What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Supervillains
The authors of The Science of Superheroes now reveal the real genius of the most evil geniuses
Ever wonder why comic book villains, such as Spiderman's bionic archenemy Dr. Octopus or the X-Men's eternal rival Magneto, are so scary and so much fun? It's not just their diabolical talent for confounding our heroes, it's their unrivalled techno-proficiency at creating global mayhem that keeps comic book fans captivated. But is any of the science actually true? In The Science of Supervillains, authors Lois Gresh and Bob Weinberg present a highly entertaining and informative look at the mind-boggling wizardry behind the comic book world's legendary baddies. Whether it's artificial intelligence, weapons systems, anti-matter, robotics, or magnetic flux theory, this fun, fact-filled book is a fascinating excursion into the real-world science animating the genius in the comic book world's pantheon of evil geniuses.
Lois Gresh (Scottsville, NY) and Bob Weinberg (Oak Forest, IL) are the authors of the popular Science of Superheroes (cloth: 0-471-0246-0; paper: 0-471-46882-7)
Ever wonder why comic book villains, such as Spiderman's bionic archenemy Dr. Octopus or the X-Men's eternal rival Magneto, are so scary and so much fun? It's not just their diabolical talent for confounding our heroes, it's their unrivalled techno-proficiency at creating global mayhem that keeps comic book fans captivated. But is any of the science actually true? In The Science of Supervillains, authors Lois Gresh and Bob Weinberg present a highly entertaining and informative look at the mind-boggling wizardry behind the comic book world's legendary baddies. Whether it's artificial intelligence, weapons systems, anti-matter, robotics, or magnetic flux theory, this fun, fact-filled book is a fascinating excursion into the real-world science animating the genius in the comic book world's pantheon of evil geniuses.
Lois Gresh (Scottsville, NY) and Bob Weinberg (Oak Forest, IL) are the authors of the popular Science of Superheroes (cloth: 0-471-0246-0; paper: 0-471-46882-7)
224 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2004
3 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
Lois H. Gresh
74 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 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 17, 2014
As I read through this book, I found my rating steadily dropping, dropping, dropping. It's a good premise, but here are the problems I have, in the order I ran across them, and in order of increasing severity. But I'll go ahead and give you the punchline: a lot of the "science" in the book is false.
1. Sometimes, the topic of the chapter doesn't really have anything to do with the character allegedly being covered. For instance, in the chapter on Dr Doom, the main discussion is about exoskeletons. Certainly a cool topic, but not something Dr Doom is known for. There are other villains who would be better suited to this discussion. Even worse, in the chapter on Venom, the authors spend their time discussing wearable technology instead of symbiosis, a truly inexcusable choice since (a) wearable clothing is far less interesting than symbiosis, and (b) it totally misses the point of Venom. Anyway, I think some of these chapters were written first, then spiced up via discussion of a popular villain--whether it fit or not.
2. There are significant minor errors throughout, like referring to Cyclops as "Scott Connors," or reference to the "Noble Peace Prize." I know this is minor, but it also reveals a serious lack of proofreading and/or knowledge. (Strangely enough, these are errors both about comic books AND about science--what exactly is it that suits these authors to this book?)
3. My biggest complaint is with the science itself. First, it's all really shallow--Wikipedia-level stuff. Not exactly bracing analysis, and not particularly well explained. Worse, it's full of inaccuracies. I'm not a scientist, but I'm frequently picking out things that are misleading, or are sort-of-but-not-quite correct. This wouldn't be a problem if the author's mentioned something like "this is a slight simplification," but it's never really clear that they realize this. By the time I read the chapter on infinity, though, which is something I really do know something about, it's clear that the author's don't REALLY understand the topic they're writing about. Here are some specific errors, from this chapter:
*They refer to the set of natural numbers as "aleph-null." This is, again, sort of correct. Aleph-Null is a measure of size, so we can say that the set has size aleph-null (or, more technically, has cardinality aleph-null.) But aleph-null isn't the name of a set. This is probably most like confusing the number "2" with the adjective "second." These two items are linked somehow, but they're also different in significant ways.
*They present the proof that the rational numbers are the same cardinality as the natural numbers, but insist that repetition of representations (like 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = ...) isn't important, when it definitely is (but not insurmountably--the statement they make is true.) They then carefully clarify that we have to use 0 as well, but don't mention negative numbers at all! It's obviously way more clear that inserting one additional number (0) is much less significant than inputting the infinitely-many forgotten negative numbers. I can only surmise that the authors just don't use negative numbers? (Their correct definition of the rational numbers does include negatives, so I don't know why they skipped them without mention.)
*Then everything hits the fan. Cantor's diagonalization argument is an incredibly beautiful, but very tricky, proof. So you're certainly excused from getting tripped up by it. But you're NOT excused from writing a book and totally getting it wrong. First, the authors blatantly don't know the difference between real and irrational numbers, making almost everything they say nonsense. There are a lot of other minor problems with this proof, but there's not getting around this big one: you can't present a proof of about a mathematical object if you don't even know what the object is. This is completely inexcusable.
*The authors also say that the size of the real numbers is "aleph-one." Not only is this not true--it's fascinatingly not true! This statement is actually independent of the other usual mathematical axioms, meaning that it's neither True nor False, except by adding some assumptions about it's truth-hood. THIS IS REALLY WEIRD AND COOL! And totally overlooked by our authors.
*Ignoring the fact that the author's don't understand math very well, the conclusions they draw are also incorrect and, interestingly, thousands of years old. I quote: "in a moment of extreme hubris, the authors express in a formal statement we call Weinberg's corollary: infinite work cannot be completed in finite time." [Notice that they don't mean the technical physics definition of "work" here, they just mean you can't do infinitely many things.] Of course, anyone familiar with the history of math or physics will recognize the (ancient Greek) Zeno's paradox lurking here. This is the same assumption Zeno makes, leading to the conclusion "Motion is impossible." Since I'm typing this review, I know motion IS possible, so Weinberg's corollary is demonstrably false. Again, Zeno's paradox is subtle and certainly takes some thinking. But falling into a mental trap which is millennia old is a bit inexcusable. And not noticing it is even more inexcusable! My college Freshmen write papers critiquing exactly this line of reasoning, and explaining why you CAN do infinitely many things in a finite amount of time, so this isn't exactly research-level stuff.
So: I had smelled enough suspicious fish while reading the other chapters. So when I read a chapter where I actually knew the background material and found it totally full of misstatements and errors, I feel safe in assuming that the rest of the chapters aren't any better. The "science" here is probably the kind of stuff you'd read on Facebook--at best, simplified, at worst, wrong. And it's not even clear that the errors come from trying to write for a certain audience. I would feel very confident in betting money that the authors didn't really understand the stuff they were writing about, which is inexcusable. For that reason, what can I give the book but a 1/5?
1. Sometimes, the topic of the chapter doesn't really have anything to do with the character allegedly being covered. For instance, in the chapter on Dr Doom, the main discussion is about exoskeletons. Certainly a cool topic, but not something Dr Doom is known for. There are other villains who would be better suited to this discussion. Even worse, in the chapter on Venom, the authors spend their time discussing wearable technology instead of symbiosis, a truly inexcusable choice since (a) wearable clothing is far less interesting than symbiosis, and (b) it totally misses the point of Venom. Anyway, I think some of these chapters were written first, then spiced up via discussion of a popular villain--whether it fit or not.
2. There are significant minor errors throughout, like referring to Cyclops as "Scott Connors," or reference to the "Noble Peace Prize." I know this is minor, but it also reveals a serious lack of proofreading and/or knowledge. (Strangely enough, these are errors both about comic books AND about science--what exactly is it that suits these authors to this book?)
3. My biggest complaint is with the science itself. First, it's all really shallow--Wikipedia-level stuff. Not exactly bracing analysis, and not particularly well explained. Worse, it's full of inaccuracies. I'm not a scientist, but I'm frequently picking out things that are misleading, or are sort-of-but-not-quite correct. This wouldn't be a problem if the author's mentioned something like "this is a slight simplification," but it's never really clear that they realize this. By the time I read the chapter on infinity, though, which is something I really do know something about, it's clear that the author's don't REALLY understand the topic they're writing about. Here are some specific errors, from this chapter:
*They refer to the set of natural numbers as "aleph-null." This is, again, sort of correct. Aleph-Null is a measure of size, so we can say that the set has size aleph-null (or, more technically, has cardinality aleph-null.) But aleph-null isn't the name of a set. This is probably most like confusing the number "2" with the adjective "second." These two items are linked somehow, but they're also different in significant ways.
*They present the proof that the rational numbers are the same cardinality as the natural numbers, but insist that repetition of representations (like 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = ...) isn't important, when it definitely is (but not insurmountably--the statement they make is true.) They then carefully clarify that we have to use 0 as well, but don't mention negative numbers at all! It's obviously way more clear that inserting one additional number (0) is much less significant than inputting the infinitely-many forgotten negative numbers. I can only surmise that the authors just don't use negative numbers? (Their correct definition of the rational numbers does include negatives, so I don't know why they skipped them without mention.)
