Authors beware - check your illustrations!

One of the rough illustrations I've knocked up in my time

I've got really mixed feelings about illustrations in the kind of books I write. They can help explain something that's difficult to put across in words - but sometimes they feel like the easy way out. And at the same time, they are a pain for the author who usually has to source photos (and pay for them!), or is required to put a line drawing together with his/her limited graphics skills which might be improved on by a professional artist or might even just used as is.

However I have recently come across a situation where illustrations can have a painfully negative effect. This was in the Steven Hawking book The Grand Design, which has caused so much fuss because of Hawking's pronouncements that God and philosophy are no longer necessary. The illustrations in this book are beautiful - but I strongly suspect they were put together by an art editor without consulting the authors, because two of them are plain wrong.

At one point we read about a solar eclipse and how it is visible 'only in a corridor on the earth about 30 miles wide.' That's fine - but the accompanying illustration shows the moon throwing a shadow covering a fair proportion of the earth's hemisphere. This shadow certainly must be 15,000-20,000 kilometres across. Whoopsie!

A little later, there's quite a good explanation of the basics of relativity, but the illustration, showing a bouncing ball on an aicraft as seen from the plane and from the ground is totally confusing. The reason is the view from the ground shows the ball moving diagonally. That's fair enough. But it is shown moving diagonally with respect to the plane, rather than with respect to the ground. And that's just wrong. It's a Relativity 101 fail.

There is no way the authors could have made these basic errors, so I can only assume they never even bothered to look at the illustrations. A good lesson here. If you ever get paid so much for a book you don't need to look at the illustrations, it shouldn't stop you from doing so.

Comments

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