The Science of Superheroes

By: Lois Gresh, Robert Weinberg, Dean Koontz - introduction

Narrated by: Oliver Wyman

Length: 7 hrs and 27 mins

Publisher's summary

The Science of Superheroes takes a lighthearted but clear-headed look at the real science that underlies some of the greatest superhero comic books of all time, including Spider-Man, Batman, Fantastic Four, and many more. Each chapter presents the story of the origin of one or more superheroes and asks intriguing questions that lead to fascinating discussions about the limits of science, the laws of nature, and the future of technology.

If gamma rays can’t turn a 128-pound weakling into the Incredible Hulk, what could? Are Spider-Man’s powers really those of a spider? Could a person ever breathe water like a fish? From telepathy to teleportation, from cloning to cosmic rays, this vastly entertaining romp through the nexus of science and fantasy separates the possible from the plausible and the barely plausible from the utterly ridiculous.

With an introduction by author Dean Koontz.

©2002 by Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg
(P)2002 Random House Inc.

Critic reviews

"Weinberg and Gresh tell it like it is - and how it would be, if our favorite comic book characters actually existed. The Science of Superheroes is a fascinating and entertaining examination of everything from astrophysics to genetic biology to the evolution of the 'superhero.'" (Mark Powers, editor, X-Men and Uncanny X-Men)

sort of dumb

This seems like it would be a fun book but it is sort of tedious. The book has this sort of tone: "Superman is a famous comic known all over the world. Superman was introduced in Action Comics issue number one in June 1938. Superman was suposed to be from another planet. Is life on another planet possible? Maybe!"

Book of two halves.

I love science and I love Superheroes so I was hoping to be on to a winner with this one. However the two are never quite brought together successfully in this book. Far too much attention is paid to the convoluted histories of the heros and not enough to having fun. It's seems that the only time the book comes to life is when tha author is proving that certain powers are not possible. I think we all knew that.
Batmans Utility Belt gets a good review but the whole point of Batman was that he was "normal".
The idea for the book is sound and there is some good information. It is never engaging and often tedious, which is such a shame. I could and should have been a joyfull romp through two great subjects.

Ninth grade science and fourth grade writing.

I love comic books and I love science books and I hated this book. The science wasn't past anything you couldn't have learned in high school. Even worse, the authors seemed to randomly pick and choose which superpowers they think are impossible, like superspeed, because you would get too hungry, and the possible, like Aquaman. Your own estimates on what superheroes should really be able to do are just as valid and probably more interesting.
One reason I got the book was because of the Dean Koontz intro but he never recommends the book. He just talks about how he is not interested in comics and has never read them.

To much irrelvent information

This book simply has too much irrelevant information. It also can't seem to stay on topic. For example, in the chapter about The Flash, it talks about the anatomy of a cheetah. At first you think that's it's trying to make a point, but then it goes on never to mention the cheetah again. Also, the analysis of the powers wore sorely lacking. A good example of this was Superman. The only thing about Superman that it talks about is his super-strength. Although the analysis of his strength was good, it could've at least went into more depth about flying.

There are other examples of going off topic, such as the chapter on Green Lantern and X-Men. It briefly mentioned the validity of telepathy, but then went on to talk about evolution vs creation. In some cases, for 20 minutes it starts to make an argument which would prove some powers possible, then spends another 10 minutes proving it wrong (such as the case with Superman). There are also situations in which it openly refuses to talk about certain powers (Ex. Spiderman, Superman, X-Men).

Overall, I would not recommend this book, especially if you getting it for a certain hero, like I did. Although the actual science it provides is good in it's own respect, when talking about superheroes it's irrelevant.

Boring, ean spirited stuff

I bought this book because I've always been enthusiastic about the joy of superheros since I have been very young .. and now have young children of my own. Superheroes (and Superman in particular) to me,have always been entertaining and nearly always uplifting in that easy, childlike way that makes you wish they were real .. or that you could be at least a little like them !

I can't imagine anyone though, who would believe that this stuff was real - even as a kid.

The authors of this book though, are different... they are "scientists". They seem to imagine that superhero fans are a bunch of uneducated, deluded idiots and have taken it upon themselves to correct this grave flaw in the moral and mental make up of this shallow and silly community. And yes, they'd also like to tell you that if you had just a bit of sense and decency, you should actually prefer Donald Duck ! ..No, really !

Their "science" too is basic and as close minded as a pair of village school teachers.

And the entire delivery is done in that smug, sneering tone of the know-it-all, who sadly doesn't quite understand that he's quite out of touch with what the entire room thinks of his conversation and views.

Give this one a miss.

Fails to stay on topic

This is a terrible meandering mess of a book and I would advise you to avoid it at all costs. My main complaint is that the book seems to be deliberately 'bulked up' with page after page of superhero history. Most of us (comic book fans) are well aware of the histories of Superman, Spiderman and the X-Men; why then did the authors feel it was necessary to regurgitate these old stories when their main audience already knew them better than they did?
Furthermore, several of the chapters spin wildly off-topic into tangents barely related to the subject of the chapter. Case in point; the chapter on the X-Men could have been an in depth examination of the feasibility of such powers as Wolverine's Healing Factor or Professor X's Telepathy. Yet somehow the author's managed to turn the entire chapter into an examination of the conflict between Creationists and proponents of Evolution.
What a waste of time and space.

History, science, or philospohy

The book makes some good attempts at exploring both side of the argument, but other times the scientific argument is extremely biased and irrelevant. For example: it discusses the physiology of the cheetah, efficient lungs etc..., yet fails to explore how these constraints (of the Flash) would impact his performance. It also describes the energy required for a typical human to do a certain feat, but i would not refer to the Flash as a typical human. With all thee figures being spouted, surely the argument for 100% efficiency of food consumption be explored.

By the time I reached the creationist versus science argument I was on auto-pilot, waiting patiently to finish the book.

I doubt the writers have had any thesis or science experience: commonly misusing the terms theory, truth or fact.

I was expecting a fun lighthearted exploration of comic super-heroes; I received a few interesting tid-bits hidden behind an overwhelming amount of pointless exposition.

I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK.
(oh gawd, there is another book too... )

I don’t recommend this to anyone

This isn’t a book for comic book fans wanting to learn the science behind super heroes, because the science is described poorly. This is not a book for scientists to learn about how comic book heroes connect to the science they know. This isn’t a book I’d recommend to anyone, and I regret buying it myself.

They describe the science wrong a good part of the time. It’s clear no one with a science degree was involved in writing this book. They get all kinds of concepts and terms wrong that a scientist would have corrected in a few minutes.

The whole book seems to be about showing how comic books are not getting the science right, so the book is basically a buzz kill. But then the irony is that they don’t get the science right themselves. Also, the authors never seem to ask themselves whether comic books are even meant to show accurate descriptions of science. They certainly didn’t listen deeply enough to the comic book artists they interviewed in Appendix B, who told the authors outright that getting the science exactly right isn’t usually the point.

Overall I was hoping this book would help me connect to my students who are interested in comic books and by extension might then get interested in science if I could show them the science in comic books. Unfortunately this book disappointed me in helping me making those connections for my students.