*Then everything hits the fan. Cantor's diagonalization argument is an incredibly beautiful, but very tricky, proof. So you're certainly excused from getting tripped up by it. But you're NOT excused from writing a book and totally getting it wrong. First, the authors blatantly don't know the difference between real and irrational numbers, making almost everything they say nonsense. There are a lot of other minor problems with this proof, but there's not getting around this big one: you can't present a proof of about a mathematical object if you don't even know what the object is. This is completely inexcusable.
*The authors also say that the size of the real numbers is "aleph-one." Not only is this not true--it's fascinatingly not true! This statement is actually independent of the other usual mathematical axioms, meaning that it's neither True nor False, except by adding some assumptions about it's truth-hood. THIS IS REALLY WEIRD AND COOL! And totally overlooked by our authors.
*Ignoring the fact that the author's don't understand math very well, the conclusions they draw are also incorrect and, interestingly, thousands of years old. I quote: "in a moment of extreme hubris, the authors express in a formal statement we call Weinberg's corollary: infinite work cannot be completed in finite time." [Notice that they don't mean the technical physics definition of "work" here, they just mean you can't do infinitely many things.] Of course, anyone familiar with the history of math or physics will recognize the (ancient Greek) Zeno's paradox lurking here. This is the same assumption Zeno makes, leading to the conclusion "Motion is impossible." Since I'm typing this review, I know motion IS possible, so Weinberg's corollary is demonstrably false. Again, Zeno's paradox is subtle and certainly takes some thinking. But falling into a mental trap which is millennia old is a bit inexcusable. And not noticing it is even more inexcusable! My college Freshmen write papers critiquing exactly this line of reasoning, and explaining why you CAN do infinitely many things in a finite amount of time, so this isn't exactly research-level stuff.
So: I had smelled enough suspicious fish while reading the other chapters. So when I read a chapter where I actually knew the background material and found it totally full of misstatements and errors, I feel safe in assuming that the rest of the chapters aren't any better. The "science" here is probably the kind of stuff you'd read on Facebook--at best, simplified, at worst, wrong. And it's not even clear that the errors come from trying to write for a certain audience. I would feel very confident in betting money that the authors didn't really understand the stuff they were writing about, which is inexcusable. For that reason, what can I give the book but a 1/5?
December 31, 2018
The Science of Supervillains by Lois H. Gresh & Robert Weinberg was just as much fun as The Science of Superheroes which I read earlier this year. This volume discusses the possibility (or impossibility) of the various powers and abilities that supervillains from comic lore possess. They cover such classic villains as Poison Ivy, Lex Luthor, Doc Ock, and Magneto to name just a few. One of the more fascinating sections examined a comic titled "Crisis on Infinite Earths" where infinite realities, galaxies, and universes were destroyed. Gresh determined that within these infinite galaxies and universes would be still more infinite galaxies which would take infinite power and infinite time to destroy...which is impossible. (If you're a huge science nerd then this is the kind of stuff that makes your brain hum with happiness.) Included at the back of the book was an excellent notes section as well as a Q&A with various comic writers and reviewers. The only con I could see was that it was quite a bit shorter than its predecessor which bummed me out as I enjoyed it so much. (In fact, I'm ordering another book by Gresh about the computers of Star Trek which I'm super pumped to read.) Well researched, well written, and well executed...can't ask for more than that! 10/10
October 26, 2016
I really liked this book because of the supervillian theme of the book and because of all the information. I liked how they explained each supervillain like you have never heard of them before. And honestly some of them I haven't or I have heard of them just have not heard their story. They did a great job especially on explaining Bat-mite and MR. Mxyzptlk because I have heard of them but not heard their story and it was well given by the author and I could understand it very well. I also really liked this book because of all the different science it went over. For instance It went over how birds and airplanes fly for Vulture, how far humankind is in technology and trying to understand multi universes and infinity. I could not understand it all because it was very deep and I am only 14, but I got most of it and it was very interesting to me.
I would recommend this book to specifically Ryan and Josh but mainly anyone who wants to learn about deep science and has an interest in super heroes. I would recommend it to you because it covers a lot about random science that is hard to understand, but in this book it is well wright en out.
My favorite quote from this book is from chapter 10, the first line "Powerful superheroes need powerful villains." The quote is just from the author to the reader but kind of sums up the theme of the book. It talks after the quote about how without a powerful villain the comic or story really isn't that interesting, so then they make villains more powerful. I like it because it makes me think that because of this quote or saying not only will the story line be more boring but so would this book, solely based on supervillians.
I would recommend this book to specifically Ryan and Josh but mainly anyone who wants to learn about deep science and has an interest in super heroes. I would recommend it to you because it covers a lot about random science that is hard to understand, but in this book it is well wright en out.
My favorite quote from this book is from chapter 10, the first line "Powerful superheroes need powerful villains." The quote is just from the author to the reader but kind of sums up the theme of the book. It talks after the quote about how without a powerful villain the comic or story really isn't that interesting, so then they make villains more powerful. I like it because it makes me think that because of this quote or saying not only will the story line be more boring but so would this book, solely based on supervillians.
January 28, 2010
Last year, I reviewed Gresh and Weinberg's previous book, The Science of Superheroes and I wasn't all that impressed with it. Which, as I noted in the review, is weird. As I'm pretty sure you're aware by now, I am a big fan of science and I loves me my superheroes. Putting those two things together should, by all rights, be just the book for me.
Unfortunately, I was less than thrilled with it. I found it kind of clunky, dry, and generally dismissive of comic books due to their misuse of science. I couldn't fault them for the topics they chose - they were interesting enough. Things like the problems with characters who grow and shrink, or why the original origin for Superman made no sense - these were the things that are valid targets if you're looking for bad science, but Gresh and Weinberg were really only looking for bad science.
I got this book, and I had hoped that they'd learned from their previous one. Unfortunately, they haven't learned all their lessons. To their credit, they did stop focusing on comic book history, which was a big part of why the first book dragged the way it did, but their overall attitude towards comic books and science is pretty much the same. Only this time, they're looking at the supervillains.
As much as I've always wanted to be a superhero, there have been plenty of times when I've wanted to join the other side as well.
I mean, how many times have you wanted to don some goggles and a lab coat, stand on your parapet (you do have a parapet, right?), backlit by lightning as you scream, "The FOOLS! They called me mad? I WILL SHOW YOU MADNESS! HA! HAHAHAHA!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
Or something like that.
Anyway, there's something to be said for the life of a supervillain, and if you're a really good one then you'll make it into the pages of history. Names such as Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom, Magneto and Sinestro - these are names that will live in the hearts of comic book fans forever. Indeed, it is said that the greatness of a hero depends on the greatness of his villain. Where would Superman be if he only had to foil a few muggings once in a while? Or Spider-Man if he were just tracking down garden-variety murderers? They might be heroes, but they certainly wouldn't be superheroes.
So what can we learn from these megalomaniacs? Well, we can learn a lot, so long as we are willing to ignore a whole lot of bad science. Lex Luthor, for example, was a fan in his early days of things like weather machines that would completely change the climate of an area. Is that possible? Well no, of course not. There's no way to completely alter weather using a wooden tower and a parabolic dish. Or what about the Anti-Monitor's attempt to destroy the Infinite Earths? While it looked good in the pages of the comics, the nature of infinity is such that no matter how many Earths he destroyed, there would still be an infinite number of Earths left. And that's not even getting into the matter/anti-matter self-destruction problem. And how about The Vulture? What's so wrong with an elderly man strapping some wings to his arms and committing dastardly crimes? As it turns out, what's wrong is everything we know about flight.
On the other hand, there are villains who kind of show us a goal to reach, in a weird way. Doctor Doom, for example, uses a metal exoskeleton that confers upon him great strength and endurance. Would it be possible for us to build such a thing, only not looking several centuries out of date? As it turns out, yes we can. Or at least we will be able to soon. The science of body assistance has been making great progress recently, and it's only a matter of time before we are able to augment our own bodies from the outside and do amazing things.
Or look at Poison Ivy, one of Batman's recurring villains (and the only female in the book). She makes great use of plants that look like nothing Nature has ever produced. Could we, with biological engineering, do the same? It turns out we already are, just not as cool. Instead of giant venus flytraps that catch and eat human beings, we're engineering better strains of vegetables that will go towards feeding more people for less money. But if we really wanted to, we could have murderous plants in our future.
All of these bad guys offer us a chance to explore science, both fundamental and cutting-edge. The Lizard, a poor, beleaguered enemy of Spider-Man's who cannot control the beast within, may give us the clues to regenerating our own limbs. Magneto offers us an understanding of how powerful and pervasive electromagnetism really is. Dr. Octopus shows us the potential of prosthetics, and Mr. Mxyzptlk is a great way to start looking at not just the fifth dimension, but the very concepts of dimensions that are beyond the paltry ones that we inhabit.
