Skip to main content

Can fiction educate?

I've just reviewed a very interesting book - Pythagoras' Revenge by Arturo Sangalli.

It's a novel... but its aim is more that of a popular maths book. Although there is a storyline and characters, it explains quite a lot of maths along the way.

In previous posts I've looked at books that were science books without being science fiction - whether it was the lab lit of Experimental Heart and Tangled Roots or the nuclear energy thriller Rad Decision. This book is slightly different - where they have a science setting and incidentally get across some of the science, this explicitly sets out to be a vehicle to educate as well as entertain.

It's a mixed bag - I wasn't particularly impressed with it as a novel, and occasionally it just goes into information dump mode - yet despite this, I'd say it was a success. The fact is, it was a lighter read than a traditional popular science/maths book. It did make me want to read on, like fiction does.

I think there are some real opportunities for doing this kind of thing even better in the future.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney14 June 2009 at 11:18

    Really interesting, Brian. Thanks. I'm thinking about the next novel now (the one after the one after Tangled Roots) and I'd like to get back to including science in my fiction, but somehow in a different way. This might be worth a look.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg15 June 2009 at 08:34

    Yes - I don't think there are technique lessons here, but I do think it demonstrates that it is a good way get science/maths across, even if it doesn't make for the best possible novel.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
122 comments
Read more

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
6 comments
Read more