Tag: nonfiction

The Science of Doctor Who by Paul Parsons

The Science of Doctor Who CoverFrom the front flap:
Almost fifty years after the Doctor first crossed the small screen, he remains a science fiction touchstone. His exploits are thrilling, his world is mind-boggling, and that time travel machine—known as the Tardis—is almost certainly an old-fashioned blue police box, once commonly found in London.

Paul Parsons’s plain-English account of the real science behind the fantastic universe portrayed in the television series answers such burning questions as whether a sonic screwdriver is any use for putting up a shelf, how Cybermen make little Cybermen, where the toilets are in the Tardis, and much more.

(Note: This is the 2010 revision of a book originally published in 2006.)

Review:
I am not a science person. In my years of schooling, I never once came up with a non-lame idea for a science project and was positively abysmal at experiments. I did pretty well on tests and homework, but if someone’s test tube was going to spontaneously erupt in a geyser of brown froth (true story!), it would be mine.

Suffice it to say, then, that while I enjoy science fiction entertainment, it’s not because of the science. Still, The Science of Doctor Who promises “a plain-English account of the real science behind the fantastic universe portrayed in the television series,” so I reckoned on being able to follow it. Alas, Paul Parsons’s definition of plain English is a bit different than mine.

I was okay with the majority of the material. Chapter topics include the Doctor’s recurring foes, regeneration, gadgets, weapons, space stations, force fields, parallel universes, and more. In general, Parsons would start by mentioning something that happened in a particular Doctor Who serial and then interview renowned scientists as to whether this is actually possible. Most of the time the answer is “no” or “only with extreme amounts of energy/effort,” but there are a few things that are not so far off. The chapters on alien worlds (Lots of planets really do have a north!) and mirror planets were particular favorites of mine.

Stupidly, however, I hadn’t counted on there being so much physics! I frequently found my eyes glazing over during these sections, which were unfortunately clustered near the beginning (making it hard to get started) and end (causing a strong urge to set the book down with only forty pages to go) of the book.

Take, for example, this quote from page 35:

M-theory’s main thrust is to generalize the one-dimensional objects of string theory into p-dimensional objects known, amusingly enough, as p-branes (where setting p = 0 gives a particle, p = 1 gives a string, p = 2 a “membrane,” and so on).

My brain’s response: asdlkjasldkfzzt!

Seriously, is that plain English? I note that Parsons did not bother to define “p-dimensional,” though that probably wouldn’t have been much help to me anyway.

In the end, I did learn some interesting things. In the chapter on Cybermen, for example, I learned that a cybernetic brain implant currently exists that can block the signals that cause Parkinson’s disease. That’s pretty awesome! I also now know that Sontarans reproduce by cloning and it takes only ten minutes for their offspring to reach adulthood. That’s less awesome.

I’m glad I didn’t give up on reading The Science of Doctor Who but now I think I’ll give my brain a rest by actually watching some.

Share

J’s Take on The Science of Doctor Who

The Science of Doctor Who Cover
Because when you can capitalize on a media sensation without breaking copyright laws, why shouldn’t you? The Science of Doctor Who takes the science and quasi-science and pseudo-science you can find in Doctor Who and compares it to the state of real world science (and techology).

I never found it so dull that I wanted to completely stop reading it, but I didn’t find it fascinating or captivating for the most part. A lot of the science that was included were things I already knew, or studies I’d already heard of. Some of it was new, but already I couldn’t call up one example of it.

At times, he got so deeply involved in explaining some scientific concept that he’d go for pages without even mentioning Doctor Who.

It also seemed to me that he kept referring to the same episodes. He’s really keen on “The Empty Child” and “The Doctor Dances”, using them for all sorts of examples of things. And most of the older Who episodes he mentioned were ones I’d seen or heard of, because they were released on DVD. Which started to make me wonder if he’d really watched all the Who he could possibly watch, or only hit the highlights.

Right at the start, it says the book has been updated up until the Eleventh Doctor. But don’t expect a lot of updates. Ten doesn’t even get much action. And right in the first chapter, the first paragraph even, he says we don’t know if the doctor has a family. Apart from calling a girl his granddaughter in the first series. Well, we all know there’s more family than that!

Where I really took objection to what he was saying though was in regards to Jack Harkness. He says in the future everyone’s bi and then blithers on about not having to reproduce in the traditional manner, so being straight is no longer biologically necessary. Or something. But Jack is not bi, because he doesn’t limit himself to two genders, or even to humans. And the kiss he and the Doctor shared is a not a ‘gay kiss’. Because neither of them is gay!

Oh, oh, and then he talks about this idea that this female scientist had that.. wow, the Doctor could regenerate as a woman! And he thought it’d blow our minds a little if the Doctor were transgender. I think it was him that had his mind blown when she mentioned the idea.

Back to the science.. I don’t know how many explanations I’ve read now about the theory of relativity and gravity and time and the speed of light. I don’t pretend that I understand it fully, but I’m not really eager to read about it anymore. I think that sort of thing is better demonstrated with video. Not little graphics and text written by a non-scientist.

I wish there had been more Dr. Who images in the book. Or like.. anything. I think one picture might’ve featured the TARDIS. I guess they didn’t want to pay any licensing fees. But it made the graphics that were included all the more boring to look at.

Well, that all made me sound rather down on the book. But overall it wasn’t bad. It wasn’t a slog. If you like Doctor Who and want to learn about cutting edge science, go for it. If you just want to get your geek on, probably Chicks Who Dig Time Lords is a more interesting read. And if you’re looking for science, go for Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Share

Doubletake: J on The Sky is Not the Limit

The Sky is Not the Limit Cover
All I really knew about Neil deGrasse Tyson going into this book is from his appearances on The Daily Show, his hosting of NOVA ScienceNOW (seriously, what is up with that capitalization?), and perhaps short appearances in documentaries about science. So I guess I knew him as an interesting, fun guy who is big on all that science stuff.

The Sky is Not the Limit is pretty much a memoir. He talks about his love of astrophysics and how it grew from childhood onward.

At first this book read like a love letter to the Hayden Planetarium! Which before reading this book, I could not have accurately placed in New York City. It’s the Hayden Planetarium that inspired him to become an astrophysicist, and the Hayden Planetarium that really educated and pushed him that way (more so than school). And eventually the Hayden Planetarium that he became director of.

But eventually he does talk about other things. You wouldn’t think a black kid in the city would be particularly privileged, but he was very lucky. The Hayden Planetarium led him to a connection to this guy who was in um.. some sort of Explorer’s Club. I forget the name of it. And that led to opportunities to take trips and things. While still only 14, he was on an eclipse cruise with Isaac Asimov! Of course it helped that he decided on a career path early and avidly pursued it.

His story is interesting, although the book certainly has its less than stellar (wait for it…) moments.

Typographically: He misspelled Stephen Hawking’s first name once, though he got it right subsequently. Also there were a number of sentences that just.. made me stop and reread them. They weren’t constructed quite.. right. Or quite clearly. I guess it’s not necessarily something a copyeditor would notice, but it would’ve been nice if someone did.

Thematically: The last two chapters are about the end of the world and about god and science. They didn’t seem to quite belong in this book. Or, if they were going to be there, they should not have been the concluding chapters. I would’ve preferred a final chapter talking about his daily life now (what do astrophysicists do all day?), the Hayden Planetarium, or science education in the US.

Pictures: In the copy I read, there were pictures. Although we had our hands on another edition and that one did not. Oversight! Though I hate that pictures are usually in the middle of a book. It’s probably for pure physical publishing reasons, but.. it means that you’re already chapters away from a person’s childhood before you see a picture of them as a kid. And then if you look at all of the pictures when you come to them, you’re spoiled for the rest of the book! I’d prefer the pictures either spread out or entirely at the back.

When I started reading this book, I could strongly hear his voice narrating it for me. But soon enough that dropped away and it was just my usual inner reading voice. (Which sounds like me, but much cooler.)

He said a couple of things in this book that I disagree with. First, he seems to go on this rant against good students. Straight-A students will be Straight-A students regardless of their teacher. People with high IQs aren’t successful. They aren’t out saving the world. And though I can understand if he’s trying to tell kids who don’t get high marks that that doesn’t mean they can’t be successful after high school and do great, amazing, awesome things.. it felt kind of insulting to me. And could read as an excuse to slack off in school and go play with your telescope. Which will not get you into a good school with a scholarship!

