, these two behemoths of twentieth century physics underlie the vast bulk of physics very well - but they simply can't be put together. String theory (and its big brother M-theory, which as Baggott points out, is not actually a the…

Beyond Weird - Philip Ball *****

It would be easy to think 'Surely we don't need another book on quantum physics.' There are loads of them. Anyone should be happy with The Quantum Age on applications and the basics, Cracking Quantum Physics for an illustrated introduction or In Search of Schrödinger's Cat for classic history of science coverage. Don't be fooled, though - because in Beyond Weird, Philip Ball has done something rare in my experience until Quantum Sense and Nonsense came along. It makes an attempt not to describe quantum physics, but to explain why it is the way it is.

Historically this has rarely happened. It's true that physicists have come up with various interpretations of quantum physics, but these are designed as technical mechanisms to bridge the gap between theory and the world as we see it, rather than explanations that would make sense to the ordinary reader.

Ball does not ignore the interpretations, though he clearly isn't happy with any of them. He seems to come clo…

Everything You Know About Planet Earth is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

This is the latest of a series of 'Everything You Know About... is Wrong' books from Matt Brown. Although I always feel slightly hard done by as a result of the assertion in the title, as there are certainly things here I know that aren't wrong (I mean, come on, the first corrected piece of 'knowledge' is that 'The Earth is only 6,000 years old' and I can't imagine many readers will 'know' that), it's a handy format to provide what are often surprisingly little snippets of information that are very handy for 'did you know' conversations down the pub (or showing up your parents if you're a younger reader).

Some of the incorrect statements that head each article are well-covered, if often still believed (for example, people thought that world was flat before Columbus), some are a little tricksy in the wording (such as seas have to wash up against land) and some are just pleasantly surprising (countering the idea that gold is a rar…