Skip to main content

Funny You Should Ask Again - QI ****

The BBC TV show QI has some very irritating characteristics. First, there's the twee reference to their researchers as 'elves'. Then there's the smugness. No quiz show has ever been so smug in the way it delights in the wrong answers of contestants. And it has featured some scientific bloomers, such as naming Galileo as the inventor of the telescope. But this book is based on the QI researchers (still nauseatingly called elves) appearance on Zoe Ball's breakfast show on BBC Radio 2, answering listeners' questions - making it far less cynical and a compendium of good, fun, surprising facts.

What we get here is a collection of one and two page articles answering questions from how an ant measures distance to why we don't say 'sheeps' (unless we are Jeremy Clarkson). Some of the topics are fairly well-known already - like there not being a licence to kill in MI6, why a computer mouse is called a mouse, or whether or clone would have the same fingerprints (they don't mention that you just need to look at identical twins). Others are obscure, but frankly hard to imagine why anyone would want to know. For example, which of our lips is more important or has there ever been a strike at a bowling alley. But there is a solid base of genuinely interesting and surprising answers, whether it's to why embedded spies are called moles or why unsavoury doesn't mean sweet. It's not a long book - I read it in under two hours - but there's plenty to enjoy and to want to tell whoever is near you.

There were a few small issues. The 'answers' don't always answer the actual question. The very first one in the book is 'Why do ladybirds have spots?' What they answer is 'Why are ladybirds brightly coloured?' - which isn't the same thing at all. Sometimes there are opportunities missed to go a bit further in what can be over-simplistic answers. So, for example, the section on why Christmas puddings are sometimes called plum puddings points out that the pudding is traditionally made on 'Stir-up Sunday', the Sunday before Advent. The implication is that the Sunday is called this because of the pudding. But it's much more interesting if you know that traditional collect (prayer) for that evening begins 'Stir up, O Lord...'

The biggest gaffe is in the section answering 'What's the difference between antlers and horns?' The text points out that unlike bony antlers, horns (found on cattle, sheep etc.) contain a 'little core of bone' with the external part being keratin. And the exception to this is the rhinoceros which 'doesn't have a horn at all' because the apparent horn is all keratin and 'lacks the bony core that normal horns have.' The book is somewhat randomly illustrated. This section is illustrated with a deer and its antlers... and a rhino with its horns have a bony core.

Mostly, though, the content is fine if sometimes the (groan) elves try a bit too hard to be funny. This title is clearly aimed at the gift book market and it would make an excellent present for teenagers and adults alike.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more