Meddling Kids by Edgar Cantero

One of the primary conceits of Scooby-Doo is that there is a mundane explanation for all of the weird stuff that happens in their world. Carl Sagan praised this aspect of the show, lamenting how other shows glorified supernatural explanations. He liked how, in Scooby-Doo, “paranormal claims are systematically investigated and every case is found to be explicable in prosaic terms” (from his book The Demon Haunted World). But, what if, at least once, the paranormal turned out to be real?

That is the premise of Meddling Kids, by Edgar Cantero. A gang of kids spent their summer vacations in the coastal area of Oregon and stumbled on to some weird goings-on. They ultimately find that it was a man in a costume who was trying to scare people to get access to some ancient fortune. The kids — dubbed the Blyton Summer Detective Club — are heroes. But, it turns out, they also uncovered an ancient and real evil.

Now adults, they are haunted by the glimpses of that evil they saw as kids. They decide to confront it. The gang — Kerri, Andy, Nate and Tim, versions of Daphne, Velma, Shaggy and Scooby (I won’t say why Fred isn’t here) — head back to Oregon to figure it out.

I won’t give too much away, but I will say that while Cantero violates the idea of Scooby-Doo that Sagan liked so much — that there is a “prosaic” explanation for all strange phenomenon — he still does manage to give a scientific basis for a lot of what goes on. For example, the kids are wandering in a mine and Nate, the Shaggy fill-in, asks how the miners knew where to dig to find gold. Kerri (who is a bookish Daphne) explains that the miners followed a quartz reef as gold was often found inside quartz veins. Later, in reference to how an earthquake can cause a pressurized lake to essentially explode, Kerri describes a limnic eruption. This happens when a body of water full of pressurized carbon dioxide becomes agitated, perhaps via an earthquake or tremor, violently releasing the CO2 as a deadly cloud of gas. So, Cantero, in creating the mystery the kids must solve, has still used science to an extensive and creative degree. While the core of the mystery still has elements of the supernatural, the rest of it is based on science in a way that I think does service to the ideas of Scooby-Doo.

So, I learned something new reading this book. I also found it very entertaining. The characters aren’t simple mash-ups of the Scooby characters, they have their own traits and flaws that make them unique. The plot is engaging and the quick pace almost feels like a movie. And, ultimately, there are enough twists and turns to keep it fresh. I enjoyed Meddling Kids and will be looking for more from Cantero.

Dark Matter by Blake Crouch

Quantum mechanics is weird. Probably the weirdest part is that it only makes predictions about the probability of what can happen. Newton’s laws say that, with a give force, an object will move this way. Quantum mechanics says that it is probable that it will move a given way, but there is a probability it will move another way. So, with quantum mechanics, we are always dealing with probability. When we measure something, one of the many choices is actually realized. But, this is at the heart of the weirdness: which one?

There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics that try to address this, but they are all, essentially, non-testable hypotheses. One is that all possibilities happen and we are living in one of those potential worlds. That is, whenever a quantum measurement is made, reality splits into different worlds, where each possibility has happened. This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This splitting occurs whenever there is a measurement of a quantum system. Going even further, the many-minds interpretation says that any time a mind makes a decision, reality splits. It is this interpretation that is at the heart of Blake Crouch’s Dark Matter.

Really, the many-minds view of quantum mechanics is just the backdrop, a vehicle to let Crouch explore ideas about the road not taken. We all have wondered “what if,” what if I had asked that girl out, what if I had gotten that other job, what if that special someone was still alive? We only get one chance at life and we make the best of it. But, what if there was a chance to redo it, to take that untaken road? Crouch’s main character, Jason, had promise as a brilliant physicist. His wife, Dani, was an up and coming star artist. However, they both put those plans aside when Dani becomes pregnant, to raise their son. While both are happy, both also have regrets. What if they had made different choices?

I won’t give away the plot, as there is a lot of daring-do and action to go along with the exploration of these themes. I’ll just say that, in the end, Jason learns a few important lessons:

  • And maybe I can let go of the sting and resentment of the path not taken, because the path not taken isn’t just the inverse of who I am. It’s an infinitely branching system that represents all the permutations of my life…
  • I thought I appreciated every moment, but sitting here in the cold, I know I took it all for granted. And how could I not? Until everything topples, we have no idea what we actually have, how precariously and perfectly it all hangs together.

Dark Matter uses some out-there physics to explore some fundamental questions of existence, doing so while telling an action packed story that has some really interesting plot twists. Crouch’s approach to writing took inspiration from Michael Crichton: “I realized that he wasn’t just coming up with cool plots. He was writing books that allowed him to explore topics that interested him. Writing a thriller as self-education.” And, by educating himself, Crouch provides a yarn that is both thought-provoking and full of action.

