[R] Review: The Science of Discworld

I know, it's been a while since I posted anything... at times AFP seems
to get into a rut of conversations I have nothing intelligent to say
about and I tend to drift away.

R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E

/The Science of Discworld/ is an interesting experiment. Here we have
Terry Pratchett, noted fantasy author extraordinaire, and Jack Stewart
and Ian Cohen, two highly educated scientists, teaming up for a book.
The book consists of alternating chapters: one chapter tells a story,
the next talks about the science hinted in it. The science chapters are
about twice or three times as long as the story ones, though, so what
you have is a book on science illustrated with wizards.

The story isn't much of one - it's more of an extended skit revolving
around the wizards of Unseen University and a hastily promoted
Rincewind. An accident with a thaumic reactor requires a high-powered
project to drain excess magic power. Ponder Stibbons thinks this is the
perfect time to look into the Roundworld Project - a pocket universe in
which, oddly enough, there is no magic, no gods, and no discworlds.
Instead, there seems to be a lot of space, ice, big balls of fire, big
balls of rock, and no turtles /anywhere/. In short, Ponder has created
our own universe.

The story is more compact than usual but no less hysterical - Terry has
molded the wizards into an extended Monty Python sketch and he knows
exactly what to do with them. He introduces the reader to notions
expounded on by the science chapters by having the wizards interact with
the Roundworld Project - and their intriguingly bumbling reactions to it
are designed to keep your interest while the scientists have their go.

The science itself is remarkably specific. Although it touches on
biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy, the main theme is /history/ -
the history of the universe, the solar system, the planet and the beings
on it. There are a few digressions - such as the nature of coincidences,
or the inspired term "lies-to-children" to demonstrate that a simpler,
less accurate understanding is often required before a more realistic
one can be reached - but this topic is the basis for the book.

Funnily enough, though, scientific history is one of the /least/ well
understood areas of science, perhaps second only to neuroscience in the
number of ways it keeps contradicting itself. The fact that a second
edition of the book was released a scant few years later indicates just
how fast people are changing their minds about what happened long ago
and what happens far away. It's like reconstructing a novel given only
the bones of two of the main characters.

Cohen and Stewart also have no hesitation telling us just how depressing
our universe is. Scientific history is measured in millions or billions
of years; the few tens of thousands which humans have been around for is
a drop in the bucket, unnoticeable and easily swept away. There is no
room for art or spirituality in this yawning abyss - the authors
acknowledge their existence but make no bones about their unimportance
when compared to science.

The level of discourse is a bit rocky - sometimes the authors go a bit
too fast with introducing new concepts or don't adequately explain them
in a way a layman might understand. Other times the prose can get
droning or tedious, as when they start discussing specific time periods
and exactly what happened where. As scientists and not authors, they
don't make any real effort to captivate the audience; they simply state
what is. It's not quite as bad as reading a textbook, but it's miles
away from a good yarn.

/The Science of Discworld/ can be a hard book to read fully. You may
find yourself skimming bits of the science chapters, and no wonder. The
Pratchettian ones are delightful if lightweight, and the one thing the
other chapters - at times ponderous and unwieldy - will certainly do is
give you a much, much larger perspective on the world around us.

Note: This book is out of print in North America; trying to find it is
an effort in futility. Do what I did, and order it from Amazon UK - even
with shipping it's a reasonable price, especially if you buy all three
/Science of Discworld/ books at once, as I did.

On 23 Jun 2011, Daniel Orner wrote:

> I know, it's been a while since I posted anything... at times AFP
> seems to get into a rut of conversations I have nothing intelligent to
> say about and I tend to drift away.
>
> R
> E
> Q
> U
> E
> S
> T
> E
> D
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E


> Cohen and Stewart also have no hesitation telling us just how
> depressing our universe is. Scientific history is measured in millions
> or billions of years; the few tens of thousands which humans have been
> around for is a drop in the bucket, unnoticeable and easily swept
> away. There is no room for art or spirituality in this yawning abyss -
> the authors acknowledge their existence but make no bones about their
> unimportance when compared to science.

You might want to check out "Science of Discworld II: The Globe" which is
largely about how important art really is, at least from a human
viewpoint -- which is the only viewpoint we have.

> The level of discourse is a bit rocky - sometimes the authors go a bit
> too fast with introducing new concepts or don't adequately explain
> them in a way a layman might understand. Other times the prose can get
> droning or tedious, as when they start discussing specific time
> periods and exactly what happened where. As scientists and not
> authors, they don't make any real effort to captivate the audience;
> they simply state what is. It's not quite as bad as reading a
> textbook, but it's miles away from a good yarn.

I'd dispute that; yes there are points where they just present the
science, but often they do it with extended metaphors, amusing allusions,
wacky tangents and, at a couple of points, imaginary aguments with the
wizards. They may not have *succeeded* in captivating the audience in
your case, but I don't think it's fair to say they didn't *try*.

(Then again, this is the opinion of someone who reads popular science
books for fun, including other Jack'n'Ian books. The main difference
between their other work and SoD is that in the others they write the
comedy vignettes between the chapters themselves.)

--
Dave
Demons run, when a good man goes to war...