So why didn't this book shine for me? Well again, it comes down to the authors' approach to the topic at hand.
Other books about superheroes and science start off by accepting the reality of the comic book. James Kaklios' The Physics of Superheroes does exactly that - he grants the heroes a "miracle exception" and then moves on from there. His book is founded on the tacit understanding that comic book writers are more interested in the story than the science, but that if you look hard enough, you can find scientific lessons everywhere.
Gresh and Weinberg seem to take a much more dismissive view of comics, bordering on the sarcastic in several places. More than once, they strayed from the science to criticize the villains' motives - why is Vandal Savage so hot to take over the world? Why not just invest his money, wait a few hundred years and live a life better than any human had before him? Or why would Lex Luthor do something so stupid as to drop a nuclear bomb from a helicopter? Helloooo? Ever hear of a little something we like to call "poison gas?"
While those may be excellent story points, this book is not called "The Plot Holes of Supervillains." It's about the science, and trying to gain the appreciation of comic book fans by pointing out why their favorite bad guys are idiots, well.... That's probably not the best way to handle it.
While I don't doubt that Gresh and Weinberg know their comics, I don't get the feeling that they really love comic books for what they are - fantasies with just enough science stuck on to make them seem plausible. Rather than looking for ways that comic books can open readers' eyes to science, they seem to be more interested in tearing down the comics themselves for trying - and failing - to use science in their stories. They're more focused on the flaws than the potential, and I found that tiring after a while.
So while I can't say that I disliked this book - the chapter on the fifth dimension was really interesting, and they certainly raised a lot of good questions about the viability of comic book-inspired science - I can say that I'm somewhat disappointed. It seems to me that it's a book for people who feel slightly ashamed that they like comics, and want someone to tell them that they were right to feel that way.
Well, I'm not ashamed, but I will be more considerate of my villains from now on. They may be evil, underhanded, greedy, selfish and yes - just a little crazy. But that doesn't mean they don't have anything to teach us.
Unfortunately, I was less than thrilled with it. I found it kind of clunky, dry, and generally dismissive of comic books due to their misuse of science. I couldn't fault them for the topics they chose - they were interesting enough. Things like the problems with characters who grow and shrink, or why the original origin for Superman made no sense - these were the things that are valid targets if you're looking for bad science, but Gresh and Weinberg were really only looking for bad science.
I got this book, and I had hoped that they'd learned from their previous one. Unfortunately, they haven't learned all their lessons. To their credit, they did stop focusing on comic book history, which was a big part of why the first book dragged the way it did, but their overall attitude towards comic books and science is pretty much the same. Only this time, they're looking at the supervillains.
As much as I've always wanted to be a superhero, there have been plenty of times when I've wanted to join the other side as well.
I mean, how many times have you wanted to don some goggles and a lab coat, stand on your parapet (you do have a parapet, right?), backlit by lightning as you scream, "The FOOLS! They called me mad? I WILL SHOW YOU MADNESS! HA! HAHAHAHA!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
Or something like that.
Anyway, there's something to be said for the life of a supervillain, and if you're a really good one then you'll make it into the pages of history. Names such as Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom, Magneto and Sinestro - these are names that will live in the hearts of comic book fans forever. Indeed, it is said that the greatness of a hero depends on the greatness of his villain. Where would Superman be if he only had to foil a few muggings once in a while? Or Spider-Man if he were just tracking down garden-variety murderers? They might be heroes, but they certainly wouldn't be superheroes.
So what can we learn from these megalomaniacs? Well, we can learn a lot, so long as we are willing to ignore a whole lot of bad science. Lex Luthor, for example, was a fan in his early days of things like weather machines that would completely change the climate of an area. Is that possible? Well no, of course not. There's no way to completely alter weather using a wooden tower and a parabolic dish. Or what about the Anti-Monitor's attempt to destroy the Infinite Earths? While it looked good in the pages of the comics, the nature of infinity is such that no matter how many Earths he destroyed, there would still be an infinite number of Earths left. And that's not even getting into the matter/anti-matter self-destruction problem. And how about The Vulture? What's so wrong with an elderly man strapping some wings to his arms and committing dastardly crimes? As it turns out, what's wrong is everything we know about flight.
