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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more