Skip to main content

The Book of the Moon – Rick Stroud ***

Don’t get the idea that this is a bad book because it only gets three stars. It’s an excellent compendium of information about our nearest and most spectacular (if you don’t count the sun) heavenly body.
The book is divided into sections, beginning with a general facts section, before going onto an ‘astronomers’ section that takes us through the timeline from the very first possible recordings of the moon in prehistoric carvings to observations from the Apollo missions. Some sections are better that others. One called ‘Gardening and the Weather’ for example smacks a little of desperation, going into the weird ideas of biodynamics at considerably more length than this fringe concept deserves. By contrast, the book finishes with a delightful selection called miscellany that pulls together all sorts of odds and sods from moon-oriented cocktails to moon hoaxes and musical references. It’s no wonder there’s a comment from Ben Schott of Schott’s Miscellany on the front.
Delightful though that final chapter is, it brings out the real flaw in this book and the reason it only scores three stars – it’s almost impossible to read from cover to cover. It’s a dip-in book, and as such struggles to live up to the label of popular science. Given its nature I’d have liked to have seen more illustrations. There are two sets of good colour plates, but it could be argued that a book like this – almost Dorling Kindersley style – needs to be illustrated throughout.
Apparently it’s the UNESCO Year of Astronomy, marking 400 years since Galileo’s first recorded astronomical observations, plus the fortieth anniversary of the first manned moon landings, so the book is certainly timely. It’s by no means a bad effort, but I’d love to see a proper, well written popular science narrative book on the subject.

Hardback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you   
Review by Jo Reed
Labels:

Comments

  1. Unknown5 October 2019 at 20:30

    Rick Stroud makes a statement on the history channel stating that the the reason the moon has phases is because the earth blocks the sunlight to it. Hopefully he now knows how incorrect that is. What he's describing is a lunar eclipse. The phases of the moon happen because of earth's point of view. If the moon is illuminated from one side, we only see half of the moon illuminated. So if the moon is closer in the sky to the sun then we may see only a sliver of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Clegg6 October 2019 at 00:19

      As this commenter has not given any detail of the source, we can't check it. Obviously the commenter is correct about the lunar eclipse and cause of the moon's phases. If the assertion about the phases being caused by the earth blocking sunlight had been made in the book, I would expect our reviewer to have picked it up. I do note that Mr Stroud is a historian, not a scientist, and if the History Channel comment was in an interview, it is easy to say something incorrect under pressure.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more