Skip to main content

More fiction with science that isn't science fiction

A while ago I covered a novel with science as its theme that (probably) wasn't science fiction. I have recently read another book in this genre, which I thought worth a mention.

Let's get the bad news out of the way first. Rad Decision by James Aach (see here at Amazon.co.uk and here at Amazon.com) has some big weaknesses. The title tells you nothing, the cover is awful, the book itself is all too obviously self-published (don't use underlining for emphasis, Jim), and it has a couple of real problems as a novel. There is absolutely zero identification with the protagonist. In fact, I don't know who the protagonist is. The person we identify with most (I don't know if this is intentional) is a Russian spy, who is anything but the hero. Otherwise we get lots of characters thrown at us who are often indistinguishable, and for whom we don't care at all.

Finally on the negative (sorry, Jim), the science is thrown in too heavy handedly. We have (rather scruffy) diagrams of the reactor system. Why? We have little lectures on what a millirad is and much too much detail on how the safety systems work. Yawn.

So you might wonder why I'm bothering to comment. Well, despite all this, the book has two big things going for it. One is that we talk a lot about nuclear power, and this is an insider view of the reality (including a scary dramatized description of the Chernobyl accident) - making it clear just how little of it is black and white. There are many shades of grey here. Secondly, the section of the book towards the end where things go wrong is genuinely tense and page-turning in its excitement. You might not care about the characters, but you want to know how things will turn out.

So this is a book that could do with a big professional edit - but I'd still recommend taking a look at it if you are interested in just what's going on (or, more accurately, when it was set - 20 years ago) in nuclear power stations, and would like that information in effective story form.

Comments

  1. Brian, thanks for taking the time to read the book and post a review. Further information, samples and additional reader comments can be found at my website: RadDecision.blogspot.com

    Oh...and since the 100+ US nuclear plants were all built more than 20 years ago, things are pretty much the same now as described in the book. (More security, of course.) Can't say I know the current situation in the UK, but I'd suspect it's similar.

    Again, thanks for reading Rad Decision. Jim Aach

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Jim. I take your point about the plants being built 20 years ago - I just know that most businesses have changed quite a lot in 20 years, so guessed that what goes on in the nuclear industry may be different in some ways.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian, you're right that it's a little different than it was 20 years ago on the business and management end. I didn't cover that much. The nuclear-specific safety decisions have already been made at that point, and the rest is similar to any other big business, I suspect. The changes on the nuclear side (minor design upgrades, some better risk management techniques) were beyond the level I was writing at, so I didn't include them.

    Thanks again for the review and including the links to Amazon. (I always have trouble adding links.) BTW, I get no royalties, which is another reason the book is available free online. There's also more than 25 reader reviews at the homepage comments (newest at the bottom). I only know two or three of the reviewers personally. A link to yours will be added shortly.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope