Ah hah - so I'm not the only one. I honestly thought that Mickey and the hippos were the sum total of Fantasia. When I first read their comment about the dinosaurs I thought they'd screwed up and mentioned the wrong movie. Who knew there were dinosaurs in Fantasia??
Have you finished it? Did you find the same things annoying as we did?
One of the things I found with the BR was that everyone seemed to have a different take on the science parts - as in whether they were explained appropriately. Elentarri (I think!) found them basic, and it sounds like MbD was ok with the level/content (on the whole).
I thought some of them were overly complicated while others were too simplistic.
I haven't finished yet, no, but so far I concur wholeheartedly with both of your reviews, and I see little that could make me change my mind entirely in the rest of the book.
My experience with the science parts varies, too, but I'm essentially putting that down to the varying levels of my own familiarity with the respective topics. In very broad strokes: physics and astrophysics -- less familiar, thus more apt to send my eyes glazing over when things get complicated; biology and chemistry -- more familiar (and decidedly more interested), thus more apt to produce boredom when things stay too close to the surface. Which may not be set of reactions that is entirely fair to the authors (it's more along the lines of "it's not you, it's me"), so I'm not sure to what extent my personal response is indicative of what others might feel (or what the "average" reader might feel, etc.) I will say, though, that very little of the science stuff has so far held my riveted attention. Interest, yes (I wouldn't still be reading the book if I wasn't interested) -- but rapture, no.
I had just a lightbulb moment (a small one; like a xmas tree sized bulb) about my own reading of science: I don't mind (generally) a repetition of facts. I don't get bored they way I would with any other genre because my exposure to hard science is restricted to my reading, meaning I'm apt to let it fall out of my head without repeated exposure. Plus, sometimes I understand *enough* of a concept to get the gist, but the repetition allows me to expand my understanding; or allows me to think about the implications of the science and adjust my viewpoint.
Example: string theory... the more times I read the same information, presented by different authors, the better I understand a tiny fraction more of it, and the more of it I remember. (I might be up to 10% retention rate at this point!)
This is a good excuse for why I'm so lenient with a lot of popular science books - I'm totally going to go with it. :D
And I have NO doubt Themis, that you'll find all sorts of details I've missed and I'll read your review and think 'Of course! Why didn't I think to mention THAT' - as I do nearly every time I read your reviews of books we've both read. :D
I'm just typing up a short review and it just hit me that the authors' ridiculing of creationism doesn't actually work in the context of this book, because ... well, ... just how did the roundworld come into being in this book???
Yep - there is no shortage of contradiction in this book. I didn't touch the creationism bits because I don't believe in creationism as it's currently marketed (I believe in evolution and god, but not "creationism" or "intelligent design"). And there was enough to set off my temper in the whole 'what happens when you die' bit.
Their narrativium lacks a continuitium molecule... or should it be an isotope?
(With a nod to the chapter on probabilities, since I seem to have created yet another example of a false probability in coming across this article via my cell phone's "news" app on the same day I read the dino chapter in SoDW ...)
And the dinosaurs, .... ugh!
One of the things I found with the BR was that everyone seemed to have a different take on the science parts - as in whether they were explained appropriately. Elentarri (I think!) found them basic, and it sounds like MbD was ok with the level/content (on the whole).
I thought some of them were overly complicated while others were too simplistic.
My experience with the science parts varies, too, but I'm essentially putting that down to the varying levels of my own familiarity with the respective topics. In very broad strokes: physics and astrophysics -- less familiar, thus more apt to send my eyes glazing over when things get complicated; biology and chemistry -- more familiar (and decidedly more interested), thus more apt to produce boredom when things stay too close to the surface. Which may not be set of reactions that is entirely fair to the authors (it's more along the lines of "it's not you, it's me"), so I'm not sure to what extent my personal response is indicative of what others might feel (or what the "average" reader might feel, etc.) I will say, though, that very little of the science stuff has so far held my riveted attention. Interest, yes (I wouldn't still be reading the book if I wasn't interested) -- but rapture, no.
Example: string theory... the more times I read the same information, presented by different authors, the better I understand a tiny fraction more of it, and the more of it I remember. (I might be up to 10% retention rate at this point!)
This is a good excuse for why I'm so lenient with a lot of popular science books - I'm totally going to go with it. :D
I'm just typing up a short review and it just hit me that the authors' ridiculing of creationism doesn't actually work in the context of this book, because ... well, ... just how did the roundworld come into being in this book???
Their narrativium lacks a continuitium molecule... or should it be an isotope?
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/12/e1701144
(With a nod to the chapter on probabilities, since I seem to have created yet another example of a false probability in coming across this article via my cell phone's "news" app on the same day I read the dino chapter in SoDW ...)