XKCD Author's New Unpublished Book Becomes Scientific Best-Seller 90
An anonymous reader writes: XKCD cartoonist Randall Munroe will be publishing a new book in November, but it's already become Amazon's #1 best-seller in two "Science & Math" subcategories, for mechanics and scientific instruments. Inspired by a cartoon describing NASA's Saturn V rocket as "the up-goer V", Randall's created a large-format collection of blueprints describing datacenters, tectonic plates, and even the controls in an airplane cockpit — using only the thousand most common English words. "Since this book explains things, I've called it Thing Explainer," Randall writes on the XKCD blog, trying to mimic the humorously simple style of his book. Randall's previous book of scientific hypotheticals — published one year ago — is still Amazon's #1 best-selling book in their "Physics" category, ranking higher than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."
Sounds like a Star Trek book (Score:5, Funny)
"Technology for Pakleds" (they are smart)
Re: (Score:2)
They had their day...fifteen years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
I was browsing through titles of illegally shared/uploaded movies that can be streamed. (Google zmovies for a link.) Anyhow... I stumbled across a movie entitled Three Headed Shark Attack, something along those lines, and it brought a smile to my face when I thought about it and realized that /. would have come up with such a movie premise.
Then, in that light, I started to pay a bit more attention to the movie titles. There seems to be a trend of bad movie titles out there. I do not know if they are bad mov
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very good. Have a celebratory golf clap.
More practical.... (Score:3, Informative)
"Most common 1000 words" is great for making a point.
Far more practical would be using a vocabulary that almost all 10-year-old native speakers can read and that a vast majority of non-native speakers who have spent the last few years living in a English-speaking environment (that is, an environment that pretty much forces you to learn to speak and read English at a basic level in order to survive).
I would expect this to be far more than 1000 words.
Re: More practical.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to cultivate a positive image for science, you'll want to cultivate fans. They'll always outnumber the real scientists. The reason is rather simple: popularity -idealized- determines policy. So you want as many fans as possible for things concerning ecology (fossil fuels, global climatology), economy (less recessions, better investments, smarter spending savings debt management), immunology (Jenny McCartney is merely the tip of the festering social pus that is willful ignorance), technological advancements (take some time to compare what NASA is funded with per tax dollar vs. how much the solutions of space problems had saved in normal R&D when they release the data for free constantly without having pay patents). And so on.
I agree with Maddox about how annoying fans are versus real science; but only someone blind cannot see the advantage of having popular (and populist) opinion in your corner.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the point you're making. You believe that having a book that explains things using only the 1000 most commonly-used English words causes falsified scientific results and non-entertaining TV debates.
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't fans - the problem is fans that repeat whatever celebrities say with no more real understanding of what they've said than than possessed by the coffee cup at my elbow. The problem isn't fans - the problem is fans who'll accept whatever the celebrities say and defend it unquestioningly.
And that's the crossroads we stand at - a weird intersection of cargo cultists and cults of personality. They'll take wh
Re: (Score:2)
"Most common 1000 words" is great for making a point.
Far more practical would be using a vocabulary that almost all 10-year-old native speakers can read and that a vast majority of non-native speakers who have spent the last few years living in a English-speaking environment (that is, an environment that pretty much forces you to learn to speak and read English at a basic level in order to survive).
I would expect this to be far more than 1000 words.
I believe the idea is based on the Simple English Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] which suggests sticking to the same top 1000 common words where possible. Now your same point may apply there, I can't find an actual justification for the recommended limit other than the basic thought that "it's simpler", but it's not unprecedented.
Re: More practical.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is not to be practical, or to actually explain how these things work. The point is to be funny.
Re: More practical.... (Score:1)
1000 words is 85% of words you ever need. 3000 words is 96%.
indyrock (Score:3)
Oh, fall off the planet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's lots of high quality, popular stuff. xkcd isn't.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it - just remember that that's all it is. Something who enjoys something you don't like is not automatically worse than you for it.
