More fiction with science that isn't science fiction

A while ago I covered a novel with science as its theme that (probably) wasn't science fiction. I have recently read another book in this genre, which I thought worth a mention.

Let's get the bad news out of the way first. Rad Decision by James Aach (see here at Amazon.co.uk and here at Amazon.com) has some big weaknesses. The title tells you nothing, the cover is awful, the book itself is all too obviously self-published (don't use underlining for emphasis, Jim), and it has a couple of real problems as a novel. There is absolutely zero identification with the protagonist. In fact, I don't know who the protagonist is. The person we identify with most (I don't know if this is intentional) is a Russian spy, who is anything but the hero. Otherwise we get lots of characters thrown at us who are often indistinguishable, and for whom we don't care at all.

Finally on the negative (sorry, Jim), the science is thrown in too heavy handedly. We have (rather scruffy) diagrams of the reactor system. Why? We have little lectures on what a millirad is and much too much detail on how the safety systems work. Yawn.

So you might wonder why I'm bothering to comment. Well, despite all this, the book has two big things going for it. One is that we talk a lot about nuclear power, and this is an insider view of the reality (including a scary dramatized description of the Chernobyl accident) - making it clear just how little of it is black and white. There are many shades of grey here. Secondly, the section of the book towards the end where things go wrong is genuinely tense and page-turning in its excitement. You might not care about the characters, but you want to know how things will turn out.

So this is a book that could do with a big professional edit - but I'd still recommend taking a look at it if you are interested in just what's going on (or, more accurately, when it was set - 20 years ago) in nuclear power stations, and would like that information in effective story form.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog