Skip to main content

The Phantom Scientist (SF) - Robin Cousin ****

Over the years I've come across a range of graphic novels and graphic popular science (that's 'graphic' in the sense of illustrated, not explicit) and rarely found one that wasn't a bit of a disappointment compared with a traditional book. I think this is because, despite the old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words, the reduction of text to speech bubbles and tiny captions means that it's difficult to get any subtlety into the fiction, or depth of understand of the science into non-fiction.

The Phantom Scientist is a graphic novel, but one that according to the description 'draws together linguistics, biology, astrophysics, and robotics in a mind-bending puzzle that will thrill and inform readers' - so it takes on the very difficult role of both being an SF mystery thriller and something that puts across mathematical and scientific concepts. Because what happens is certainly not possible at the moment, it does stray into science fiction. The combination of putting across real science and maths plus fiction is hard enough with words, and doubly so in a graphic novel form.

There is, however, good news. This is the best attempt I've ever seen at putting scientific and mathematical ideas into a graphic novel format - and Robin Cousin manages to give the book a distinctly intriguing sense of mystery. It's because of this, despite its quite significant flaws, that I've given it four stars. The book features a strange institute, the fourth of its kind, where various random scientists are brought in so that their interactions cause increasingly chaotic occurrences, supposedly to inspire creativity. We get bits of system theory, the travelling salesman problem, fractals and more, all coming together quite effectively.

This is very much the Lego Movie style of comic strip - there is no attempt at life-like imagery, but enough to get a broad pictorial feeling of what's happening across. Having said that, for at least half the book I thought two different characters were the same person, and I could never identify who half of them were, which was quite confusing.

For no obvious reason, some of the images are very low contrast (see the examples to the right) - unless you read it under a bright light, where there's text, for example, it's almost impossible to read in these sections, which is a real pain.

Apart from the impossibility of a system predicting human behaviour as occurs here (the reason it's impossible is even stated by one of the characters), there are also a couple of plot holes: something that supposedly was going to occur in 36 hours' time happening after about 2 hours, and also a group of astrophysicists who seem to have no relevance to the overall picture (and whose only role seems to be to provide a torch). There's also a decidedly confused ending.

Despite these flaws, though, there is a quite impressive introduction to the P=NP question and its implications, plus various other bits of science and maths that emerge from the interaction of disciplines. If not entirely successful, it's a very good try at a near-impossible goal (which given the whole P=NP business, is arguably not a bad thing for it to be).

Hardback:   

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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