Most Helpful Customer Reviews
26 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Okay, Dust Off Your Ninth-Grade Science Textbooks, September 29, 2003
This review is from: The Science of Superheroes (Paperback)
Perhaps movie director Kevin Smith said it best when he commented that it was a touch of the impossible that makes superheroes so appealing: "Nobody's built like superheroes are in the comics, women or men. If you were really as ripped as The Hulk, you couldn't leap from building to building -you'd barely be able to stretch enough to put on your socks." Gresh and Weinberg address this and many other blatant impossibilities in an absorbing collection of real-world science lessons that dissect, piece by piece, some of the central plotlines of most superhero comic book stories. Beginning with the "is there intelligent life on other planets?" question that revolves around Superman's origins, the book points out the many and varied examples of "pseudo-science" and assorted technobabble that form many a backstory. Each chapter begins with a well-known superhero's origins, along with a brief history of the storyline and developments along the course of that character's emergence as a popular genre icon. After this summary, a thorough (and merciless) scientific or technical debunking follows. The true nature of cosmic radiation and gamma radiation (the supposed genesis of Marvel's Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk) are explained. A brief history of the legend of Atlantis and some basic marine biology follows (erasing the likelihood of characters such as Aquaman and the Sub-Mariner). A lesson on arachnid physiology and behavior is examined, making Spider-Man's powers seem pretty far-fetched. A few fundamental premises about mass-energy conservation are reviewed, putting the idea of fifty-story giants or microbe-sized superheroes firmly outside the realm of believability, as well as the premise of high-speed heroes such as The Flash and The Avengers' Quicksilver. Other elements of the superhero universe, however, are given a touch more credibility -the notion of containing the energies of a black hole is hypothesized, lending a faint respectability to the premise behind Green Lantern's abilities. Likewise the varied (and occasionally opposing) theories of human evolution and mutation are addressed, which at least provides some tangible groundwork to the recurring central theme of the X-Men. Of course some of the X-Men's individual superhuman powers remain strictly fictional, such as emitting high-energy plasma from one's eyes (Cyclops) or the ability to transform one's own skin into metal alloy (Colossus). Nonetheless some other gifts, most of which revolve around the phenomenon of psychokinesis (as with Storm) or telepathy (as with Professor X or his protégé, Jean Grey), are examined and a number of inadequately-explained medical cases presented. In only one chapter do the authors relent and admit that one superhero premise is entirely possible in today's world: the story of Batman. Part of that particular title's long-lasting appeal has to do with the fact that its hero has no superhuman abilities -apart from his obsessive drive and lightning-fast powers of deductive reasoning. There is nothing substantially part of Bruce Wayne's night vigilantism that isn't truly beyond the realm of possibility. Even the once-fantastic miniature crimefighting devices attached to Batman's ubiquitous "utility belt" are today a fairly standard and unremarkable collection of equipment that could be found in any cop or detective's vest pocket or glove compartment ("buildering" cable, miniature camera, fingerprint kit, lockpick, smoke/gas capsule, oxyacetylene torch, infrared goggles, wireless surveillance gear, etc). To quote Kevin Smith again: "With a lifetime of training, you could be Batman. You'd need an assload of bank for the cool cave and the car, but you could do it if you were really committed." The upshot of Gresh and Weinberg's collection of science refreshers isn't so much to let the wind out of the collective sails of comic book fans and superhero aficionados, so much as it is to reaffirm the superhero's unique position in contemporary culture. As with Star Wars, Harry Potter, and other popular fiction, our enjoyment of these amazing characters' exploits has little to do with scientific plausibility or how believable their powers are; it is something more primal that causes them to endure and reinvent themselves generation after generation. In the authors' words, "these are characters that we want to be real."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Debunking the science of your comic book superheroes, April 7, 2004
This review is from: The Science of Superheroes (Paperback)
