Skip to main content

Fire, Ice and Physics - Rebecca Thompson **

It's easy to see the way that science fiction can fit with a 'science of' treatment - less so a fantasy such as Game of Thrones, which is the topic of the latest in this long-lasting genre. However, it's certainly not impossible. The Science of Middle Earth, for example, does a great job of exploring the scientific content of Tolkien's output, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that Rebecca Thompson should be able to do the same for George R. R. Martin's blockbuster series of books and the accompanying TV show.

I ought to say straight away that the title here is a little misleading, as by no means all of the content is physics. It covers paleantology, biology, zombieology (is that a word?) and more - but physics probably has the biggest word count, perhaps fitting as Thompson is a physicist. She tells us that the idea of the book is to use the popular fantasy series to introduce science to a wider audience, but I'm not sure that the way the material is presented in this book does that job well.

A good popular science book has a careful blend of facts, context and narrative. Facts, of themselves, are rarely sustainably interesting. The problem here, ironically in a book about the science of a piece of fiction, is that there are far too many facts and nowhere near enough storytelling. So, for example, the idea that there are 17 structures of ice is a bit interesting if you then make something of the fact as part of a narrative - but here we’re told it is the case (complete with a totally uninformative phase diagram, one of three in the book), then we move straight on to the next fact.  There’s nothing actually made of the information. The result is, sadly, rather dull. 

 As far as I'm aware, most of the scientific content is accurate, but it does go a touch adrift when Thompson ventures into palaeontology. In trying to explain dragons scientifically (something Thompson eventually admits is an impossible task, which kind of undermines the premise of the whole book) we are told that pterosaurs, the winged flying reptiles that co-existed with dinosaurs, were cold blooded - however, modern opinion is that at least some if not all were warm-blooded. Also, we are told ‘Flying dinosaurs did exist, but as a group they are characterised as pterosaurs, with no one dinosaur bearing the name pterodactyl.’ Unfortunately, pterosaurs weren’t dinosaurs. And though pterodactyl isn't the generic term as it's often incorrectly used, the pterodactyl did exist, though admittedly it wasn’t a dinosaur either, as it was a type of pterosaur. 

 The actual science bits were sufficiently uninspiring that I looked forward to the parts that  concerned the goings on in Game of Thrones (which we could go many pages without returning to). When I started the book, I thought I would find these the least interesting part, as I only ever watched half the first season and gave up on it (a particularly embarrassing admission as a friend of mine was in the show). I'm sure if you are a GoT fan that the parts involving the series will indeed be interesting, but there's still going to be a lot of the book that is hard work.

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more