Clockwork Boys by T Kingfisher

The Wonder Engine is the first in a series of books, the Clocktaur War, by T. Kingfisher. It follows a band of misfits as they try to find the secret of the Clocktaurs, a group of extremely powerful and possibly mechanical soldiers used by an enemy nation to threaten the home of the heroes. Those heroes — Slate, a forger and thief who also has some impressive fighting skills; Caliban, a paladin possessed by a dead demon; Brenner, an assassin; and Learned Edmund, a monk who has been cloistered away who believes being near women will literally destroy him: “‘Learned Edmund is apparently afraid that if he sleeps on your floor, your feminine exhalations will cause his genitals to wither and his bowels to turn to water.’” — have to travel to the heart of the enemy and figure out what the Clocktaurs are and how to stop them.

Kingfisher has created a very interesting world where some of the very common tropes in fantasy are tweaked just enough to create something new. Magic exists, but it is much more subtle than in many worlds. Some people are born with certain magical abilities, but they can’t do anything more. Slate, for example, has an allergic reaction whenever she is supposed to notice something. Others have the ability of creating tattoos that will literally eat people if they disobey orders: “What kind of turns did a life have to take before you discovered that your personal gift from the universe was making carnivorous tattoos?” Demons exist, and paladins exist to fight demons, though the demons cause most of their damage by possessing people. But, maybe more importantly, the characters are well fleshed out, with very distinct personalities and foibles. None of the characters are perfect, most aren’t noble, and even the paladin, who is by definition a very noble character, has his major flaws. Half of the book is about these characters getting to know one another as they march toward their destination, discovering themselves and other oddities of their world in the process.

The characters and the plot are both highly entertaining. The world has its own uniqueness that sets it apart from the types of books I read when I was younger, where the poor orphan boy goes on to become the world’s greatest magician and saves the multiverse. To be honest, this reminds me more of Joel Rosenberg’s The Guardians of the Flame series, which was one of my favorites as a kid where the characters aren’t saving the universe, but just trying to survive. The characters are the story, and the plot is just a way of introducing us to them. Clockwork Boys feels similar in spirit.

Thirteen by Henry SF Cooper Jr

When I saw the movie Apollo 13, the one that stars Tom Hanks, I felt that the story it depicted was the embodiment of engineering to me. How a group of clever people could solve an unsolvable problem, fixing a tiny spacecraft that had malfunctioned on its way to the moon with nothing more than the parts they had on hand as they hurtled through space and the combined ingenuity of probably literally hundreds of people — 3 in that capsule and the rest on the ground. The way they systematically tackled the problem but also brought in their own out-of-the-box thinking was, for me, what engineering was all about.

(In reality, often engineering, at least at the professional scale, is not so dramatic. I almost became an engineer — this was long before the movie — but an internship at a major computer company killed that desire.)

The book Thirteen, but Henry SF Cooper Jr, recounts the Apollo 13 mission in minute detail. Cooper has scoured the logs and transcripts of the mission, interviewed many sources, and has essentially produced what feels like a step-by-step account of the mission and how they fixed the spacecraft to get it back to earth. There is no embellishments here, no extra drama. Cooper recounts what people said and, when possible, what they thought, based on their own words. He doesn’t add extra drama from what is in the record. At times, his recounting of the failure, the way everyone works to first understand and then fix what happened, and the actual return to earth, can seem a little dry. But, its factual narrative makes the actual events that much more impressive because, simply, that’s what happened.

Cooper notes multiple times that one reason that the spacecraft failed is that, simply, NASA couldn’t imagine certain things happening. As has been said about the space shuttle disasters, maybe there was some hubris, some overconfidence, in the teams. After all, they had landed multiple men on the moon by that point. They could do anything. And nothing was wrong with their designs. If anywhere, this is where Cooper lets his own biases creep in, as he clearly feels that NASA had gotten too complacent, too proud to even think of such eventualities: “they felt secure in the knowledge that the spacecraft was as safe a machine for flying to the moon as it was possible to devise. Obviously, men would not be sent into space in anything less.” At one point, he highlights how the astronauts complained about being put through simulations of such unrealistic scenarios. After the events of Apollo 13, they complained no more, at least not for a while.

The detail Cooper provides on all aspects of the mission instills a sense of wonder at how complex these missions were. To stay warm, they had to roll the spacecraft regularly to change which part faced the sun so that the electronics wouldn’t get so cold. They had to enter the atmosphere at just the right angle: too shallow, and they would bounce off; too steep and they would burn up as they approached earth. With the failing of the spacecraft, they had to figure this all out in real time again, with lots of uncertainties as to the true behavior of the ship.

Getting the astronauts home was one engineering challenge after another. Once the spacecraft failed, the very first problem they had to solve was how to keep the astronauts breathing, as their oxygen production had stopped. They also needed water but, something I learned, in space, astronauts don’t feel thirst, even when they are dehydrated, so they didn’t realize how low they were on water. The communications equipment of the lunar module, not meant to be active until they were on the moon, interfered with other devices on the spacecraft, impeding, at least initially, communications with earth. The fuel for the spacecraft was radioactive material. Normally, it would have been left on the moon. Now, they had to worry about where it would fall on the earth.

Thirteen doesn’t have the same sense of drama as a movie, but in some ways, it is all the better at conveying the impressive feats of these people as they got the spaceship home. This book won’t be for everyone, but for those with any inclination towards engineering, it provides a great sense of the drama that the profession can entail, in the right circumstances.

The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker

The goal of writing is to communicate. It’s as simple as that. If you can understand what I’m saying, that should be what matters. Of course, if I say it elegantly, that is a bonus as it makes reading a bit more enjoyable. But, if so-called rules get in the way of elegant prose, we should simply abandon them.

That is the essential message of The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker. This is a style guide for today. Pinker is a famous cognitive psychologist and linguist and he comes at style from that perspective. Do the rules that we learn in grammar school make any sense? Where did they come from? Do they really help make an English sentence or paragraph more intelligible? In many cases, Pinker concludes, the answer is no. Many rules were arbitrary edicts by almost random “authorities” who had no real reason to establish those rules. For example, the idea that you can split a verb with an adverb, the so called split infinitive, comes from the idea that English has to obey the same rules as Latin, an unrelated language.

I admit, The Sense of Style aligns well with my own perspective on writing. To me, the most important thing is the logic of the prose, not the faithfulness to these rules. I do want my writing to be entertaining and easy to follow, but I don’t want to be beholden to rules that make that task more difficult, not easier. The Sense of Style provides that kind of guidance. It is actually targeted more to people who write more technical or non-fiction works, such as scientists, but the lessons Pinker tries to impart are useful for any writer. In this sense, however, Pinker focuses on “classic writing” as a style to best convey information to the reader. “Classic writing, with its assumption of equality between writer and reader, makes the reader feel like a genius. Bad writing makes the reader feel like a dunce.” How often have we read something and felt like we weren’t smart enough to understand what the writer was trying to say?

Pinker takes aim at so-called language fundamentalist, the people who decry the death or the bastardization of the language, people who treat traditional rules of usage as the Ten Commandments: “as unerring laws chiseled in sapphire for mortals to obey or risk eternal damnation.” But, as Pinker points out, many of these rules have no sound logic or reason behind them. He goes after many of the tropes we learn in school — you can’t use an intensifier with certain words (like very unique), you can’t split the infinitive, you can’t have dangling modifiers, and never use the passive voice are just a few examples. But, beyond going after these rules, Pinker gives concrete advice on writing. Maybe the best advice is to be aware of and avoid the “curse of knowledge,” the fact that you, as a writer, have been thinking about your subject for so long, you may not realize what is obvious and what isn’t and fail to convey enough information to the reader to make your points clear and logical. “The ability to set aside something that you know but that someone else does not know is such a pervasive affliction of the human mind that psychologists keep discovering related versions of it and giving it new names.” “The better you know something, the less you remember about how hard it was to learn.” And, finally, “The curse of knowledge is the single best explanation I know of why good people write bad prose.”

From my perspective, the only weakness of The Sense of Style, and maybe it is more my own weakness, is that there are sections where, to really understand them, one needs a greater grasp of English grammar — the kind of knowledge that ones needs to diagram a sentence — than I possess. So, in some ways, it gets a little technical in the middle. The goal is to show how the logic of sentences are really crafted, and that is critical, but some of the descriptions are a bit too opaque for me. Maybe with more time to go through those sections and digest the content, it would be clearer.

However, these sections are made up for by very practical parts where Pinker goes through common “rules” and even misused words to really explain which rules and exhortations are based on sound thinking and which ones were arbitrarily made. My conclusion is that most fall in the latter category and can be safely ignored when writing, but Pinker is not shy in defending those that truly make writing better and have some grounding in the logic of the language. So, a lot of what Pinker advocates for is not rules of grammar, but rules of logic. He bases his arguments on how the human brain deals with words and concepts and how writing should minimize taxing that brain so that the reader achieves maximum comprehension. He emphasizes that coherence and logic in constructing sentences, paragraphs, and documents is critical to catch and keep the attention of the reader. “In other words, a writer has to have both something to talk about (the topic) and something to say (the point).”

Thus, The Sense of Style is also very practical, with examples of bad sentences and how to fix them. I’m tempted to buy this book for all of my postdocs, as I think the guidance is very good. My only hesitation stems from the bits I mentioned above, about diagraming sentences, but I expect that most foreign language speakers are better at this than native English speakers as it seems they learn this better. I think that a more abbreviated version of The Sense of Style would be an excellent idea, one that makes the points but a little more concisely and can be used as a reference. That said, I know of many scientists that could benefit from the advice contained in this book, myself included.

Let me end with a quote, where Pinker recalls an editorial that appeared in the New York Sun in the 1920s. The editors were responding to an effort to ban phrases like “different than X” in favor of “different from X,” the editors said “The excellent tribe of grammarians, the precisians who strive to be correct and correctors, have as much power to prohibit a single word or phrase as a gray squirrel has to put out Orion with a flicker of its tail.”

Blah, blah, blah… I've got the blahs.

%d bloggers like this: