Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PLAIN AND FANCY SCIENCE

Sir-I realise that book reviewers cannot select their books as most reasonable adults do; but I do not~ think it wise that they should lose sight of

the fact that readers do select. According to the review "Plain and Fancy Science," the only difference between the two books was the manner of presentation. Now astronomy doesn’t interest me in the least. I can find S, by the Southern Cross and the pointers and I know the Pleiades. I take a friendly interest in Orion because on autumn nights he peeps in at my kitchen wincow while I wash the dishes and on winter mornings he sprawls drunkenly across the Eastern sky often in company with a dishevelled moon; but much I have read and heard about astronomy I_ don’t believe. Therefore, if Peattie had written. The Heavens Above I should not have read it, nor if Bowles or Kingdon Ward had. But if J. B. Sidgwick had written Flowering Earth I should have read it. From the review of Flowering Earth I imagine that J.D. McD. is not particularly interested in plant life, and I am afraid he may have turned away prospective readers. About 1942 I read the book and it was an adventure, helping as it did to form certain scrappy knowledge I had into a coherent whole and giving me a perspective. The purple patches did not worry me because I was used to American literature and they all bore references to things I liked to be reminded of. I have read the book several times since. Where your reviewer has fallen down for me is that I had been told that some of Peattie’s botanical statements were not facts. I had not through my ignorance been, able’ to verify whether this was so. Naturally then in a new review I expeeted to hear some other person’s opinion on the sub~ject. Again I’ve been let down

"DISAPPOINTED"

(Dunedin).

(Our reviewer makes this reply: ‘The whole point of the review was the difficulty in getting at Dr. Peattie’s facts. Because I am intensely interested in plant life, I was disappointed too.’’--Ed.)

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.I whakaputaina aunoatia ēnei kuputuhi tuhinga, e kitea ai pea ētahi hapa i roto. Tirohia te whārangi katoa kia kitea te āhuatanga taketake o te tuhinga.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZLIST19480910.2.14.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 481, 10 September 1948, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
357

PLAIN AND FANCY SCIENCE New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 481, 10 September 1948, Page 5

PLAIN AND FANCY SCIENCE New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 481, 10 September 1948, Page 5

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert