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

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