Re:Oh, fall off the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
There's lots of high quality, popular stuff. xkcd isn't.
"... but I won't go into detail about what that is, mainly because if you start liking it I'll have to find something even more obscure to like so I can maintain my superiority!"
Nerd hipsterism is a sad thing to behold.
Re: (Score:2)
'Any', not 'every'. And we all know why.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. XKCD was great until it started showing up on mainstream sites, now it's not 'hard' enough. "I liked it back when it was underground." And so on.
Poser.
Re: (Score:2)
His humour varies from 'meh' to 'proper laugh', but his wry and often dry insight varies from 'meh' to 'that hurts', and it's the combination of humour and insight that makes me keep reading his cartoons.
You can average mildly amusing if your peaks are high enough and if humour isn't your only schtick.
Re: (Score:3)
XKCD is also much funnier if you read the text-over captions. And I've repeatedly found myself referring to specific XKCD cartoons in technical meetings, to explain the problem with someone's clever sounding approach. Examples from the last few months include:
Sudo make me a sandwich.
Universal connector box.
Standards.
Re: (Score:1)
This is off-topic but I have been meaning to relate this for a while...
Your username reminds me of when I went to Paris Island. On that first night, it is always night, I arrived groggy and sore from the bus ride. I stood on the magic yellow footprints for the longest time, or so it seemed, while an angry man in an overly starched hat swore and yelled at the group. I mostly ignored it and spent my time on introspection. I already knew the rules and what to expect, I grew up in a family of Marines.
Now, what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are way more science-fans than scientists, and the worst of these tend to enjoy xkcd.
What makes you the arbiter?
Re:And what this tells us... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't understand how the link supports what you say in your post. Whats absurd about saying that the new widespread availability of technology which can conclusively demonstrate tall tales, paired with the lack of such demonstrations, strongly implies that the tall tales were bullshit all along? That's the same reason we decided that Planet X doesn't exist, among countless other examples.
Re: (Score:1)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you need help understanding why that comic is dangerous nonsense, take a quick look at the comments on his own site about it. Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with the subject, but the method.
Re:And what this tells us... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, taking you seriously for a moment here: You've been double-bluffed.
Randall knows that the methodology is flawed. He's posting it as a self-referential deconstruction of the methodology that led to false beliefs, intentionally using junk science to discredit non-science secure in the knowledge that his science savvy readers will understand this and admire the inherent contradiction in what he's posting.
None of which detracts from the sheer common bloody sense insight that he's included for the benefit of those that missed the nuance above.
Somehow you fell through the cracks. Perhaps you should read a different web comic.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's nonsense. Shit, I used the term "self-referential deconstruction", you can't get much more nonsense than that.
Here's the thing. Doesn't stop it being right.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't fight reality. Randal has, in the past, said some pretty absurd stuff [xkcd.com] in his comics
Einstein said some pretty absurd stuff in real life - much of which is still widely quoted. Like that "God doesn't play dice" thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a pretty good scientist, and I enjoy xkcd.
As a physicist, I don't expect the #1 book in "Physics" to be written by a professional physicist (although Randall has a physics degree and has worked a "physics" job). By definition, professional physicists don't specialize in mass market entertainment. Randall does specialize in entertainment, and I appreciate that he's using that expertise to write about science. If you don't like his approach, that's ok; there are other folks out there producing content
Re: (Score:1)
Not meaning to troll, but what makes you "a pretty good scientist"?
There is a scientific method. All scientists are supposed to follow it. So the quality of being a scientist is binary -- one is or one isn't.
If one isn't, why would one say anything? If one is, it is like saying "I am a policeman", "I am a teacher".
So here you could just say "I am a scientist".
Sorry, I just don't get the "pretty good" phrase, and it makes me question whether you are or not.
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
http://xkcd.org/ [xkcd.org]
Re:100, not 1000 (Score:4, Informative)
That would be "ten hundred" as it is written in the xkcd banner graphic.
Re: (Score:3)
100, not 1000
Ten hundred, not the hundred.
I made that mistake too, at first. I guess "thousand" isn't in the list (though I'm not sure which specific list he's using).
Re: (Score:2)
100, not 1000
So you didn't notice that the original image, the linked announcement, and every bit of content about this says 1000 (or in some cases in the spirit of the book, ten hundred)?
Re:100, not 1000^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W (Score:1)
Sorry guys, yes, I did not noticed the "TEN". I feel bad right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Your penance is to use Windows 10 for 90 days - no dual booting and yes, that includes a phone. One more time and it is Bob.
Re: (Score:2)
You say this as though cunnilingus is a bad thing.
In the case of herpes simplex I'd agree, but otherwise..
I thought it would be cool, but no (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit, I like the concept and I admired the cartoon that inspired the book.
I'm just not terribly enthused by the book. It feels like it'll be very hard work to get through - there are more than a thousand words in the English language because the others are so bloody useful.
So use them!
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Opinions that disagree with your opinions are not trolls, people.
Re: (Score:2)
A book written in only a thousand words, I thought, would be cool for people learning English. But it's not. The whole thing is shot through with Millennial cultural references, so much as to make it incomprehensible. Hell, I can barely understand parts of the sample page. People who had different life experiences from the author as well as non-native English speakers will be totally lost. Sad, I had such high hopes.
From reading the comic that inspired it I think there's two legitimate values to the book:
1) I'm not sure there's a lot in the way of "a brief overview how all this common stuff works" books targeted at geeks, at least none that are marketed in a way they'd be cool for an adult geek to own. If I bought one I'd probably buy it because I wouldn't mind getting a very brief high level overview of helicopters, microwaves, bridges, etc but don't want to buy a kids book to do so.
2) The incomprehensibility isn't a
I've got his first book (Score:2)
/ Not Randall
Re: (Score:2)
According to the copy on my table, it is called: "What if?" Haven't read it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a print collection of his What If? [xkcd.com] pages, which are basically him overthinking silly questions, and also hilarious most of the time...
Great idea for one cartoon, lousy for a book ... (Score:1)
When I read "the up-goer V", I received the message that technical language is a good thing since it helps to clarify concepts. (At least to a degree. I'm sure that we have all run across texts that use jargon to such a degree that it obscures concepts.) Just look at that cartoon. It is almost impossible to figure out what the Saturn V actually does because the language is so simple that it fails to convey the purpose of the various parts.
Making that point only takes a single cartoon. Anything more is
Once you're famous books are a cashin route (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"The man who makes an appearance in the business world, the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want." - Death of a Salesman
I know it explains many more than two things, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFS points to the one he did of a rocket. http://xkcd.com/1133/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings jthill,
You can see Thing One and Thing Two here, eventually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Cheers,
jeek
Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
oh wait. That's actually happened before.
Re: (Score:1)
Warning: bad pun (Score:3)
Donald Trump is going to win because money is everything in US politics: the only way to get ahead is toupee.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curous how fucking dumb you have to be to read this and think an award was given out.
Best seller means preorders, because NY Times (Score:3)
What award? It's a best-seller for Amazon, which simply means that a lot of people bought it. Why get so many preorders before release? Because of the way the New York Times calculates their lists.
To sell many copies of a book, it really helps to be on the New York Times best-seller list for a particular week. But to get on the list, you have to sell many copies in a week. The trick is that the Times counts sales when the books are DELIVERED, not when they are ordered. So what you do is pre-sell books
great (Score:2)
It's like YA for engineers.
Ten hundred, not thousand (Score:1)
Please stop describing this book as "using only the thousand most common English words". The word 'thousand' is not one of the thousand most common English words, which is why Randall describes the book as "using only the ten hundred most common English words". Missing that detail is practically missing the entire point.