Looking forward to 2024

Those of you who berate me when my reviews are mostly not science or science fiction books, the Christmas present reading pile is nearly done - expect more of a usual mix next week.

I don't believe in making New Year's resolutions - they just set you up for failure. But I hope, like me, you are, on the whole, looking forward to 2024. The world is going through a difficult period - of that there's no doubt. And politically, we've got elections in over half the democratic segment of the world - so there could be interesting times. But I do think a negative outlook can be self-fulfilling, and optimism is the best way to make the most of life.

I'm certainly looking forward to some excellent new popular science books in 2024. As it happens the first one I'll be reviewing next week is from 2022 (but the paperback, which I'm reviewing, is out in February). I know there are some excellent books on the way, including a far reaching title from last year's Royal Society Prize winner, Henry Gee. I am hoping we will have more popular science titles in areas of particular interest to me, such as physics, cosmology, IT and maths, and perhaps less emphasis on the human brain and medicine - but obviously I can see the appeal. We've certainly had some interesting scientific developments across the board in 2023, whether it's the rise of generative AI like ChatGPT or new vaccines, such as the promising Malaria vaccine.

As for me, I'm currently working on my next longer book, which is due in to the publisher in March - I can't give away anything at the moment, but I've enjoyed writing in more than anything else I've written in years*. It's unlikely to be out until 2025, but I've got big hopes for it.

Here's to the rest of 2024.

* Enjoyment in writing doesn't necessarily translate into big sales. The book I most enjoyed writing ever was Conundrum, my book of puzzles and ciphers to crack. It has some dedicated fans - and at the time of writing, 17 people worldwide have solved the book (you can see the hall of fame and find out more about the book at its website). But it hasn't been a big seller.

Image from Unsplash by Andreas Rasmussen

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

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