Skip to main content

Politely saying 'I don't agree'

As I've mentioned before, I like receiving letters and emails from readers. Sometimes they are a little strange, but often they are just pleasant thank-yous. And then there are the quibbles.

I received from my publisher the other day what they referred to as a piece of fan mail. But it wasn't what I'd call fan mail. It was a quibble. These happen when you get something small wrong. And of course this always happens somewhere in a book. It happens most often when I write something 'obvious' from memory, or commit an elementary slip where my fingers are busy without my brain being engaged. (I once said an alpha particle was a hydrogen nucleus, instead of a helium nucleus. It is a big mistake in a sense, but it was a small slip in terms of not watching those fingers.)

Sometimes you want to say 'Get a life,' but  just occasionally you can get one up on the quibbler. In this case, an ex airline employee was taking umbrage with something I'd said about turbulence in Inflight Science. In an effort to reduce nervousness when turbulence hits I pointed out that no modern airliner has been brought down by turbulence. Ah-hah, said my correspondent, 'the NEVER is not correct.' And he went on to list two incidents where an airliner has been brought down - a Boeing 707 in 1960 and a Vickers Viscount in 1961.

Now I had chosen that word 'modern' with care. I did know about one of the incidents he mentions, and I think there has been a more recent one featuring an antiquated Russian jet. But that was the whole point. I didn't expect anyone to think of planes designed in the 1940s as modern. I would hardly refer to a car or computer that had a problem in 1960 as modern. Of course the picture isn't quite so clearcut with planes. After all, the Boeing 747 is still widely used and that dates back to the 1960s. But even so, the 707 and the Viscount are a generation earlier.

In the end, I can sort of understand why people write letters like this - it's the same reason as why I shout 'You're wrong!' at QI. But it probably isn't really worth it.

Comments

  1. I have to tell you that I found that section of the book very reassuring, Brain - so I am very glad it is true after all!

    So did you reply to this person? or did you just leave it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did reply - I don't usually if people don't give an email address (because I'm too tight to fork out on the postage) but I suspect the author was elderly, so I wrote a real letter back, thanking him but also explaining why I don't really regard these as modern airliners.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I bet he appreciated that.

    Many apologies for the typo...and the punctuation. Going to skulk quietly away now....

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 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 recent 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 ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou