What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Superheroes
The truth about superpowers . . . science fact or science fiction? Superman, Batman, The X-Men, Flash, Spider Man . . . they protect us from evildoers, defend truth and justice, and, occasionally, save our planet from certain doom. Yet, how much do we understand about their powers? In this engaging yet serious work, Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg attempt to answer that question once and for all. From X-ray vision to psychokinesis, invisibility to lightspeed locomotion, they take a hard, scientific look at the powers possessed by all of our most revered superheroes, and a few of the lesser ones, in an attempt to sort fact from fantasy. In the process, they unearth some shocking truths that will unsettle, alarm, and even terrify all but the most fiendish of supervillains.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
19 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
About the author
Lois H. Gresh
73 books141 followersLOIS H. GRESH is the New York Times Bestselling Author (6 times) and USA Today Bestselling Author (thrillers) of 30 books and more than 65 short stories. Look for SHERLOCK HOLMES VS. CTHULHU #1: THE ADVENTURE OF THE DEADLY DIMENSIONS (Titan Books, April 2017), the first in a new trilogy of Sherlock Holmes thrillers from England's premier publisher of all things Holmes, with Random House distribution in the USA. Lois’ books have been published in 22 languages. For five years, Lois was a staff book reviewer at scifi.com (now SYFY.com, the Science Fiction Cable Channel), and her work has been on national/international award ballots eight times. She is a frequent Guest of Honor Author at large fan conventions and has appeared on television series such as The History Channel’s Ancient Aliens and Batman Tech.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
April 18, 2009
By all rights, I should have loved this book. I mean look at it! It combines two of my favorite things, as you loyal readers should know: science and superheroes.
I've been a big fan of science since I was a kid. I used to flip through Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was young, just barely understanding the enormous ideas he was presenting in it. My father had the Time/Life Science Series (which I still have somewhere in a box back in my mother's house) and I spent days going through those, learning about the wheel, water, drugs, matter, time.... Science never seemed imposing or intimidating to me (at least until I started trying to get the math), but rather a celebration of the human intellect.
On the other side - super-heroes. I still remember buying a copy of Crisis on Infinite Earths #10, the one with the Spectre and the Anti-Monitor facing off at the very dawn of creation, with dozens of heroes and villains trapped in a whirling maelstrom. To this day, that entire series has great meaning for me - not just because it's an incredibly dense story or because it features some of my favorite characters of all time, but because it addresses greater questions of heroism, duty and sacrifice. And if those themes were left out of the more mundane run of monthly comics, well, that didn't matter. These bright and powerful people had captured my imagination and still hold it to this day.
So, with that in mind, let me tell you that I was somewhat disappointed with this book.
I think part of the problem is the mission of the text: reconcile what we see in comic books with what we know of science. The trouble is very simply that we can't. Comic book super-heroes are, by their nature, not beholden to the laws of physics that we all know and obey, and the true mechanics of their powers are often unknown even to them. Has a Green Lantern ever actually asked what the power source is in the Great Battery on Oa? Does Superman know the biological process that goes on in his cells that turns sunlight into his amazing abilities? Can even the mighty mind of Reed Richards explain why his DNA and that of his colleagues was transformed, rather than ripped to shreds?
Comics have tried to answer this question. In the 1990s, as part of their Invasion! series, DC Comics introduced the concept of a Metagene, a particular mutation that was carried by a small percentage of the public. Under the right circumstances - such as being struck by electrified chemicals, being at ground zero of a nuclear explosion, or being immersed in a powerful chemical bath, the gene would activate and alter the person's entire genetic structure to allow it to survive. That alteration would produce powers such as super-speed, nuclear manipulation, or extreme elasticity. But even the meta-gene idea was a kind of nudge-nudge wink-wink from the writers, who were far more concerned with telling a good story or creating good characters than they were with sticking to good science.
Which brings us back to this book. Through the book, Gresh and Weinberg look at some of the most famous heroes from DC and Marvel Comics and try to see how well their origin stories hold up under the weight of established scientific truth. The answer: not well at all.
The Atom, for example, has the problem of extreme density to deal with, as well as the fact that the white dwarf matter with which he activates his power should be impossible to lift. On the other end, Giant-Man shouldn't be able to move his own weight, thanks to the good old cube-square law. The Flash has a whole host of problems, starting with an anti-friction aura that curiously doesn't extend to the soles of his feet and finishing with a serious defiance of relativity. The Fantastic Four and Dr. Banner should have come out of their radioactive disasters with a severe case of death at the very least, and half of Peter Parker's powers actually have nothing whatsoever to do with spiders.
Batman, on the other hand, is reasonably plausible, given the nigh-infinite resources of Bruce Wayne. The technology for most of his gadgets and gimmicks is extant and not too hard to either acquire or produce. Also, it wouldn't be impossible to re-write the Hulk's origin using an angry biochemist who has a particular talent for mixing up new and interesting steroid cocktails.
The basic message of this book is that the heroes we know and love are, for the most part, scientifically impossible. But we knew that. Everybody who reads comics knows, in their hearts, that science is not in the driver's seat when it comes to super-heroes. As much fun as it would be to stand out in a thunderstorm yelling, "SHAZAM!" with a golf club in the air, I know that the only super-power I would gain would be the ability to occupy a hospital bed. If I was lucky.
The good news is that the writers are themselves fans of comics, so the book is pretty light on the snark and snobbery. It makes a reasonable attempt to inject the history and theory behind the science that our heroes defy, putting it into the realm of books that handle popular science. But as a popular science book, it's rather disjointed and uneven, going into great detail in some sections but skimming over others. There's also some serious axe-grinding in chapter 9: Good, Evil and Indifferent Mutants - the X-Men. Not only do they not address the scientific nature of the X-Men's powers (which they could have done with a simple page or two of "None of these are possible"), but they spend five or six pages detailing the historical and ongoing conflict between Creationism and Evolution. While it's an interesting topic, it's not germane to the X-Men and really doesn't belong in this book. Perhaps a discussion about successful adaptations in the human genome would have been better - what alterations have occurred in Homo sapiens that have made the species better? Or perhaps how our understanding of genetics is leading us to modify our own species faster than nature would have intended? There's a little of this, but it doesn't balance out the unnecessary evolution-creationism segment.
As if the book weren't crowded enough, there's a third element to it - comic book history. In an attempt to understand why the writers wrote the way they did, it is important to understand what the popular understanding of science was at the time. The heroes of the 30s and 40s were rocket-powered, often with origins that made a good, if misguided, attempt at science. The 50s and 60s were the atomic age, thus the advent of so many heroes with radioactive origins. The 90s saw the rise of bioengineered heroes. The book focuses mainly on DC and Marvel comics, and notes that, all in all, DC's science was slightly better. This could be attributed to the science fiction background of DC's early writers, whereas Marvel had more of a horror and supernatural bent. Understanding when and how certain heroes were created gives us some insight into why they are the way they are.
The biggest reason is because the writers put scientific accuracy lower on their priority list than good storytelling and good characters. Yes, The Flash should never even be challenged by villains - at his speed, there's no one who should be able to even surprise him. But that makes for a damn boring comic book. And the same goes with Spider-Man. If Peter Parker really exhibited the traits of a spider, he would probably just build a web where he expected bad guys to be and spend the entire comic just waiting for them to stumble in. Then he would drop his trousers and spray them with webbing from a place the Comics Code won't let the artist draw.
