Skip to main content

New Stars for Old (SF) – Marc Read ***

I have said many times that there must be a way to combine fiction and popular science – to get a message across and provide a great story to enjoy as well. But it is a horriblydifficult thing to do, as the many failures fallen by the wayside have shown. In New Stars for Old, Marc Read takes the most original approach to this I have ever seen, and it holds out real promise to deliver on the dream.
In his introduction, Read points out that science is done by people, and as such we can’t really separate the achievements of science from the lives and times of the people making the discoveries. This is true, though his suggestion that the people are usually ignored applies more to textbooks than popular science – many popular science books spend a fair amount of time on the scientists and their lives. Read takes this one stage further, though, by giving us a series of fictional vignettes of the lives of people who have carried astronomy a step forward. Their scientific achievements come into it, but only incidentally. Each piece of fiction is then followed by a page of notes, which explain what is real and what is fiction, sometimes adding a tiny bit about the science.
There is a danger in taking this approach of producing a hilarious parody of a cartoon life. You could imagine a physics equivalent where we have a dialogue something like this:
‘Good morning, Michael. What are you doing today?’
‘Well, Mrs Faraday, or wife as I should call you, today I thought I would invent electromagnetism. Unless it’s sunny, in which case I shall take a stroll in the park. Or as us northerners would say, despite years living in the south, “a stroll in’t park”.’
Thankfully, the real thing is nothing like this. Read’s vignettes are well described, giving an effective picture of the time, and the science is introduced in as natural a way as is possible, though even here it can occasionally be a little stilted.
In terms of the idea and the broad direction, this is a five star book. But I do have some issues. The indirect nature of the science storytelling means that it isn’t always really very clear what it’s about. I know what Aristotle’s version of astronomy was like – but I struggled to see it in the occasional mentions amongst the rather lovey dovey description of the big man’s home life. It really needed more time on the science. Also, the downside of a series of vignettes is that the whole thing does not flow at all. It is, as they say in the fiction world, episodic in the extreme.
For me, the selection of scenes was too biassed to the early period. There are just too many medievals making minor steps forward. I wrote a book about Roger Bacon, so I am interested in the period, but still found the procession of King Roger II, Thomas Aquinas, Richard Swineshead, Nicolas Oresme, Cardinal Bessarion, Regiomontanus became more than a little dull. Newton is the final person covered, when arguably most of the really interesting astronomy was only just beginning. (Perhaps the rest are being saved for a sequel.)
Despite the fiction not really keeping my interest, particularly with the medievals (I had to resist flicking forward and just reading the notes), I still think this is a very brave and worthwhile venture. I think the format could well deliver that gold at the end of the rainbow that is popular-science-as-fiction – but more work is required to get the balance right.

Hardback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...