Skip to main content

The Milky Way - Moiya McTier ****

For some reason, our home galaxy has relatively light coverage in popular science, so it was good to read Moiya McTier's book last year (less good to have forgetten about it until now - this is probably due to the aversion mentioned at the end of the review).

After an introductory chapter, we start by looking at early ideas and myths about the sky pattern referred to most often now as the Milky Way, long before it was realised that this was our galaxy. We are then taken through the Milky Way's formation (and along with that information on stars and other components that go together to make up a galaxy) and McTier goes on to do everything from pull apart Star Trek's dodgy navigational coordinates to what remain mysteries to current science. (Unusually for a simplifying popular science book, we do hear a bit about alternatives to dark matter, though McTier does dismiss MOND using arguments that are weaker than those that could be used to dismiss dark matter particles.)

So far, so good. One thing that it is essential to cover is the subtitle. The second word is not 'biography', but 'autobiography'. The book is written from the viewpoint of the Milky Way as if it were a conscious entity. I must applaud this in the sense that it's a different way of looking at astronomy/astrophysics. Any book of this sort benefits from taking a different approach, because mostly it will have been done before. But.

For me, personally, the approach was one where I really had to suppress the cringe reflex. The first chapter begins 'Take a look around you, human. What do you see?.. Everything you've ever seen or touched is part of me. Yes, even you, you vain, filthy animal.' I don't know why, but this does feel ever so slightly condescending for an adult audience. And it's a bit odd - given we are effectively part of the Milky Way in terms of our constituents, why would it call us filthy? But then, on the whole, galaxies don't call people anything.

Anthropomorphising is, of course, an age-old technique. I used to watch a TV show called Tales of the Riverbank when I was four that featured, for instance, a talking guinea pig and loved it. But while I accept the originality of the approach as popular science, I still had to fight down my aversion as an adult. Perhaps the main potential problem in non-fiction is where to draw the line between the fiction of the talking galaxy and the reality of the science. For example, McTier's galaxy is quite boastful. It comments 'I am the greatest galaxy who has ever lived.' But the Milky Way is neither the biggest galaxy nor does it contain the most stars, making this a dubious boast at best.

As long as I had this tendency under control, there was plenty to enjoy here - and that's why I'm giving the book four stars. But I can't ignore it, nor do I think that it will work for every reader. But if you won't be put off by the approach, this is an excellent book on an essential topic.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book
Post a Comment
Read more

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more