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

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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