Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
45 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Mutant Physics 101, August 8, 2000
By A Customer
Think of it as a comic book lover's guide to basic science. This book doesn't so much debate the plausibility of a mutant's powers as it explains the laws of physics that would govern the use of them. It's overly simplistic in some places and needlessly complex in a few others, but mostly it's an easy, straight-forward read. Out of the 19 mutants that they profile they include all the originals (Jean, Cyclops, Beast, Iceman, Angel), some odd choices (Scarlet Witch, Unus the Untouchable) and miss some good opportunities (Banshee in particular). The section on psi-powers is probably the weakest, but the strong analysis of Wolverine and Magneto mostly make up for it. The character bios seem very accurate and detailed and the one error that I noticed is more likely a problem with editing than with the authors. On the whole it's a much better book than I expected it to be. Other mutants included: Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, Quicksilver, Mastermind, Colossus, Havok, the Blob, Xavier, Storm, and Rogue plus sections on Cerebro and the Sentinels
|
|
|
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
X-Tremely Poor, January 6, 2001
The concept of this book is excellent and the introduction is good. This completes the list of nice things I have to say about the book. The artwork varies from good to dismal, the science is often poor or simply wrong (a list of my favorites: Stephen Jay Gould is a controversial evolutionist!, most scientists believe evolution of higher life forms from nothing is inevitable(?), superstring theory is presented as a fact, only primitive civilizations have polytheistic religions(I'd love to know where he got this one from and how the Hindus of the world feel about it), and the section on the Brood shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary theory that I was almost in tears). I might even have overlooked these glaring problems if the writing about the characters had been good, but quite frankly, it wasn't. The author mentions the possibility of sequels in the introduction; in response I say: Please don't.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
From a Scientist's P.O.V..... uncredible, December 9, 2002
By A Customer
Personally speaking as a long-time X-men fan, I find this book an interesting piece of fiction...but not as interesting as the fiction which motivates it. The Physics of Star Trek succeeds where this book fails simply because it is written by a scientist who can see the mistakes in the logic of Star Trek yet is able to admire the prescience and veracity of its many writers. X-men is mostly based on a biological phenomenon, yet this book is quick to point out how all of their powers are so mysteriously derived. And when the authors are stumped, they owe the powers to mini-wormholes within the characters' bodies. This book is interesting to fans because it features characters they know and love, but it is a horrendous atrocity to anyone who would like to ponder the origin of mutant powers. These authors have nothing on Stan Lee and his cosmic rays, gamma rays and radioactive spiders. I can bear the typos, but the complete lack of parsimony is appalling.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Lois H. Gresh
by Lois H. Gresh
by James Kakalios
by Daniel Wallace
by Jeanne Cavelos
See all 9 books citing this book
