Customer Reviews
Debunking the science of your comic book superheroes
In "The Science of Superheroes" authors Lois H. Gresh and Robert Weinberg put together a full out assault on the willing suspension of disbelief that allows us to enjoy comic book superheroes from Superman to the X-Men. You probably knew in the back of your mind that the Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, and Aquaman could never exist in the real world. Well you were right. But Gresh and Weinberg are here to explain to you in terms of science, which means that when it comes to proving that Henry Pym turning into Goliath would be a bad thing or that the Flash could not possibly run that fast, they actually do the math (at which point I nod my head and move on, because if you think I am going to double-check their calculations you are sadly mistaken).
After a preface that looks at how superhero comic books came about, an introduction by Dean Koontz entitled "Men of Steel, Feathers of Fury," Gresh and Weinberg devote chapters to the cream of the superhero crop. First up, of course, is Superman, which spends a lot of time examining the math on alien visitors before disproving the idea that the difference in the gravity on Krypton and Earth accounts for Superman's powers (I wonder what they make of the current living solar battery idea). Chapters are then devoted to the Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk, Batman, Aquaman and Sub-Mariner, Spider-Man, the Green Lanterns, Ant Man and the Atom, the Flash, the X-Men, science fiction superheroes, and Donald Duck. The last chapter is actually an encomium to Carl Barks, who used science and technology during the golden age of Disney comics.
I picked up this book because I teach Spider-Man in my Popular Culture class and so that chapter alone justified the price of the book for me. I should be able to impress my students by pointing out that of Peter Parker's physical spider powers only his spider grip is actually associated with a real type of spider (the hunting spider). In the past I have just shared with my students "The Daily Onion" fake headline that talks about how Peter Parker died of Leukemia after being bit by a radioactive spider, so this should give me some more credibility (but I am still going to use the joke).
Ironically it is where Gresh and Weinberg can show that the creators of a particular superhero were at least in the ballpark, such as when they come up with an alternative and more plausible explanation for the Hulk, that "The Science of Superheroes" is most interesting. Sections where they get into things like fluid breathing and talking to fish are tangentially interesting, but when you get into topics like the Square Cubed Law or the origin of black holes it comes across as overkill. If while reading this book you suddenly hear a small voice in your head warning "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," you will not be alone. This is definitely not a book to sit down and read all at once, because chapter after chapter exposing the holes in the scientific rationales for your favorite superheroes can wear you down after a while. But there is enough here of interest for most comic book fans. The authors may be a couple of science geeks, but they are the type that were weaned on comic books and their criticisms are done with affection, even if its hard to get back to anything close to square one on the aforementioned willing suspension of disbelief by the time you finish this volume (at least there is not an exam).
The back of "The Science of Superheroes" includes a couple of appendixes, the first explaining "Who Missed the Cut?" (neither super villains nor characters with supernatural origins made it) and the second where comic book creators (including Len Wein and Max Allan Collins) answer some questions about science and comic books today. Both of these added sections allow the authors to flesh out their overall thesis a bit more and show how comic book creators today pay attention to science in a different way than those in the Golden Age and Silver Age of comics. I did not even take biology in high school, so everything that Gresh and Weinberg come up with is way over my head, but they do a good job of communicating their points so that even somebody like me can understand their basic arguments.
Bad science to debunk comics
Once again I was grossly disappointed to find bad biology in fiction. IT ISN'T THAT HARD TO DO YOUR RESEARCH! The authors obviously know their physics, but when it came to biology and evolution (the chapter dealing with mutant super-heros), they had NO CLUE. They were even putting words into C. Darwin's mouth - as if he ever uttered the word "mutation." And another thing, the theory of evolution wasn't Darwin's alone. The theory was formulated at the same time by both Darwin and Alfred Wallace, Darwin had more supporting evidence, had more money, and could publish sooner. Gresh and Weinberg apparently can spend numerous chapters about the life of a star, but that can't get that one little fact correct.
Also, G&W use the "hopeful monster" theory of evolution (without using that little title) which is grossly outdated. They get vast quantities of their assumptions wrong (i.e. "most mutations are beneficial" when if fact, any biologist could tell you the truth, that most mutations are deleterious to the organism).
I could go on and on, but I've wasted enough time complaining.
Overall, I enjoyed the book, but their gross simplification, and outright incorrectness ruined my reading enjoyment. If they write a sequel, I'd be happy to help them out with the biology prior to publishing.
Very narrow minded view on Superheroes and Science
I had very high hopes for this book, sadly I was very disappointed.
The only reason I finished the book was to give it as thorough and un-biased review as possible. The first couple of chapters were quite enjoyable, but the rest of the book just kept me wishing that it was going to get better.
What bothered me the most about this book was the frequent use of the word "impossible". The closed minded approach to the science they addressed is reminiscent of somebody saying the world is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that submarines were works of only inventive writers or that the sound barrier can not be broken. The book states that traveling past the speed of light is impossible (the chapter about the Flash), but in a later chapter it goes on to say that time travel is possible. Combine this with the book contradicting itself in the same chapter (the chapter about Spider-Man) and you end up wanting to throttle the authors for their inconsistency.
Then there is the completely irrelevant discussion of creationism in the chapter that was supposed to be about the X-men and evolution. The discussion took up most of the chapter and had nothing to do with mutation.
It is obvious by the end of the book that the authors have done little to zero research on any comic book written since the 80's. Their belief seems to be that Donald Duck was the best comic book ever and that there are no strong super heroines.
Do not waste your time or hard earned money on this book. It has a few (very few) shinning moments of good writing. But they do not offset the obvious dislike of comic books and those who work in the comic book industry.