Science is important, but so is fiction. We willingly suspend our disbelief for super-heroes so that we can better enjoy their story. Science can tell us a lot, but it doesn't have much to say about loyalty, heroism, sacrifice and responsibility. It's hard for us to insert ourselves into science's stories - imagine being a hydrogen atom or a rock strata or a particularly interesting strain of e. coli. While science and super-heroes don't have to be incompatible, it's no great loss if they are. There's an interview at the end with a group of writers, all of whom very clearly state that story comes first. "The story always outweighs the science," says Len Wein, one of the industry's pre-eminent writers. Super-heroes aren't scientifically accurate, but they were never meant to be.
By trying to combine three things - popular science, super-heroes, and comic book history, Gresh and Weinberg have created a book that has its moments, but doesn't really succeed being what it wants to be.
I've been a big fan of science since I was a kid. I used to flip through Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was young, just barely understanding the enormous ideas he was presenting in it. My father had the Time/Life Science Series (which I still have somewhere in a box back in my mother's house) and I spent days going through those, learning about the wheel, water, drugs, matter, time.... Science never seemed imposing or intimidating to me (at least until I started trying to get the math), but rather a celebration of the human intellect.
On the other side - super-heroes. I still remember buying a copy of Crisis on Infinite Earths #10, the one with the Spectre and the Anti-Monitor facing off at the very dawn of creation, with dozens of heroes and villains trapped in a whirling maelstrom. To this day, that entire series has great meaning for me - not just because it's an incredibly dense story or because it features some of my favorite characters of all time, but because it addresses greater questions of heroism, duty and sacrifice. And if those themes were left out of the more mundane run of monthly comics, well, that didn't matter. These bright and powerful people had captured my imagination and still hold it to this day.
So, with that in mind, let me tell you that I was somewhat disappointed with this book.
I think part of the problem is the mission of the text: reconcile what we see in comic books with what we know of science. The trouble is very simply that we can't. Comic book super-heroes are, by their nature, not beholden to the laws of physics that we all know and obey, and the true mechanics of their powers are often unknown even to them. Has a Green Lantern ever actually asked what the power source is in the Great Battery on Oa? Does Superman know the biological process that goes on in his cells that turns sunlight into his amazing abilities? Can even the mighty mind of Reed Richards explain why his DNA and that of his colleagues was transformed, rather than ripped to shreds?
Comics have tried to answer this question. In the 1990s, as part of their Invasion! series, DC Comics introduced the concept of a Metagene, a particular mutation that was carried by a small percentage of the public. Under the right circumstances - such as being struck by electrified chemicals, being at ground zero of a nuclear explosion, or being immersed in a powerful chemical bath, the gene would activate and alter the person's entire genetic structure to allow it to survive. That alteration would produce powers such as super-speed, nuclear manipulation, or extreme elasticity. But even the meta-gene idea was a kind of nudge-nudge wink-wink from the writers, who were far more concerned with telling a good story or creating good characters than they were with sticking to good science.
Which brings us back to this book. Through the book, Gresh and Weinberg look at some of the most famous heroes from DC and Marvel Comics and try to see how well their origin stories hold up under the weight of established scientific truth. The answer: not well at all.
The Atom, for example, has the problem of extreme density to deal with, as well as the fact that the white dwarf matter with which he activates his power should be impossible to lift. On the other end, Giant-Man shouldn't be able to move his own weight, thanks to the good old cube-square law. The Flash has a whole host of problems, starting with an anti-friction aura that curiously doesn't extend to the soles of his feet and finishing with a serious defiance of relativity. The Fantastic Four and Dr. Banner should have come out of their radioactive disasters with a severe case of death at the very least, and half of Peter Parker's powers actually have nothing whatsoever to do with spiders.
Batman, on the other hand, is reasonably plausible, given the nigh-infinite resources of Bruce Wayne. The technology for most of his gadgets and gimmicks is extant and not too hard to either acquire or produce. Also, it wouldn't be impossible to re-write the Hulk's origin using an angry biochemist who has a particular talent for mixing up new and interesting steroid cocktails.
The basic message of this book is that the heroes we know and love are, for the most part, scientifically impossible. But we knew that. Everybody who reads comics knows, in their hearts, that science is not in the driver's seat when it comes to super-heroes. As much fun as it would be to stand out in a thunderstorm yelling, "SHAZAM!" with a golf club in the air, I know that the only super-power I would gain would be the ability to occupy a hospital bed. If I was lucky.
The good news is that the writers are themselves fans of comics, so the book is pretty light on the snark and snobbery. It makes a reasonable attempt to inject the history and theory behind the science that our heroes defy, putting it into the realm of books that handle popular science. But as a popular science book, it's rather disjointed and uneven, going into great detail in some sections but skimming over others. There's also some serious axe-grinding in chapter 9: Good, Evil and Indifferent Mutants - the X-Men. Not only do they not address the scientific nature of the X-Men's powers (which they could have done with a simple page or two of "None of these are possible"), but they spend five or six pages detailing the historical and ongoing conflict between Creationism and Evolution. While it's an interesting topic, it's not germane to the X-Men and really doesn't belong in this book. Perhaps a discussion about successful adaptations in the human genome would have been better - what alterations have occurred in Homo sapiens that have made the species better? Or perhaps how our understanding of genetics is leading us to modify our own species faster than nature would have intended? There's a little of this, but it doesn't balance out the unnecessary evolution-creationism segment.
As if the book weren't crowded enough, there's a third element to it - comic book history. In an attempt to understand why the writers wrote the way they did, it is important to understand what the popular understanding of science was at the time. The heroes of the 30s and 40s were rocket-powered, often with origins that made a good, if misguided, attempt at science. The 50s and 60s were the atomic age, thus the advent of so many heroes with radioactive origins. The 90s saw the rise of bioengineered heroes. The book focuses mainly on DC and Marvel comics, and notes that, all in all, DC's science was slightly better. This could be attributed to the science fiction background of DC's early writers, whereas Marvel had more of a horror and supernatural bent. Understanding when and how certain heroes were created gives us some insight into why they are the way they are.
The biggest reason is because the writers put scientific accuracy lower on their priority list than good storytelling and good characters. Yes, The Flash should never even be challenged by villains - at his speed, there's no one who should be able to even surprise him. But that makes for a damn boring comic book. And the same goes with Spider-Man. If Peter Parker really exhibited the traits of a spider, he would probably just build a web where he expected bad guys to be and spend the entire comic just waiting for them to stumble in. Then he would drop his trousers and spray them with webbing from a place the Comics Code won't let the artist draw.
Science is important, but so is fiction. We willingly suspend our disbelief for super-heroes so that we can better enjoy their story. Science can tell us a lot, but it doesn't have much to say about loyalty, heroism, sacrifice and responsibility. It's hard for us to insert ourselves into science's stories - imagine being a hydrogen atom or a rock strata or a particularly interesting strain of e. coli. While science and super-heroes don't have to be incompatible, it's no great loss if they are. There's an interview at the end with a group of writers, all of whom very clearly state that story comes first. "The story always outweighs the science," says Len Wein, one of the industry's pre-eminent writers. Super-heroes aren't scientifically accurate, but they were never meant to be.
By trying to combine three things - popular science, super-heroes, and comic book history, Gresh and Weinberg have created a book that has its moments, but doesn't really succeed being what it wants to be.
November 3, 2018
What an absolutely FUN read The Science of Superheroes turned out to be! Lois H. Gresh & Robert E. Weinberg took several big name superheroes like Superman, Batman, The Flash, Ant Man, Aquaman, and the X-Men (just to name a few) and discussed in-depth their powers, origin stories, narrative continuity, and whether there was any basis in scientific fact for their superpowers. There were great recommendations both throughout the book and in the footnotes (ya'll know I love a book with excellent footnotes). They also went to great lengths to give a detailed, thorough history of comics in general which made this an altogether well-rounded and researched book. (I've read some so-called 'scientific' nonfiction that couldn't hold a candle to the amount of work that Gresh & Weinberg obviously put in for this book.) Another huge bonus was the extensive appendix which also included biographies and q&a responses with several popular 'current' writers of comics. (Am I gushing? I can't help it that I love a good set of biographical facts organized in an orderly fashion.) At any rate, whether you're a pop culture fan, comic aficionado, superhero movie nerd, or really into researched footnotes this is sure to fit the bill and be an excellent choice for a cozy autumn evening. 10/10
September 14, 2019
Kick-Off #ScienceSeptember with this interesting book that analyzes Science content Superheroes comics. Not only that, Lois and Robert describe its history from the beginning. Overall it is really fun reading, even though for the reader who not so familiar with physics, genetics and evolution theory.
My thought for each chapter :
1. Superman
We need Drake equation and Carl Sagan theory to prove that Krypton is an impossible thing. Sadly there is no explanation about Superman's outer underwear
2. Hulk
Exposed by gamma radiation will only make us got cancer and could not be Hulk. Reading this chapter we will feel bad for Bruce Banner character.
3. Batman
Say yes to Batman, no wonder why so many readers adore him. A superhero without a superpower.
4. Aquaman and Sub-Mariner
These comics have predicted that human can breathe with water in future. I believe so and we need hundreds of years to prove that.
5. Spiderman
Spiderman story is the most inaccurate idea according to science. Sorry, Peter Parker.
6. Green Lantern
Just found that not only Black Hole but there is White Hole appearance in this Universe. I like the idea from this comic that ordinary people can have the superpower
7. Ant-Man and Atom
Square-cube law from Galileo Galilei in the 17th century can explain the impossible theory from those comics
8. Flash
By doing a quick calculation of Flash velocity, how come they claimed faster than light
9. Donald Duck
It is the last and most surprise chapter. Did you know that Carl Barks had filled his comics with real science?
It made you wanna read those Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comic again.
I think i need to read their other book about The Science of Supervillains. Maybe later..
My thought for each chapter :
1. Superman
We need Drake equation and Carl Sagan theory to prove that Krypton is an impossible thing. Sadly there is no explanation about Superman's outer underwear
2. Hulk
Exposed by gamma radiation will only make us got cancer and could not be Hulk. Reading this chapter we will feel bad for Bruce Banner character.
3. Batman
Say yes to Batman, no wonder why so many readers adore him. A superhero without a superpower.
4. Aquaman and Sub-Mariner
These comics have predicted that human can breathe with water in future. I believe so and we need hundreds of years to prove that.
5. Spiderman
Spiderman story is the most inaccurate idea according to science. Sorry, Peter Parker.
6. Green Lantern
Just found that not only Black Hole but there is White Hole appearance in this Universe. I like the idea from this comic that ordinary people can have the superpower
7. Ant-Man and Atom
Square-cube law from Galileo Galilei in the 17th century can explain the impossible theory from those comics
8. Flash
By doing a quick calculation of Flash velocity, how come they claimed faster than light
9. Donald Duck
It is the last and most surprise chapter. Did you know that Carl Barks had filled his comics with real science?
It made you wanna read those Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comic again.
I think i need to read their other book about The Science of Supervillains. Maybe later..
September 9, 2024
Adquiri este livro junto com um outro no Sebo Elemental de Florianópolis. Sempre me mantive longe desses livros que relacionam ciências com super-heróis, como este e o A Física dos Super-Heróis, porque física era o meu terror do Ensino Médio (um dos, na verdade). Mas resolvi dar uma chance a este livro que estava bem acessível no sebo e gostei. É um livro correto, bem feito, não cai nos deslizes da maioria de livros que tentam fazer uma conversa de outras áreas com o universo dos super-heróis. Além de explicar como funcionariam os poderes dos super-heróis no mundo real ele também traz informações sobre os bastidores das criações da maioria dos personagens abordados: Superman, Homem-Aranha, Batman, Flash, Homem-Formiga, X-Men, Lanterna Verde, Átomo, Aquaman, Hulk, Quarteto Fantástico, Namor, Átomo, e até mesmo o Pato Donald. Mas, mais uma vez as mulheres e outras minorias ficaram de fora de outro rol de super-heróis. Bem típico. Ele tem uns problemas de tradução de nomes brasileiros mas é 90% correto. Gostei do livro, mas não sei se manterei ele comigo. Talvez ele retorne mais uma vez para o sebo.
September 3, 2011
This book is AMAZING. If you love science and super heroes it's for you. If you love comics and their history, and are interested in the scientific possibilities of superheros this is for you. If you need a book that will introduce you to probably about half of all modern scientific concepts of any value, and want a really interesting leeway into it (superheros) this is for you. I basically can't say enough good things about this book and how damned awesome it is.
What happens throughout most of the book is a super hero is chosen as the subject. A little bit about the characters creation and history is explained, as well as their fictional creation and history. From their one or two scientific topic's are broached basically explaining why their powers are scientifically possible or (in most cases) not possible. Some examples: friction via the Flash, the properties that spiders have via spider man, what effects planets with different gravity would have on people via superman, what the theory of evolution is via x-men. Some of the chapters also cover scientific topics related to story lines from the superheros history, such as covering cloning in Spider-mans chapter.
The book also starts (and ends in part) with an amazing run down of the history of the comics industry. There is also a really touching part of the book that talks about a specific artist/writers works in non-superhero comics.
All in all the book is amazing and nothing I can say can do it credit. So get it, and read it!
What happens throughout most of the book is a super hero is chosen as the subject. A little bit about the characters creation and history is explained, as well as their fictional creation and history. From their one or two scientific topic's are broached basically explaining why their powers are scientifically possible or (in most cases) not possible. Some examples: friction via the Flash, the properties that spiders have via spider man, what effects planets with different gravity would have on people via superman, what the theory of evolution is via x-men. Some of the chapters also cover scientific topics related to story lines from the superheros history, such as covering cloning in Spider-mans chapter.
The book also starts (and ends in part) with an amazing run down of the history of the comics industry. There is also a really touching part of the book that talks about a specific artist/writers works in non-superhero comics.
All in all the book is amazing and nothing I can say can do it credit. So get it, and read it!
August 21, 2025
First published January 1, 2002, this predates the now current cinematic universes and focuses on comics. I was never a comics reader, so most of that history is new to me, yet interesting. The focus is on DC and Marvel comics: Superman, X-Men, Green Lantern, gamma radiation (Hulk, etc.), and more. Generally, the summary in each case is that the plot elements are impossible and the explanations shallow techno-babble. Still, it is an interesting and engaging way to consider the science of such topics as back holes, mutation, super fast movement (The Flash and Superman), etc. I like that the final comics scenario tackled is one of the many sober inventions of the Carl Barks and a tale I may never tire of hear about even though I never read the Donald Duck comic. "The Sunken Yacht" is a 10-page Disney comics story first published in Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #104 (May 1949). The story is about Donald's attempts to salvage Scrooge's sunken yacht for an exorbitant price. Donald raises the yacht by filling it with ping pong balls. In 1964, Danish inventor Karl Krøyer salvaged a shipwrecked freighter Al Kuwait in Kuwait harbor by pumping expandable polystyrene foam balls into its hull. According to Dutch jurist Arnoud Engelfriet, it remains unclear whether the story was cited as prior art in the rejection of Krøyer's patent in the Netherlands since the case files have been destroyed and the patent attorney has died. However, this book states it was the judge's deciding factor and I think that is a story too good to fact check.