On the other hand, there are villains who kind of show us a goal to reach, in a weird way. Doctor Doom, for example, uses a metal exoskeleton that confers upon him great strength and endurance. Would it be possible for us to build such a thing, only not looking several centuries out of date? As it turns out, yes we can. Or at least we will be able to soon. The science of body assistance has been making great progress recently, and it's only a matter of time before we are able to augment our own bodies from the outside and do amazing things.
Or look at Poison Ivy, one of Batman's recurring villains (and the only female in the book). She makes great use of plants that look like nothing Nature has ever produced. Could we, with biological engineering, do the same? It turns out we already are, just not as cool. Instead of giant venus flytraps that catch and eat human beings, we're engineering better strains of vegetables that will go towards feeding more people for less money. But if we really wanted to, we could have murderous plants in our future.
All of these bad guys offer us a chance to explore science, both fundamental and cutting-edge. The Lizard, a poor, beleaguered enemy of Spider-Man's who cannot control the beast within, may give us the clues to regenerating our own limbs. Magneto offers us an understanding of how powerful and pervasive electromagnetism really is. Dr. Octopus shows us the potential of prosthetics, and Mr. Mxyzptlk is a great way to start looking at not just the fifth dimension, but the very concepts of dimensions that are beyond the paltry ones that we inhabit.
So why didn't this book shine for me? Well again, it comes down to the authors' approach to the topic at hand.
Other books about superheroes and science start off by accepting the reality of the comic book. James Kaklios' The Physics of Superheroes does exactly that - he grants the heroes a "miracle exception" and then moves on from there. His book is founded on the tacit understanding that comic book writers are more interested in the story than the science, but that if you look hard enough, you can find scientific lessons everywhere.
Gresh and Weinberg seem to take a much more dismissive view of comics, bordering on the sarcastic in several places. More than once, they strayed from the science to criticize the villains' motives - why is Vandal Savage so hot to take over the world? Why not just invest his money, wait a few hundred years and live a life better than any human had before him? Or why would Lex Luthor do something so stupid as to drop a nuclear bomb from a helicopter? Helloooo? Ever hear of a little something we like to call "poison gas?"
While those may be excellent story points, this book is not called "The Plot Holes of Supervillains." It's about the science, and trying to gain the appreciation of comic book fans by pointing out why their favorite bad guys are idiots, well.... That's probably not the best way to handle it.
While I don't doubt that Gresh and Weinberg know their comics, I don't get the feeling that they really love comic books for what they are - fantasies with just enough science stuck on to make them seem plausible. Rather than looking for ways that comic books can open readers' eyes to science, they seem to be more interested in tearing down the comics themselves for trying - and failing - to use science in their stories. They're more focused on the flaws than the potential, and I found that tiring after a while.
So while I can't say that I disliked this book - the chapter on the fifth dimension was really interesting, and they certainly raised a lot of good questions about the viability of comic book-inspired science - I can say that I'm somewhat disappointed. It seems to me that it's a book for people who feel slightly ashamed that they like comics, and want someone to tell them that they were right to feel that way.
Well, I'm not ashamed, but I will be more considerate of my villains from now on. They may be evil, underhanded, greedy, selfish and yes - just a little crazy. But that doesn't mean they don't have anything to teach us.
January 11, 2021
A much better idea in theory than it seemingly is on practice, the fact that I'm reading this in 2021, 16 years after it was published certainly doesn't help matters. It's possible this book just isn't for me, but it came across as rather dry and dull.
September 1, 2012
Eh. Nothing wrong here, but it's a little dry and not over-interesting. The book largely shies from speculative fiction, instead delving a bit into where modern science is in relation to, say, the high-techiness of the Ultimate Nullifier whatzit.
December 21, 2018
Had great hopes for this book, science and supervillians, what could go wrong? But in the end it was just, meh good. The science was decent and the Comic book stuff was decent as well. Read through it in a couple of days but cant say I remember much more then that I was entertained while reading it. There are better books about science, and better books about supervillians.
September 6, 2011
What can I say? It is good for all the reasons the first book was good (The science of Superheros). It was just more of what I liked! The science was great, the comic history was great, and the introduction from Claremont was great as well!
June 21, 2011
I love Gresh's work. It's fun to pit reality against the fantasy worlds we create.
September 26, 2011
Taught me stuiff I didn't know, and related it back to comic books. I thinmk this would be a great explaination/starting point for a kid.
November 26, 2014
Kinda dissapointing. This books comes after I read James Kakalios' Science of Supoer Heroes and it does not come close to that book in quality for me...
August 12, 2016
156 - 2014
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews