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

The Great Silence – Milan Cirkovic ****

The great 20th century physicist Enrico Fermi didn’t say a lot about extraterrestrial life, but his one utterance on the subject has gone down in legend. He said ‘Where is everybody?’ Given the enormous size and age of the universe, and the basic Copernican principle that there’s nothing special about planet Earth, space should be teeming with aliens. Yet we see no evidence of them. That, in a nutshell, is Fermi’s paradox.

Not everyone agrees that Fermi’s paradox is a paradox. To some people, it’s far from obvious that ‘space should be teeming with aliens’, while UFO believers would scoff at the suggestion that ‘we see no evidence of them’. Even people who accept that both statements are true – including  a lot of professional scientists – don’t always lose sleep over Fermi’s paradox. That’s something that makes Milan Cirkovic see red, because he takes it very seriously indeed. In his own words, ‘it is the most complex multidisciplinary problem in contemporary science’.

He points out th…

The Order of Time - Carlo Rovelli ***

There's good news and bad news. The good news is that The Order of Time does what A Brief History of Timeseemed to promise but didn't cover: it attempts to explore what time itself is. The bad news is that Carlo Rovelli does this in such a flowery and hand-waving fashion that, though the reader may get a brief feeling that they understand what he's writing about, any understanding rapidly disappears like the scent of a passing flower (the style is catching).

It doesn't help either that the book is in translation so some scientific terms are mangled, or that Rovelli has a habit of self-contradiction. Time and again (pun intended) he tells us time doesn't exist, then makes use of it. For example, at one point within a page of telling us of time's absence Rovelli writes of events that have duration and a 'when' - both meaningless terms without time. At one point he speaks of a world without time, elsewhere he says 'Time and space are real phenomena.'…

The Happy Brain - Dean Burnett ****

This book was sitting on my desk for some time, and every time I saw it, I read the title as 'The Happy Brian'. The pleasure this gave me was one aspect of the science of happiness that Dean Burnett does not cover in this engaging book.

Burnett's writing style is breezy and sometimes (particularly in footnotes) verging on the whimsical. His approach works best in the parts of the narrative where he is interviewing everyone from Charlotte Church to a stand-up comedian and various professors on aspects of happiness. We get to see the relevance of home and familiarity, other people, love (and sex), humour and more, always tying the observations back to the brain.

In a way, Burnett sets himself up to fail, pointing out fairly early on that everything is far too complex in the brain to really pin down the causes of something as diffuse as happiness. He starts off with the idea of cheekily trying to get time on an MRI scanner to study what his own brain does when he's happy, b…