Read
September 12, 2025I wonder if one of the authors is a comic fan (real fanatic!) and the other a scientist? Both elements are very well done; the minute detail and history of comic books and their superheroes, and some potted science lessons (black holes, relativity, space & time travel, human and animal physiology etc.) However, it struck me part way through that the juxtaposition of 2 such different worlds (IMO) is odd, dare I say comical? And despite the call for more scientific rigour, surely comics are meant to be escapism, i.e. not real! Or, more likely, my interest as a boy was too short-lived and fragmentary, I have some superhero comics from back in the day, but also fantasy (a separate genre according to Gresh & Weinberg not worthy of running their scientific slide rule over … Thor & Conan the Barbarian come to mind), Commando comics, Look & Learn, and other science and IT stuff. That said, I really enjoyed this, and also heard about some ‘new’ characters, like The Green Lantern, The Atom, Donald Duck & Uncle Scrooge(!) that passed me by, so maybe it is time to revisit the world of comics again …
October 7, 2012
It’s been ten years since The Science of Superheroes by Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg was published. Over that time, and especially in the five years or so that the book has been on my shelf, there is absolutely no doubt that comics and superheroes have gone mainstream.
2002 was also the year that the first Spiderman film was released, a huge film that can be credited with the explosion of comic-based blockbusters as well as kick-starting Marvel’s revival (they went from being nearly bankrupt in 1997 to being bought by Disney for $4 billion a couple of years ago).
Save for being obsessed with the 90s cartoon version of the X-Men, comics and comic culture (apart from the aforementioned blockbusters) have largely passed me by. The Amazing Spiderman, a so, so ‘reboot’ of the franchise after the terrible Spiderman 3, with its cringe worthy emo Spiderman, came out just this year, but it was the onslaught of all things Avengers this summer that reminded me to dig out The Science of Superheroes. Even then the book kept slipping down my reading list until I finally got round to playing Batman: Arkham Asylum this week and was reminded of it again.
Picking superheroes, largely from the Marvel and DC catalogues, The Science of Superheroes tries to unpick the powers of famous characters like Batman, Superman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk and explain how plausible, or more commonly implausible, their powers are, according to our scientific understanding of the world. You'll note that all the superheroes are male – something the authors do mention in the appendix, when they lament the lack of heroines in comic books.
Given that Batman doesn’t have any actual powers and is just a man with a lot of time and money on his hands, you get the impression that he was shoehorned into the book because they couldn’t leave out DC’s biggest hero. All of Batman’s utility-belt gadgets are things that existed at time of his creation (or at least weren’t too far away) in miniaturised form, which doesn’t make for particularly interesting reading, so the authors decided instead to crowbar in a few pages discussing plate tectonics and the possibility of a major earthquake hitting New York, as once happened to Gotham.
As turns out, there are some science lessons to be learned from Batman. A little while back, four physics students from the University of Leicester published a paper on TheTrajectory of a Falling Batman, which concluded that “... gliding using a batcape is not a safe way to travel, unless a method to rapidly slowdown is used such as a parachute” (Marshall et al., 2012)*.
It’s clear the authors are more comfortable with physics than biology, as the best parts of the book are those to do with astronomy and the constraints imposed by the laws of physics. Why can’t the Flash, or Superman, actually travel faster than light? What does the square cubed law have to say about the plausibility of Ant-Man? Are ‘white holes’ the source of infinite energy, which powers the Green Lantern’s ring? (But why does the Green Lantern’s ring not work on yellow things, given that yellow is just a frequency of light and not a property of the object itself?)
The book was a real let-down, however, when it came to the chapter on the X-Men, which is in the realms of biology and not physics and suffers most from the shoehorning problem. There’s a decent enough overview of evolution and natural selection, but it was disappointingly light on the capabilities of mutations and bioengineering, which is what I thought it would be about. After a quick mention of Dolly the sheep, the authors choose to discuss something no less interesting and comical, but not actually comic-related: creationism. Instead of trying to get at interesting topics, like where genetic modification might lead our species, we're given a run–through on US-centred controversies in the teaching of intelligent design and evolution that feels out of place and reads like the authors have a major axe to grind.
Whilst it’s a given that writers (not just of comics) occasionally have to take liberties with science in order to create and advance a good story, there was one writer, Carl Barks, creator of Donald Duck, who took the scientific accuracy of his drawings and storylines very seriously, with one of them not cited as a case of life imitating (comic) art. In 1949 Barks wrote a story about Uncle Scrooge and Donald raising a sunken ship from the bottom of the sea by filling it with ping pong balls to increase its buoyancy.
15 years later, Danish inventor Karl Kroeyer used a very similar technique, using expandable polystyrene foam bubbles, to raise a sunken freighter off the coast of Kuwait. The Science of Superheroes claims he was inspired by the idea after reading the comic as a young boy, but Kroeyer was already 35 by the time the Donald Duck story was published. Cracked.com repeated a story about Kroeyer being refused a patent on his invention on the grounds that the Donald Duck comic was ‘prior art’, but it’s not clear whether this is actually true. Makes for a cool story though.
I picked this book up more for the science than the superheroes, but really enjoyed the brief introductions and potted histories of the various comics, the ideas for the characters and their historical context. Superheroes from the 40s fought Nazis, those from the 50s were a product of the atomic age and often had their origins in radioactivity, and skip to the 90s and we have heroes like the X-Men who reflect the huge advances being made in genetics and bioengineering at the time. Using superheroes is a fantastic premise for a popular science book, and there’s enough comic history and science for lovers of both to get something out of it, but The Science of Superheroes is too patchy and doesn’t take full advantage of the opportunity.
*Marshall, D.; Hands, T.; Griffiths, I.; Douglas, G.. A2_9, 'Trajectory of a falling Batman', Physics Special Topics, North America, 10 9 12 2011.
2002 was also the year that the first Spiderman film was released, a huge film that can be credited with the explosion of comic-based blockbusters as well as kick-starting Marvel’s revival (they went from being nearly bankrupt in 1997 to being bought by Disney for $4 billion a couple of years ago).
Save for being obsessed with the 90s cartoon version of the X-Men, comics and comic culture (apart from the aforementioned blockbusters) have largely passed me by. The Amazing Spiderman, a so, so ‘reboot’ of the franchise after the terrible Spiderman 3, with its cringe worthy emo Spiderman, came out just this year, but it was the onslaught of all things Avengers this summer that reminded me to dig out The Science of Superheroes. Even then the book kept slipping down my reading list until I finally got round to playing Batman: Arkham Asylum this week and was reminded of it again.
Picking superheroes, largely from the Marvel and DC catalogues, The Science of Superheroes tries to unpick the powers of famous characters like Batman, Superman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk and explain how plausible, or more commonly implausible, their powers are, according to our scientific understanding of the world. You'll note that all the superheroes are male – something the authors do mention in the appendix, when they lament the lack of heroines in comic books.
Given that Batman doesn’t have any actual powers and is just a man with a lot of time and money on his hands, you get the impression that he was shoehorned into the book because they couldn’t leave out DC’s biggest hero. All of Batman’s utility-belt gadgets are things that existed at time of his creation (or at least weren’t too far away) in miniaturised form, which doesn’t make for particularly interesting reading, so the authors decided instead to crowbar in a few pages discussing plate tectonics and the possibility of a major earthquake hitting New York, as once happened to Gotham.
As turns out, there are some science lessons to be learned from Batman. A little while back, four physics students from the University of Leicester published a paper on TheTrajectory of a Falling Batman, which concluded that “... gliding using a batcape is not a safe way to travel, unless a method to rapidly slowdown is used such as a parachute” (Marshall et al., 2012)*.
It’s clear the authors are more comfortable with physics than biology, as the best parts of the book are those to do with astronomy and the constraints imposed by the laws of physics. Why can’t the Flash, or Superman, actually travel faster than light? What does the square cubed law have to say about the plausibility of Ant-Man? Are ‘white holes’ the source of infinite energy, which powers the Green Lantern’s ring? (But why does the Green Lantern’s ring not work on yellow things, given that yellow is just a frequency of light and not a property of the object itself?)
The book was a real let-down, however, when it came to the chapter on the X-Men, which is in the realms of biology and not physics and suffers most from the shoehorning problem. There’s a decent enough overview of evolution and natural selection, but it was disappointingly light on the capabilities of mutations and bioengineering, which is what I thought it would be about. After a quick mention of Dolly the sheep, the authors choose to discuss something no less interesting and comical, but not actually comic-related: creationism. Instead of trying to get at interesting topics, like where genetic modification might lead our species, we're given a run–through on US-centred controversies in the teaching of intelligent design and evolution that feels out of place and reads like the authors have a major axe to grind.
Whilst it’s a given that writers (not just of comics) occasionally have to take liberties with science in order to create and advance a good story, there was one writer, Carl Barks, creator of Donald Duck, who took the scientific accuracy of his drawings and storylines very seriously, with one of them not cited as a case of life imitating (comic) art. In 1949 Barks wrote a story about Uncle Scrooge and Donald raising a sunken ship from the bottom of the sea by filling it with ping pong balls to increase its buoyancy.
15 years later, Danish inventor Karl Kroeyer used a very similar technique, using expandable polystyrene foam bubbles, to raise a sunken freighter off the coast of Kuwait. The Science of Superheroes claims he was inspired by the idea after reading the comic as a young boy, but Kroeyer was already 35 by the time the Donald Duck story was published. Cracked.com repeated a story about Kroeyer being refused a patent on his invention on the grounds that the Donald Duck comic was ‘prior art’, but it’s not clear whether this is actually true. Makes for a cool story though.
I picked this book up more for the science than the superheroes, but really enjoyed the brief introductions and potted histories of the various comics, the ideas for the characters and their historical context. Superheroes from the 40s fought Nazis, those from the 50s were a product of the atomic age and often had their origins in radioactivity, and skip to the 90s and we have heroes like the X-Men who reflect the huge advances being made in genetics and bioengineering at the time. Using superheroes is a fantastic premise for a popular science book, and there’s enough comic history and science for lovers of both to get something out of it, but The Science of Superheroes is too patchy and doesn’t take full advantage of the opportunity.
*Marshall, D.; Hands, T.; Griffiths, I.; Douglas, G.. A2_9, 'Trajectory of a falling Batman', Physics Special Topics, North America, 10 9 12 2011.
January 13, 2020
Muy buen libro, lleno de cosas que no tenía idea de los superheroes de Marvel y DC además de sus antepasados en los revistas PULP.
Al igual que en Why Did It Have To Be Snakes: From Science to the Supernatural, The Many Mysteries of Indiana Jones en ocasiones la autora exagera y llena de información el capitulo lo cual lo hace tedioso; pero ocurre contadas veces.
Es bastante recomendable ya que sirve como una capsula de tiempo al ver el mundo de los heroes antes del MCU
Al igual que en Why Did It Have To Be Snakes: From Science to the Supernatural, The Many Mysteries of Indiana Jones en ocasiones la autora exagera y llena de información el capitulo lo cual lo hace tedioso; pero ocurre contadas veces.
Es bastante recomendable ya que sirve como una capsula de tiempo al ver el mundo de los heroes antes del MCU
May 9, 2018
Overall, I enjoyed this a great deal. Clearly lots of science, but explained in such a way that I (a definite non-science-type) could understand.
My only negative was there were definite areas where the book meandered a bit too far from the premise into more preachy territory and while I didn't disagree with what was being said, it seems a bit far afield for the title of the book.
My only negative was there were definite areas where the book meandered a bit too far from the premise into more preachy territory and while I didn't disagree with what was being said, it seems a bit far afield for the title of the book.
November 2, 2019
A little on the old side by the time I got to it, I would love to see a 2019 update to this work.
This was a fun read and look into the realities and fantasies of the SuperHero genre.
This was a fun read and look into the realities and fantasies of the SuperHero genre.
November 30, 2019
The book's title is pretty much self explanatory. It was fun!
December 4, 2025
Exciting premise upheld and maintained through the initial chapters that plummets past mediocrity by the end
December 13, 2021
Fun read. It would have been nice if it were more thorough, and had stayed on topic all the way.
July 2, 2007
Until the recent blockbuster comic book movies convinced sports fans that men in tights who were not pro wrestlers could be cool, we comics geeks hid our books like family secrets. But the days of proudly admitting readership might be at an end, because The Science of Superheroes deals a blow to comic book credibility that not even $100 million in opening weekend box office receipts can heal: while superheroes may be cool, many of their powers are scientifically unsound.
Authors Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg, both lauded science fiction writers, deconstruct the powers of such iconic heroes as Spider-Man, Superman, the Hulk, and the Flash and conclude that, well, they're a load of bunk.
Let's discuss Spider-Man and Superman, the flagship heroes of Marvel and DC, respectively, and among the most well-known fictional characters in the world. Peter Parker, a dweeby science student, was bitten by a radioactive spider, giving him the proportional strength, speed, and agility of the arachnid. The problem? Spiders are not particularly fast, agile, or strong.
"Spiders move quickly, but are not noted as being particularly fast for their size," Gresh and Weinberg write. "Anything with eight legs can only move so fast without tripping over itself... [and] spiders have never been noted for their great strength." Also, spiders "scurry about on the ground or on their webs but are not noted for their grace and balance." The most disappointing news? Not all spiders can climb walls, so depending on what kind of spider bit him, Spider-Man wouldn’t be able to scale buildings like, well, a spider. And let's not even discuss the improbability of Spidey’s vaunted spider sense.
Superman is even more impossible. Over the decades, many explanations have been given for the Man of Steel's incredible strength, the most lasting of which is that his native planet Krypton's gravitational field was much stronger than that of Earth's. As a being built to withstand that gravity, Superman is able to overcome Earth's weaker gravity and lift the comparatively lighter objects on Earth quite easily.
But there’s a little problem here, too. "The force necessary to lift an object on a planet is equal to the mass of the planet multiplied by the gravitational force present on that planet," the authors write. "Thus, a human who could lift 100 kg on Earth could lift 600 kg on the moon, which has one-sixth the gravity of Earth. Which would imply that for Superman to be 1,000 times stronger on Earth than he is on Krypton, Krypton would have to be 1,000 times as massive as the Earth."
And there's the rub: a planet that size simply could not exist. Even if it could there would be the small matters of how a creature could withstand the incredible gravitational pressure (hint: it couldn’t) and ludicrous speed necessary to achieve escape velocity to launch infant Kal-El on his journey to begin with (1/30th the speed of light, to be exact). I'm as crushed as you are, believe me.