Though I do agree that the terms ‘gifted and talented’ are problematic. I’ve read Talent is Overrated. I know that hard work and just sitting down and doing it will take you further than anything you inherited genetically.

It was a bit amusing to hear him rant about the starscape in the movie “Titanic”. Apparently it was wrong. And it was our scientific illiteracy as a nation that made this okay. He said more critics should be alert to these things. I think maybe he hasn’t been reading the geeky reviews I generally do. Believe me, if people notice a problem, they’ll say so! See Exhibit J and Exhibit K. (Those were even about astronomy!)

He devotes a chapter called “Dark Matters” to discussing a bit of what it’s like to be a black man and an astrophysicist. From the cops who pull him over more often than if he were white to the person at a wedding who assumed he knew more than Tyson did about how popcorn falls out of plane. (How cool is that, by the way? If I get married, prepare to see popcorn dropped from a plane!!) He also talks about the pressure he felt to succeed in athletics and how he got told at one point that he shouldn’t be studying something so frivolous as astrophysics. And how he eventually got past that idea to the idea that being seen on television and other places as a scientist and (later) television personality who just happens to be black was pretty darned important itself.

Taken all together, this book is an interesting look into how Neil deGrasse Tyson views the world. His passion for science in general and astronomy in particular really shines through. Especially when he’s trying to convince us that mathematical equations are easy, interesting, and fun! And you know what? He kind of makes me regret not growing up in a big city.

I’m thinking this book might be a good gateway into reading his more astronomy topic-specific books. Especially for people, including kids, who might be more inclined to like a biography than a science book.

Now go add NOVA ScienceNOW to your Tivo season passes.

Share

The Man Who Loved Books Too Much by Allison Hoover Bartlett: B

The Man Who Loved Books Too MuchFrom the back cover:
Unrepentant book thief John Charles Gilkey has stolen a fortune in rare books from around the country. Yet unlike most thieves, who steal for profit, Gilkey steals for love—the love of books. Perhaps equally obsessive, though, is Ken Sanders, the self-appointed “bibliodick” driven to catch him. Sanders, a lifelong rare book collector and dealer turned amateur detective, will stop at nothing to catch the thief plaguing his trade.

In following both of these eccentric characters, journalist Allison Hoover Bartlett plunged deep into a world of fanatical book lust and ultimately found herself caught between the many people interested in finding Gilkey’s stolen treasure and the man who wanted to keep it hidden: the thief himself.

With a mixture of suspense, insight, and humor, Bartlett has woven this cat-and-mouse chase into a narrative that not only reveals exactly how Gilkey pulled off his crimes and how Sanders eventually caught him, but also explores the romance of books, the lure to collect them, and the temptation to steal them.

Review:
When a man depicted in a nonfiction narrative is described on the back cover as someone “who will stop at nothing to catch the thief” who has been victimizing members of the Antiquarian Booksellers’ Association of America, a reader might be forgiven for expecting some sort of chase. The clever thief. The details of his crimes. The dogged pursuer. The final, satisfying capture. The end.

But that’s not what one gets with The Man Who Loved Books Too Much. I don’t fault author Bartlett for this—she probably had little to do with the way the book was marketed—but it’s rather disappointing all the same. Instead, the book is more a profile of John Gilkey, a mild-mannered guy who used a combination of identity theft and manipulative politeness to steal vast quantities of rare and valuable books. It’s not as if his methods are ingenious, it’s just that he found one that worked and employed it over and over again until enough booksellers finally pooled their information and got him caught. Until he made bail. Then stole again. And was incarcerated again. Then stole again.

The details of some of his crimes are provided, and the scenes of police investigations and sting operations are genuinely fascinating. I liked, too, that Bartlett began to wonder what her responsibilities were regarding some of the information Gilkey had divulged to her, and how much she herself had become a part of the story. Even the fact that Bartlett is more interested in why Gilkey steals than what or how is fine, but after being told for the fourth time that Gilkey steals because he wants a collection others will envy and feels entitled to have it, regardless of whether he can afford it—and how, but for “his crimes and his narcissistic justification of them,” he’s not that different from law-abiding collectors—I began to grow weary.

I admit to some peevishness over the title, as well. Gilkey is not a man who loves books, but a man who loves the status owning an impressive array of recognizable titles will bestow. Granted, that’s a little long for a book title, but as someone who genuinely loves books—for their content!—I am annoyed that someone who merely desires their sheer presence on a shelf gets to make the same claim.

Ultimately, those looking for a detective-style story with a definitive ending will be disappointed. Gilkey is brought to justice for only a fraction of his crimes and shows no intention of stopping any time soon. As the portrait of an obsessed thief with a grudge against those who would keep him from what he believes he deserves, the book is more successful, though somewhat repetitive.

Share

J’s Take on The Man Who Loved Books Too Much

The Man Who Loved Books Too Much
Allison Hoover Bartlett introduces us to a bookseller on the trail of an unusual book thief, and to the book thief himself. Along the way, she and us her readers learn more about the rare book trade. Though I still find the desire to own a bunch of old books incomprehensible on a gut level.

I can understand it from a bookseller’s point of view. Heck, reading this book makes me want to learn more about rare books so I know how to spot them at library booksales! I’ve been watching a lot of Auction Kings, Pawn Stars, and American Pickers, so I can definitely see the thrill of the hunt. Discovering this expensive little gem in the midst of a bunch of worthless dusty books. That’d be cool. And then, of course, attempting to sell it at a profit. Not that many people get rich in the business..

It’s the collector’s and by extension the thief’s point of view that I can’t quite understand. I want books so I can read them. I want old books because they’re out of print and it’s the only way I can read them. I do like owning books that I like, so I know I have them and can reread them when I want. But I don’t need to own every book I’ve read, or even every book I want to read.

I own books that have been signed, but when it comes to standing in line for autographs, I sometimes wonder why I’m doing it. To have a chat with the author, or to support the author, sure. To then have a signed book I’m reluctant to read and unwilling to sell. Well.. what to do with it?

So.. why own a book that’s signed, or was owned by someone famous, or is just old. What’s so special about a first edition compared to a third or fourth? Especially if there’s no change in the text. Why?

The thief in this book wants to own an impressive library. Well, I have visions of having a large library with one of those rolling ladders. But I don’t need to fill it with books to impress people. I don’t need them to be old books, rare books, expensive books. I want it filled with cool books! Awesome books!

Will my view of this change as I get older? As I have more money to spend? As ebooks take over and print books become extinct? I dunno. Maybe, like the author of this book, I should try buying a rare book and seeing how I feel at buying it and owning it.

I dunno.

Speaking of ebooks, I have one quibble with the author. You are not allowed to disparage ebooks when you use the word ‘ebook’ to mean ‘ereader’. I would’ve even accepted ‘device’.

“Andy and his wife had each bought an e-book shortly before moving to Guadalajara. They were glad they had, since it’s nearly impossible to find books in English there, and the mail system is unreliable.”

Well, I hope they’re slow readers, that’s all! One book each to last them their whole time in Guadalajara.

Though she does then go on to say she thinks the physical books we do keep will have more meaning. And reminisces about books from her childhood and her kids’ books and whatnot. And I don’t know that I have a whole lot of books I have an emotional attachment to, as the physical object. So.. I dunno.

Reading the book made it obvious to me that there is more than one type of booklover. In fact, there may be 2 distinct types. (Or perhaps it’s a spectrum.) The ones who like books primarily for their content. And the ones who like books as objects, of which content is only a part.

Not that I don’t think most manga is pretty. Not that I don’t love the look and feel of the Doctor Who and Torchwood books (over and above the lackluster content). But few publishers are making books I love in that sort of way.

One other thing bugged me. Along about 2/3rds of the way in, she starts foreshadowing how she got all caught up in the thief and faced a moral, ethical, legal dilemma as he revealed more and more about this thieving to her. And the foreshadowing lends you to think that she’ll go to jail, or she’ll testify against him, or he’ll commit suicide, or.. something. I hope it’s not a spoiler to say that all that foreshadowing didn’t appear to lead up to anything to me! Maybe it was too subtle for me.

It was rather cool though to see how a book we read here on Triple Take had a great influence on the thief. The book is Booked to Die by John Dunning. This book would’ve reminded me of that book even if it hadn’t been mentioned.

This review is much more about me than about the book, but I’m okay with that! As I said, the book was interesting, and if you’re interested in learning more about the rare book trade or the mind of a thief, definitely you should read it. You can skip Booked to Die though. We all agreed it was mediocre at best.

Share