In "The Science of Superheroes" authors Lois H. Gresh and Robert Weinberg put together a full out assault on the willing suspension of disbelief that allows us to enjoy comic book superheroes from Superman to the X-Men. You probably knew in the back of your mind that the Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, and Aquaman could never exist in the real world. Well you were right. But Gresh and Weinberg are here to explain to you in terms of science, which means that when it comes to proving that Henry Pym turning into Goliath would be a bad thing or that the Flash could not possibly run that fast, they actually do the math (at which point I nod my head and move on, because if you think I am going to double-check their calculations you are sadly mistaken). After a preface that looks at how superhero comic books came about, an introduction by Dean Koontz entitled "Men of Steel, Feathers of Fury," Gresh and Weinberg devote chapters to the cream of the superhero crop. First up, of course, is Superman, which spends a lot of time examining the math on alien visitors before disproving the idea that the difference in the gravity on Krypton and Earth accounts for Superman's powers (I wonder what they make of the current living solar battery idea). Chapters are then devoted to the Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk, Batman, Aquaman and Sub-Mariner, Spider-Man, the Green Lanterns, Ant Man and the Atom, the Flash, the X-Men, science fiction superheroes, and Donald Duck. The last chapter is actually an encomium to Carl Barks, who used science and technology during the golden age of Disney comics. I picked up this book because I teach Spider-Man in my Popular Culture class and so that chapter alone justified the price of the book for me. I should be able to impress my students by pointing out that of Peter Parker's physical spider powers only his spider grip is actually associated with a real type of spider (the hunting spider). In the past I have just shared with my students "The Daily Onion" fake headline that talks about how Peter Parker died of Leukemia after being bit by a radioactive spider, so this should give me some more credibility (but I am still going to use the joke). Ironically it is where Gresh and Weinberg can show that the creators of a particular superhero were at least in the ballpark, such as when they come up with an alternative and more plausible explanation for the Hulk, that "The Science of Superheroes" is most interesting. Sections where they get into things like fluid breathing and talking to fish are tangentially interesting, but when you get into topics like the Square Cubed Law or the origin of black holes it comes across as overkill. If while reading this book you suddenly hear a small voice in your head warning "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," you will not be alone. This is definitely not a book to sit down and read all at once, because chapter after chapter exposing the holes in the scientific rationales for your favorite superheroes can wear you down after a while. But there is enough here of interest for most comic book fans. The authors may be a couple of science geeks, but they are the type that were weaned on comic books and their criticisms are done with affection, even if its hard to get back to anything close to square one on the aforementioned willing suspension of disbelief by the time you finish this volume (at least there is not an exam). The back of "The Science of Superheroes" includes a couple of appendixes, the first explaining "Who Missed the Cut?" (neither super villains nor characters with supernatural origins made it) and the second where comic book creators (including Len Wein and Max Allan Collins) answer some questions about science and comic books today. Both of these added sections allow the authors to flesh out their overall thesis a bit more and show how comic book creators today pay attention to science in a different way than those in the Golden Age and Silver Age of comics. I did not even take biology in high school, so everything that Gresh and Weinberg come up with is way over my head, but they do a good job of communicating their points so that even somebody like me can understand their basic arguments.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing and out of date, November 4, 2004
I really wanted to like this book, as I have a fondness for the writing of Robert Weinberg. However, I found this book to be tedious, lacking in charm, badly researched and wildy inaccurate in some areas.
While it's clear that the authors (or at least one of them) love comic books, it's also clear that they haven't done much reading of them since the early 80's. The book spends much of its length deriding the lack of scientific thought behind superheroes, ignoring the efforts of modern writers to make their characters at least slightly more realistic. Frequently, the characters that they dissect are the 1950's versions, while in the comic books those characters have moved on considerably.
Also, I found the whole direction of the book disappointing. Sure, there's a good deal of accurate science here, but there's also some spurious material, and when it appears it's almost always used to disprove a "superheroic" possibility. In fact, the entire book seems designed to show us how superheroes are impossible, which seems to carry with it the message that science is boring. It would have been far more engaging to show how certain superheroes (or approximations of them) might be scientifically possible.
Compare and contrast this book to the far more interesting and engaging "The Science of Superman" by Mark Wolverton and Roger Stern. Sure, it's less scientifically rigourous, but it's also much more interesting and more likely to encourage the reader to delve more into the subject. The sub-text of this book appears to be "superheroes are impossible, and you're stupid for reading about them."
That said, there are some interesting sections. The science is, for the most part, good, if a little out-dated. Just don't rely on this book for an idea of what modern superheroes are about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