The only failed chapter in this fascinating and easily digested book is the one on the mutant X-Men. It begins with a recap of the comic book's major characters and story arcs, moves into a discussion of evolution, and then wastes time refuting the ridiculous arguments supporting creationism. It ends without ever discussing this fundamental question: could evolution produce a man who shoots ruby lasers from his eyes (Cyclops), a woman who controls weather (Storm), or a man who turns to ice (Iceman). I'm going to step out on a limb and answer no to those questions, but it would have made for an entertaining read.
Authors Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg, both lauded science fiction writers, deconstruct the powers of such iconic heroes as Spider-Man, Superman, the Hulk, and the Flash and conclude that, well, they're a load of bunk.
Let's discuss Spider-Man and Superman, the flagship heroes of Marvel and DC, respectively, and among the most well-known fictional characters in the world. Peter Parker, a dweeby science student, was bitten by a radioactive spider, giving him the proportional strength, speed, and agility of the arachnid. The problem? Spiders are not particularly fast, agile, or strong.
"Spiders move quickly, but are not noted as being particularly fast for their size," Gresh and Weinberg write. "Anything with eight legs can only move so fast without tripping over itself... [and] spiders have never been noted for their great strength." Also, spiders "scurry about on the ground or on their webs but are not noted for their grace and balance." The most disappointing news? Not all spiders can climb walls, so depending on what kind of spider bit him, Spider-Man wouldn’t be able to scale buildings like, well, a spider. And let's not even discuss the improbability of Spidey’s vaunted spider sense.
Superman is even more impossible. Over the decades, many explanations have been given for the Man of Steel's incredible strength, the most lasting of which is that his native planet Krypton's gravitational field was much stronger than that of Earth's. As a being built to withstand that gravity, Superman is able to overcome Earth's weaker gravity and lift the comparatively lighter objects on Earth quite easily.
But there’s a little problem here, too. "The force necessary to lift an object on a planet is equal to the mass of the planet multiplied by the gravitational force present on that planet," the authors write. "Thus, a human who could lift 100 kg on Earth could lift 600 kg on the moon, which has one-sixth the gravity of Earth. Which would imply that for Superman to be 1,000 times stronger on Earth than he is on Krypton, Krypton would have to be 1,000 times as massive as the Earth."
And there's the rub: a planet that size simply could not exist. Even if it could there would be the small matters of how a creature could withstand the incredible gravitational pressure (hint: it couldn’t) and ludicrous speed necessary to achieve escape velocity to launch infant Kal-El on his journey to begin with (1/30th the speed of light, to be exact). I'm as crushed as you are, believe me.
The only failed chapter in this fascinating and easily digested book is the one on the mutant X-Men. It begins with a recap of the comic book's major characters and story arcs, moves into a discussion of evolution, and then wastes time refuting the ridiculous arguments supporting creationism. It ends without ever discussing this fundamental question: could evolution produce a man who shoots ruby lasers from his eyes (Cyclops), a woman who controls weather (Storm), or a man who turns to ice (Iceman). I'm going to step out on a limb and answer no to those questions, but it would have made for an entertaining read.
July 29, 2011
Quite an entertaining book, but aside from a few interesting science facts and comic book history information, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. The main premise of the book is to explain exactly why most superheroes are impossible. As readers, however, we already know they are impossible. We read comic books for the same reason we read novels: to be entertained. If we are looking for accurate science info, then we go elsewhere.
The thing that really bothered me is the debate the authors have between evolution and creationism. Rather than sticking to precise facts, the authors declare that evolution has been proven to be true time and time again. My question is, how? Have scientists succeeded in evolving any living organism into a completely different species? Certain aspects of natural selection can be seen in nature, it's true, but the actual evolving of any species into another different species has yet to be proven. When looking at the rock record, we never find any in between animal fossils, like a fish with legs or a half a lung. Instead we see fully formed complex animals suddenly appearing after older animals have gone suddenly extinct. Yet this little fact is left out of the book.
Also, when discussing the creationist beliefs, all creationists are grouped together as those who believe the earth along with the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately, this isn't true; it is an outdated view which few still accept. Most creationist scientists know the earth came into existence millions of years ago. The proof of that is right in the rock record. Also, no creation scientist believes that the entire universe came into existence along with the earth. People 400 years ago believed that. The authors' contempt for creationism and God was very apparent, and not at all as objective as they were about other subjects. The whole debate was completely out of place, and ruined the rest of the book for me. Save it for a book about evolution and creationism.
In the end, it would have been a better book if the authors stuck to facts, stuck to the original premise of the book, and did more research about certain subjects to ensure they were fully accurate. I would have also appreciated more history about comics and superheroes. It would also have been better if the size of the book wasn't so restricted, so that more comics could have been discussed.
Give it a try if you like, but I can't recommend it.
The thing that really bothered me is the debate the authors have between evolution and creationism. Rather than sticking to precise facts, the authors declare that evolution has been proven to be true time and time again. My question is, how? Have scientists succeeded in evolving any living organism into a completely different species? Certain aspects of natural selection can be seen in nature, it's true, but the actual evolving of any species into another different species has yet to be proven. When looking at the rock record, we never find any in between animal fossils, like a fish with legs or a half a lung. Instead we see fully formed complex animals suddenly appearing after older animals have gone suddenly extinct. Yet this little fact is left out of the book.
Also, when discussing the creationist beliefs, all creationists are grouped together as those who believe the earth along with the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately, this isn't true; it is an outdated view which few still accept. Most creationist scientists know the earth came into existence millions of years ago. The proof of that is right in the rock record. Also, no creation scientist believes that the entire universe came into existence along with the earth. People 400 years ago believed that. The authors' contempt for creationism and God was very apparent, and not at all as objective as they were about other subjects. The whole debate was completely out of place, and ruined the rest of the book for me. Save it for a book about evolution and creationism.
In the end, it would have been a better book if the authors stuck to facts, stuck to the original premise of the book, and did more research about certain subjects to ensure they were fully accurate. I would have also appreciated more history about comics and superheroes. It would also have been better if the size of the book wasn't so restricted, so that more comics could have been discussed.
Give it a try if you like, but I can't recommend it.
January 7, 2013
#2013-1
So as reading this book some of well-known superheroes are proved either impossible or probable, scientifically of course. Some hardcore geeks might defend their heroes. But Mia tends to go for weirdos the likes of Batman, seriously guy who hides behind mask and lives two different lives definitely has some issues, then Hawkeye, more because of the archery -Robin Hood was her first book along with Jane Eyre- and the fact that it's Jeremy Renner who portrays him.
Oh she's still falling head over heels to that Green Arrow bloke from Smallville series, I think he's in the show only for a while and it's quite funny as Mia, usually, despise anything Green hence the Hulk in not in the lovelist. The X-Men guys quite okay yet I think she likes Scott summers's glass and the fact that his eyes are leathal, and that Rémy LeBeau ... I'd rather not talk about him and yes the weirdos list can go on and on.
Talking about superheroes and antiheroes is fun, especially when most of characters are basically insane and well egomaniacs -they can't stand each others-. Superman is not that cool, he's TOO perfect and now scientifically proven, he's impossible ha! Does he ever sweat? Come on there's always something about sweat, body odor and ... anyway then there's Flash, another impossible character since 'Nobody can move faster than the speed of light' (p. 128).
The amazing revelation is about the Amazing Spider-Man who's actually not that amazing. His fans won't like the chapter, might even argue till their last breath but hey if you come to think about it there's something phony about him. I concure that it's kind of fun watching him swing around in a high-poppulated city with his phony err artificial web.
This book is a perfect start for the new year, now it's 2013, despite written back in 2002. Who ever thought that Mia is a geek!
PS. Mia is considering to start re-reading Donald Duck adventures. Long live the Duck Man, the real deal hero.
***
Buku menarik yang membahas setiap karakter superhero terkenal dari sisi sains. Seru juga ketika fakta-fakta sains dibeberkan sehingga jelas sekali beberapa karakter superhero yang kita kenal sejak masa kecil, hingga dewasa sekarang pun, sebenarnya sangat tidak mungkin ada. Beberapa kejanggalan dipaparkan dengan apik, dan hey bahkan aku yang tidak terlalu ehem berhasil di lab kimia dan fisika bisa menikmatinya loh.
So as reading this book some of well-known superheroes are proved either impossible or probable, scientifically of course. Some hardcore geeks might defend their heroes. But Mia tends to go for weirdos the likes of Batman, seriously guy who hides behind mask and lives two different lives definitely has some issues, then Hawkeye, more because of the archery -Robin Hood was her first book along with Jane Eyre- and the fact that it's Jeremy Renner who portrays him.
Oh she's still falling head over heels to that Green Arrow bloke from Smallville series, I think he's in the show only for a while and it's quite funny as Mia, usually, despise anything Green hence the Hulk in not in the lovelist. The X-Men guys quite okay yet I think she likes Scott summers's glass and the fact that his eyes are leathal, and that Rémy LeBeau ... I'd rather not talk about him and yes the weirdos list can go on and on.
Talking about superheroes and antiheroes is fun, especially when most of characters are basically insane and well egomaniacs -they can't stand each others-. Superman is not that cool, he's TOO perfect and now scientifically proven, he's impossible ha! Does he ever sweat? Come on there's always something about sweat, body odor and ... anyway then there's Flash, another impossible character since 'Nobody can move faster than the speed of light' (p. 128).
The amazing revelation is about the Amazing Spider-Man who's actually not that amazing. His fans won't like the chapter, might even argue till their last breath but hey if you come to think about it there's something phony about him. I concure that it's kind of fun watching him swing around in a high-poppulated city with his phony err artificial web.
This book is a perfect start for the new year, now it's 2013, despite written back in 2002. Who ever thought that Mia is a geek!
PS. Mia is considering to start re-reading Donald Duck adventures. Long live the Duck Man, the real deal hero.
***
Buku menarik yang membahas setiap karakter superhero terkenal dari sisi sains. Seru juga ketika fakta-fakta sains dibeberkan sehingga jelas sekali beberapa karakter superhero yang kita kenal sejak masa kecil, hingga dewasa sekarang pun, sebenarnya sangat tidak mungkin ada. Beberapa kejanggalan dipaparkan dengan apik, dan hey bahkan aku yang tidak terlalu ehem berhasil di lab kimia dan fisika bisa menikmatinya loh.
August 11, 2016
85 - 2014
Baca ebooknya tidak tamat-tamat, eh baru belakangan tahu tahun kemarin sudah terbit terjemahannya, mana yang nerjemahin Mas Ronny lagi.
Jadi... memang harus kuakui, kalau aku membaca komik, terutama komik superhero, biasanya akal sehat dan logikaku kusingkirkan dulu jauh-jauh. Kalau tidak, bisa-bisa aku tidak menikmati jalan ceritanya. Pokoknya, segala keabsurdan sains dan teknologi yang disajikan penulis komik, aku terima saja bulat-bulat... bahwa anything can happen in comic world. Jangankan sains nyleneh, cerita yang nyerempet-nyerempet mitologi dan supranatural saja kuterima dengan tangan terbuka.
Sudah jelas, di buku ini komik dengan logika sains yang paling masuk akal adalah komik Batman, di mana peralatan teknologi canggih Batman yang jaman tahun 60-an dulu mungkin masih supercanggih, saat ini sudah umum dan wajar digunakan jagoan tukang makin hakim sendiri manapun saat ini. Apalagi Batman termasuk golongan superhero yang cuma manusia biasa, yang lebih kuat dan pintar daripada manusia kebanyakan karena rajin berlatih dan belajar.
Tidak banyak superhero dan sainsnya yang dibahas di sini, karena kalau dibahas satu-satu bisa-bisa bukunya berseri dan tak akan ada habisnya. Yang pasti, sebenarnya ada buku The Science of Supervillains juga. Tapi sepertinya belum ada penerbit Indonesia yang menerbitkan terjemahannya.
PS. Ada kesalahan cetak di buku yang kubeli online ini. Halaman 53-54 bertukar tempat dengan halaman 135-136. Tapi ya sudahlah. Lembaran uang dan perangko salah cetak saja jadi barang langka, siapa tahu buku terjemahan dengan salah cetak juga bisa jadi barang langka...
Baca ebooknya tidak tamat-tamat, eh baru belakangan tahu tahun kemarin sudah terbit terjemahannya, mana yang nerjemahin Mas Ronny lagi.
Jadi... memang harus kuakui, kalau aku membaca komik, terutama komik superhero, biasanya akal sehat dan logikaku kusingkirkan dulu jauh-jauh. Kalau tidak, bisa-bisa aku tidak menikmati jalan ceritanya. Pokoknya, segala keabsurdan sains dan teknologi yang disajikan penulis komik, aku terima saja bulat-bulat... bahwa anything can happen in comic world. Jangankan sains nyleneh, cerita yang nyerempet-nyerempet mitologi dan supranatural saja kuterima dengan tangan terbuka.
Sudah jelas, di buku ini komik dengan logika sains yang paling masuk akal adalah komik Batman, di mana peralatan teknologi canggih Batman yang jaman tahun 60-an dulu mungkin masih supercanggih, saat ini sudah umum dan wajar digunakan jagoan tukang makin hakim sendiri manapun saat ini. Apalagi Batman termasuk golongan superhero yang cuma manusia biasa, yang lebih kuat dan pintar daripada manusia kebanyakan karena rajin berlatih dan belajar.
Tidak banyak superhero dan sainsnya yang dibahas di sini, karena kalau dibahas satu-satu bisa-bisa bukunya berseri dan tak akan ada habisnya. Yang pasti, sebenarnya ada buku The Science of Supervillains juga. Tapi sepertinya belum ada penerbit Indonesia yang menerbitkan terjemahannya.
PS. Ada kesalahan cetak di buku yang kubeli online ini. Halaman 53-54 bertukar tempat dengan halaman 135-136. Tapi ya sudahlah. Lembaran uang dan perangko salah cetak saja jadi barang langka, siapa tahu buku terjemahan dengan salah cetak juga bisa jadi barang langka...
March 17, 2014
Good idea, bad execution. I’m honestly kind of impressed by how The Science of Superheroes manages to insult its readers. It’s bizarre to read a book where the authors talk down to the primary audience.
Divided into chapters about specific superheroes (and then focusing on parts of their story), the book takes some weird tangents. For example: out of everything interesting about DNA as it relates to mutations (superheroes involved: X-Men), the authors decided on a diatribe about the creationist movement. I’m pro-evolution, but it drove me nuts that Ms. Gresh and Mr. Weinberg gave so much time and space to what’s a political rather than scientific issue – especially because there is so, so, so much fascinating stuff about DNA and our genes.
You know how sometimes you go to a party and there’s that one person who clearly doesn’t want to be there and ruins the mood? That is this book.
Yes, there were some interesting parts. But comic book fans would probably be insulted (understandably) by the tone used, most adults don’t like being preached at, and it’s just advanced enough to not appeal to most kids … plus, it was published over a decade ago, so some of the science is a little wacky. Definitely a skip. Not recommended.
Divided into chapters about specific superheroes (and then focusing on parts of their story), the book takes some weird tangents. For example: out of everything interesting about DNA as it relates to mutations (superheroes involved: X-Men), the authors decided on a diatribe about the creationist movement. I’m pro-evolution, but it drove me nuts that Ms. Gresh and Mr. Weinberg gave so much time and space to what’s a political rather than scientific issue – especially because there is so, so, so much fascinating stuff about DNA and our genes.
You know how sometimes you go to a party and there’s that one person who clearly doesn’t want to be there and ruins the mood? That is this book.
Yes, there were some interesting parts. But comic book fans would probably be insulted (understandably) by the tone used, most adults don’t like being preached at, and it’s just advanced enough to not appeal to most kids … plus, it was published over a decade ago, so some of the science is a little wacky. Definitely a skip. Not recommended.
April 9, 2010
عبر قراءتي في هذا الكتاب فإني لم أتوقف عن الاندهاش والاستمتاع. كنت مستمعاً لأني أحب هذا النوع من القصص والكتاب أعطاني خلفية ممتازة عن تطورها التاريخي كشخصيات وكصناعة ترفيهية أيضاً، وربطها لي بتطور كتابة الخيال العلمي في الغرب. ذاك كان الشق الممتع. أما الفائدة ففي القيمة العلمية الكثيفة التي تلقيتها. فلكي تثبت أن أشعة گاما مثلاً لايمكن أن تكسبنا قوى خارقة كما حصل مع الرجل الأخضر، فإنك ستحدثني عن فيزياء المواد المشعة وعن النسيج الحي. كي تفند لي أكاذيب X-Men، فإنك ستشرح لي نظرية التطور بالتفصيل الممل.. وكي تجادلني في عبثية القول بوجود كواكب مأهولة أخرى في الكون، فإنك ستحاضرني في علوم الفلك والاحتمالات والأحياء المجهرية.
لكن هذه هي نصف الفائدة فقط. النصف الآخر والأهم كان في كيفية التعاطي مع “الهبل”.. علمياً! والأمر ليس متوقفاً على القصص المصورة وخزعبلات الخيال العلمي التي لا تليق بالعقلاء.. كما يؤمن الكثيرون. المسألة هي في كيفية طرح الرأي العاقل.. إنها في منهجية الخطاب المضاد نفسه.. وفي تعلم كيفية مقارعة الحجة بالحجة بدون تسفيه الطرف المقابل.
تتمة التقييم هنا: http://www.alfagih.net/site/?p=4823
لكن هذه هي نصف الفائدة فقط. النصف الآخر والأهم كان في كيفية التعاطي مع “الهبل”.. علمياً! والأمر ليس متوقفاً على القصص المصورة وخزعبلات الخيال العلمي التي لا تليق بالعقلاء.. كما يؤمن الكثيرون. المسألة هي في كيفية طرح الرأي العاقل.. إنها في منهجية الخطاب المضاد نفسه.. وفي تعلم كيفية مقارعة الحجة بالحجة بدون تسفيه الطرف المقابل.
تتمة التقييم هنا: http://www.alfagih.net/site/?p=4823
May 5, 2011
Pur non essendo appassionata di fumetti questo libro mi è piaciuto molto: parla in modo approfondito dei vari eroi spiegandone non solo le caratteristiche "scientifiche", ma anche il contesto sociale in cui sono nati, il carattere e le peculiarità più prettamente narrative. E allo stesso tempo spiega il fenomeno "fumetto", che mi ha aiutato ad entrare meglio nel contesto e a capire anche alcune scelte degli autori. Autori dei quali è riportata una interessantissima intervista alla fine del libro.
La parte scientifica è molto curata e presentata bene.
Bellissimo libro, scritto bene, piacevole e interessante. Unico difetto, troppo breve :) Consigliato
ne parlo in modo più approfondito sul mio blog: http://paleomichilibri.blogspot.com/2...
La parte scientifica è molto curata e presentata bene.
Bellissimo libro, scritto bene, piacevole e interessante. Unico difetto, troppo breve :) Consigliato
ne parlo in modo più approfondito sul mio blog: http://paleomichilibri.blogspot.com/2...
October 18, 2012
preso in biblioteca
A metà tra un excursus sulla storia del fumetto supereroistico e un testo di divulgazione scientifica a tutto tondo, gli autori presentano una carrellata di personaggi DC e Marvel (con qualche incursione nella "minori") e ne analizzano la genesi e le caratteristiche, spiegando perchè e come la loro storia sia o meno plausibile e "realistica" scientificamente.
Probabilmente quello che mi ha fatto abbandonare la lettura è stato il tono troppo serio e le lunghe spiegazioni astronomiche, fisiche e biologiche.
Troppo pesante come libro della buonanotte o per la pausa pranzo!
A metà tra un excursus sulla storia del fumetto supereroistico e un testo di divulgazione scientifica a tutto tondo, gli autori presentano una carrellata di personaggi DC e Marvel (con qualche incursione nella "minori") e ne analizzano la genesi e le caratteristiche, spiegando perchè e come la loro storia sia o meno plausibile e "realistica" scientificamente.
Probabilmente quello che mi ha fatto abbandonare la lettura è stato il tono troppo serio e le lunghe spiegazioni astronomiche, fisiche e biologiche.
Troppo pesante come libro della buonanotte o per la pausa pranzo!
December 16, 2007
This book had an interesting way of presenting where the science behind superheroes was incorrect, but noting ideas that could theoretically happen. For example, the book identified that the infamous gamma rays could not make an average person into a 300 pound angry green monster, the "GFP Hulk" could actually exist! The book also explains why Bizarro could not have come from a square planet. Again, if you enjoy a fun and interesting look at science applied to the superhero world, check out this book!
February 10, 2011
It was an interesting book all around. Taking each of the big super heroes, like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man etc. and discussing how real or fantastical their powers/abilities are or could be. It was a very male superhero oriented book, but, the authors also explain even that.
Truthfully though, my favorite part of the book had nothing to do with comic books, or super heroes, or any of that, but it was the small section where they totally and utterly took apart Creationism. Put a smile on my face.
Truthfully though, my favorite part of the book had nothing to do with comic books, or super heroes, or any of that, but it was the small section where they totally and utterly took apart Creationism. Put a smile on my face.
September 12, 2012
Ok, l'idea di partenza era già particolare: confrontare i fumetti con la realtà del mondo fisico e dimostrare quanto di vero o falso possa esserci.Il problema degli autori è che forse avrebbero dovuto ricordarsi che i fumetti nascono soprattutto per svagare chi li legge, quindi non è necessario arrivare ad "annientarli" per scrivere un buon libro di divulgazione.L'idea di base però era molto carina.
March 3, 2014
If Sheldon Cooper would have wrote a book, this would be it. Despite not being a science expert, I found the book easy to understand and fun to follow. It picks various superheroes and explains what would need to occur from each to be real and how each would and could adapt to our world. If you are a superhero dork , give it a shot.
August 22, 2011
Well, obviously I loved this. The best part was that I never bought it, I just read a little at a time every time i visited borders over more than a year. It was so engaging and fed my adoration of comic books.
November 20, 2007
Batman is the only superhero that can withstand the rigors of science.
April 24, 2008
this book is really fun to read and you also learn a little science to boot.
October 13, 2008
AMAZING! Ever wanted to know how Superman flies,,,what the story behind Antman was...this is the book for you! Centric more on the comics than the movies, so beware!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews