What do you think?
Rate this book
The Explainer
What happens to recalled meat?
What’s the difference between a serial killer and a spree killer?
How do you stop a lava flow?
Does homeowner’s insurance cover murder?
And what is Ovaltine anyway?
Answers to these and other fascinating questions you never thought to ask, from the writers at Slate Magazine
An entertaining and genuinely informative compilation of answers to some of life's most improbable questions, from the writers of the online magazine Slate. Often inspired by events in the news, the “Explainer” column asks the questions we never think to ask, or that we’re too embarrassed to admit we don’t know how to answer. Filling in these overlooked blanks of our daily lives, the book provides memorable tidbits for conversations, further rumination, or important context as we follow current events from day to day. Full of fascinating information about unlikely but important subjects, The Explainer will entertain and inform anyone who has ever stopped to wonder who runs Antarctica, how cell phones can reveal your location, or whether one can live off lizard meat.
What’s the difference between a serial killer and a spree killer?
How do you stop a lava flow?
Does homeowner’s insurance cover murder?
And what is Ovaltine anyway?
Answers to these and other fascinating questions you never thought to ask, from the writers at Slate Magazine
An entertaining and genuinely informative compilation of answers to some of life's most improbable questions, from the writers of the online magazine Slate. Often inspired by events in the news, the “Explainer” column asks the questions we never think to ask, or that we’re too embarrassed to admit we don’t know how to answer. Filling in these overlooked blanks of our daily lives, the book provides memorable tidbits for conversations, further rumination, or important context as we follow current events from day to day. Full of fascinating information about unlikely but important subjects, The Explainer will entertain and inform anyone who has ever stopped to wonder who runs Antarctica, how cell phones can reveal your location, or whether one can live off lizard meat.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
94 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 1, 2020
This is a book of nothing but short explanations on things that come up in the news from time to time. So you get answers for questions like What is corking a Bat and is it effective. How does Pardon work? Could Obama, Clinton, or GW Bush become a three-term President legally? And many others. It is a great book to read and I think I might have to see if I can find the sources for the book online. Would be nice to keep up to date with these things.
March 4, 2012
Los escritores de la Slate Magazine 
se preguntan unos a otros sobre cosas de sus artículos. ¿Por qué había soldados americanos en Irak con uniformes de camuflaje verde en vez de marrón? ¿Qué le pasa a la carne que retiran de los supermercados? ¿Qué es la Ley de Moore? ¿Por qué a algunas empresas en bolsa se les llama Blue chips? Una vez a la semana, cada uno de los redactores tiene que hacer de “Explicador” y contarles a los demás los resultados de sus pesquisas. Es como una serie de consultorios CPI no referidos a la ciencia.
Y la verdad es que queda bastante entretenido. Hay muchas preguntas muy interesantes, y otras que están más orientadas al público local (¿Cuál es la diferencia entre un jurado y un gran jurado? ¿Es legal mentirle a un comité del congreso norteamericano?). El estilo es simple y llano, y aunque no profundizan en los temas ni incluyen referencias ni fuentes, si uno sigue sintiendo curiosidad consiguen ponerle sobre la pista para seguir averiguando cosas por su cuenta.
Entre mis favoritas: ¿Cómo consiguieron los norteamericanos tener una base militar en Cuba? ¿Se puede detener la lava de una erupción? ¿Por qué aún se usan aviones espía habiendo satélites? ¿Qué diferencia hay entre el Fondo Monetario Internacional y el Banco Mundial?… Y un montón más que seguro que resultan interesantes. Recuerden, estimados lectores, que todos los explainers están en línea, en la sección del Explainer , y son de acceso libre.
Mi nota: Muy entretenido.
July 20, 2019
A fun and informative read
I read this all the way through, which I suppose is a statement about how well it's written and edited. It's a splendid example of how good writing, good editing and some excellent research can lead to a felicitous read. The people at Slate did themselves proud as they swam between the shallows of the sound byte and the depths of the essay. Let's say that what we have here--and what is increasingly seen in the print and Internet media (including this review)--is something we might call the mini-essay, between five hundred and a thousand words--that is, longer than the buzz on TV but shorter than an article from Harper's or The Atlantic Monthly.
Here's an example of the clear, effective writing with just a touch of panache that characterizes this modest volume. The writers are discussing how and why Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves (something Justice Scalia ought to do in the case before the court involving his good buddy Dick Chaney): "Since Supreme Court justices tend to be well off, and since lawyers often marry lawyers and beget more lawyers, money and family come up the most as reasons for recusal." (p. 172) In the next paragraph, we are given the probable reason that Scalia is not recusing himself: "In general justices are loath to recuse themselves from cases because it opens the way for a tie. When that happens, the lower court decision is affirmed by default." Hmm, maybe we can predict if a justice, leaning a certain way, is likely to recuse himself by looking at how the lower court ruled.
It is this kind of additional insight into the question at hand that lifts the people at Slate above some other "explainers" that I have read. Here's another nice example from the double-edged question, "How Does the US Mint Make Money?" It makes it two ways, the authors slyly explain. First it manufactures the actual coins, which is one way of "making" money; and then it makes money by putting the coins into circulation, which is another way of "making" money since the banks have to pay for them. But the zinger is what economists aptly call "escheatment" (a word Slate doesn't use here). Simply put, escheatment is the profit the government gains from all the coins and bills that are lost or destroyed. For the loser that money just disappears. For the government that money is money it got paid for, and unless the coins or bills are found, it is money that it never has to redeem. Banks issuing digital credit cards also benefit from escheatment when the cards or lost or destroyed before being emptied. Traditionally, escheatment refers to governments benefitting from people who die without heirs.
I was startled to read that the US Mint "estimates that in the first two and a half years [of the commemorative quarters program with states featured on the quarters]...it bagged nearly $3-billion in revenue off quarters alone." (p. 215)
Naturally, I can find some wee fault with this book. In explaining how to spell "Osama" and why authorities can differ, the authors determined that "the Al-Qaida leader Romanized his name as Usama." However they don't give his preference on the Romanized spelling of Al-Qaida. I found myself beginning with Al-Qaida moving on to Al-Qaeda, and now write Al Qaeda. As the authors quip: "Can't we call the whole thing off?"
More at fault though is their answer to the first question in the book, "Can You Break Even Playing Slots?" Their answer is a "in the long run" no. My answer (the correct answer of course!) is that if you select only progressive slots that are now paying a premium (an "overlay," as the gamblers term it), you can not only break even in the long run, but are almost certain to be ahead in the long run. The catch here is that the machines are seldom in the overlay mode, and one would have to spend a tremendous amount to time traipsing through the casinos looking for the few progressives that have gone critical. Their conclusion that "conservative moralist William Bennett," who was the focus of the mini-essay, prevaricated when he contradicted a report that he lost $8-million at the slots, is no doubt essentially correct.
The larger chapter headings are called, "Bad Ideas," "The Criminal Mind," "Death,"..., "Conspiracy Theories," "Where Things Come From," and other juicy topics. Some of the more intriguing questions under the general headings are, "Did Saddam Impose a Mustache Mandate?"; "Do TV Talk Show Hosts Get Paid?"; "Do You Own the Movie Rights to Your Life?" etc. I'll give you the short answer to that last one: no.
The topics, as you'll see, are topical; usually something in the news justifies Slate's interest in taking the trouble to broaden our understanding. Since there are six topics to each of 28 general headings, there are (grabbing my calculator) 168 questions in all.
Bottom line: like a box of chocolates or a bag of Fritos: betcha can't just read one.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
I read this all the way through, which I suppose is a statement about how well it's written and edited. It's a splendid example of how good writing, good editing and some excellent research can lead to a felicitous read. The people at Slate did themselves proud as they swam between the shallows of the sound byte and the depths of the essay. Let's say that what we have here--and what is increasingly seen in the print and Internet media (including this review)--is something we might call the mini-essay, between five hundred and a thousand words--that is, longer than the buzz on TV but shorter than an article from Harper's or The Atlantic Monthly.
Here's an example of the clear, effective writing with just a touch of panache that characterizes this modest volume. The writers are discussing how and why Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves (something Justice Scalia ought to do in the case before the court involving his good buddy Dick Chaney): "Since Supreme Court justices tend to be well off, and since lawyers often marry lawyers and beget more lawyers, money and family come up the most as reasons for recusal." (p. 172) In the next paragraph, we are given the probable reason that Scalia is not recusing himself: "In general justices are loath to recuse themselves from cases because it opens the way for a tie. When that happens, the lower court decision is affirmed by default." Hmm, maybe we can predict if a justice, leaning a certain way, is likely to recuse himself by looking at how the lower court ruled.
It is this kind of additional insight into the question at hand that lifts the people at Slate above some other "explainers" that I have read. Here's another nice example from the double-edged question, "How Does the US Mint Make Money?" It makes it two ways, the authors slyly explain. First it manufactures the actual coins, which is one way of "making" money; and then it makes money by putting the coins into circulation, which is another way of "making" money since the banks have to pay for them. But the zinger is what economists aptly call "escheatment" (a word Slate doesn't use here). Simply put, escheatment is the profit the government gains from all the coins and bills that are lost or destroyed. For the loser that money just disappears. For the government that money is money it got paid for, and unless the coins or bills are found, it is money that it never has to redeem. Banks issuing digital credit cards also benefit from escheatment when the cards or lost or destroyed before being emptied. Traditionally, escheatment refers to governments benefitting from people who die without heirs.
I was startled to read that the US Mint "estimates that in the first two and a half years [of the commemorative quarters program with states featured on the quarters]...it bagged nearly $3-billion in revenue off quarters alone." (p. 215)
Naturally, I can find some wee fault with this book. In explaining how to spell "Osama" and why authorities can differ, the authors determined that "the Al-Qaida leader Romanized his name as Usama." However they don't give his preference on the Romanized spelling of Al-Qaida. I found myself beginning with Al-Qaida moving on to Al-Qaeda, and now write Al Qaeda. As the authors quip: "Can't we call the whole thing off?"
More at fault though is their answer to the first question in the book, "Can You Break Even Playing Slots?" Their answer is a "in the long run" no. My answer (the correct answer of course!) is that if you select only progressive slots that are now paying a premium (an "overlay," as the gamblers term it), you can not only break even in the long run, but are almost certain to be ahead in the long run. The catch here is that the machines are seldom in the overlay mode, and one would have to spend a tremendous amount to time traipsing through the casinos looking for the few progressives that have gone critical. Their conclusion that "conservative moralist William Bennett," who was the focus of the mini-essay, prevaricated when he contradicted a report that he lost $8-million at the slots, is no doubt essentially correct.
The larger chapter headings are called, "Bad Ideas," "The Criminal Mind," "Death,"..., "Conspiracy Theories," "Where Things Come From," and other juicy topics. Some of the more intriguing questions under the general headings are, "Did Saddam Impose a Mustache Mandate?"; "Do TV Talk Show Hosts Get Paid?"; "Do You Own the Movie Rights to Your Life?" etc. I'll give you the short answer to that last one: no.
The topics, as you'll see, are topical; usually something in the news justifies Slate's interest in taking the trouble to broaden our understanding. Since there are six topics to each of 28 general headings, there are (grabbing my calculator) 168 questions in all.
Bottom line: like a box of chocolates or a bag of Fritos: betcha can't just read one.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
June 9, 2018
Great coffee table book. In 2018 we can google most information. This book is great for when you're without internet or don't know what you want to know. I never knew I wanted to know how to become a weapons inspector.
May 14, 2017
it's a decent read for those who like a little information on a lot of various things.
January 9, 2017
Normally I enjoy trivia books, and while this did answer a few questions I was curious about, I found it to be rather dry. I felt several of the answers went on for way too long and I found myself nodding off a few times while reading.
February 24, 2008
Can the pope retire? (Yes, but it hasn't happened voluntarily since 1294.)
Where did tarot cards come from? (Northern Italy in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century; they were used to play a bridge-like game called tarocchi)
Where did the phrase "pie in the sky" come from? (Lyrics by IWW member Joe Hill)
Is there really such a thing as a "water landing" when traveling on an airplane? (Yes, but it is probably not survivable.)
What happens to recalled meat? (It goes into landfills or becomes animal feed, depending on what the problem with it is--and it is dyed green to make sure that humans do not consume it.)
Does the president need a passport? (Yes, a diplomatic one, but Queen Elizabeth II does not because all British passports are issued in her name)
If you find a ticking nuclear device, whom do you call? (The Nuclear Emergency Search Team--NEST--created by Gerald Ford in the 1970s; the team has been alerted well over 100 times)
Does homeowner's insurance cover murder? (No, only accidental death)
What's the difference between "confidential" and "top secret"? (It's complicated.)
Slate.com's The Explainer answers these and many other questions in detail. This book is carefully researched and entertainingly written. It's great to dip into, but you may end up reading the whole thing straight through.
Where did tarot cards come from? (Northern Italy in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century; they were used to play a bridge-like game called tarocchi)
Where did the phrase "pie in the sky" come from? (Lyrics by IWW member Joe Hill)
Is there really such a thing as a "water landing" when traveling on an airplane? (Yes, but it is probably not survivable.)
What happens to recalled meat? (It goes into landfills or becomes animal feed, depending on what the problem with it is--and it is dyed green to make sure that humans do not consume it.)
Does the president need a passport? (Yes, a diplomatic one, but Queen Elizabeth II does not because all British passports are issued in her name)
If you find a ticking nuclear device, whom do you call? (The Nuclear Emergency Search Team--NEST--created by Gerald Ford in the 1970s; the team has been alerted well over 100 times)
Does homeowner's insurance cover murder? (No, only accidental death)
What's the difference between "confidential" and "top secret"? (It's complicated.)
Slate.com's The Explainer answers these and many other questions in detail. This book is carefully researched and entertainingly written. It's great to dip into, but you may end up reading the whole thing straight through.
Read
April 24, 2012What happens to recalled meat?
What’s the difference between a serial killer and a spree killer?
How do you stop a lava flow?
Does homeowner’s insurance cover murder?
And what is Ovaltine anyway?
Answers to these and other fascinating questions you never thought to ask, from the writers at Slate Magazine
An entertaining and genuinely informative compilation of answers to some of life's most improbable questions, from the writers of the online magazine Slate. Often inspired by events in the news, the “Explainer” column asks the questions we never think to ask, or that we’re too embarrassed to admit we don’t know how to answer. Filling in these overlooked blanks of our daily lives, the book provides memorable tidbits for conversations, further rumination, or important context as we follow current events from day to day. Full of fascinating information about unlikely but important subjects, The Explainer will entertain and inform anyone who has ever stopped to wonder who runs Antarctica, how cell phones can reveal your location, or whether one can live off lizard meat.
What’s the difference between a serial killer and a spree killer?
How do you stop a lava flow?
Does homeowner’s insurance cover murder?
And what is Ovaltine anyway?
Answers to these and other fascinating questions you never thought to ask, from the writers at Slate Magazine
An entertaining and genuinely informative compilation of answers to some of life's most improbable questions, from the writers of the online magazine Slate. Often inspired by events in the news, the “Explainer” column asks the questions we never think to ask, or that we’re too embarrassed to admit we don’t know how to answer. Filling in these overlooked blanks of our daily lives, the book provides memorable tidbits for conversations, further rumination, or important context as we follow current events from day to day. Full of fascinating information about unlikely but important subjects, The Explainer will entertain and inform anyone who has ever stopped to wonder who runs Antarctica, how cell phones can reveal your location, or whether one can live off lizard meat.
August 7, 2009
This book is a compilation of articles from Slate's "Explainer" column, with a small amount of additional explanation added to some questions.
I generally really like this sort of book, with answers to random questions. Unfortunately, this wasn't really a great example of the genre. The book itself isn't that thick -- I ran through it in a few casual days -- and the answers are so-so: they give some explanation, but nothing very in-depth.
The best part about this book was that it includes a number of questions that seem particularly relevant right now, such as a question about Iranian politics and elections.
It's worth spending a little bit of time reading this book if you run across it, but not worth searching out.
I generally really like this sort of book, with answers to random questions. Unfortunately, this wasn't really a great example of the genre. The book itself isn't that thick -- I ran through it in a few casual days -- and the answers are so-so: they give some explanation, but nothing very in-depth.
The best part about this book was that it includes a number of questions that seem particularly relevant right now, such as a question about Iranian politics and elections.
It's worth spending a little bit of time reading this book if you run across it, but not worth searching out.
July 23, 2008
The good people at Slate Magazine crack open the questions people have after the headlines hit and overall they really do a bang-up job with it. The only slightly annoying thing that stuck with me was that there seemed to be an undercurrent of Clinton bashing, that became a bit distracting after the fourth reference or so. It's hard to deny Bill Clinton's history of newsworthiness, but his name (and foibles) were worked into the answers to questions that did not directly relate back to him enough that it seemed more than just coincidental. Personally, I think I prefer political snarkiness to be equal-opportunity. There's more than enough misdeeds to go around.
August 9, 2016
This is a short, fun book about--well, practically everything. The book collects a very wide range of random questions--many of them are trivia, while some are weightier. Each question gets answered in a page or so, and the answers all seem to be well-researched and understandable. I loved the questions, "Inmates can't vote. So why can they run for congress?", "Is there cocaine on your money?", and "Can you kill someone twice?"
January 24, 2012
This is the ultimate quick read giving you the ability to pick the "explained" topics you wish. I learned something on every page and had a good time reading it. A broad set of areas but I found the best ones having to do with law and institutions.
March 3, 2008
About midway between Ripley's Believe It Or Not and The Straight Dope.
July 27, 2013
I'm a sucker for trivial information, so this book is perfect for me. Answers tons of questions I didn't know I had... Based off the column of the same name on Slate's online magazine.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews