The Pluto Files[MEB1]
The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet
Neil deGrasse Tyson
W. W. Norton, New York, 2009. $23.95 (194 pp.). ISBN 978-0-393-06520-6
The Hunt for Planet X
New Worlds and the Fate of Pluto
Govert Schilling
Copernicus/Springer, New York, 2009.$27.50 (303 pp.). ISBN 978-0-387-77804-4
It’s been three years since the International Astronomical Union voted to remove Pluto from the pantheon of planets.But even now[JNAM2], if you’re an astronomer, and you admit it to a neighboring airplane passenger, one of the first questions you’re likely to be asked is, “What did you guys have against Pluto, anyway?” The question is always a great opportunity to put Pluto into its true context within the solar system, to explain about all of the new discoveries in the Kuiper Belt out past Neptune[JNAM3], and to talk about how science—and scientific categorization—works. By the end of the flight,your neighbor is nodding along and has even learned a little astronomy. One flight at a time, the world is slowly coming to terms with Pluto’s demotion and the new “look[MEB4]” of the solar system[JNAM5].
Now, if you’d rather watch your in-flight[JNAM6]movie than talk about the Kuiper Belt, you’re finally in luck. The passage of time has allowedthe emergence of a slew of new books on Pluto and planets. Two of the first are all you will need in your carry-on. Bring two of them in your carry-on and hand out as needed. But carefully gauge your reader first: [JNAM7]The first of those two books to hit the shelves was The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and ; the second was The Hunt for Planet X: New Worlds and the Fate of Pluto by Govert Schilling, w. Whileostensibly [JNAM8]covering much some of the same ground , the two are likely to appeal to very different readers.
If you don’t know better, start with Tyson’s book. as different as a dwarf planet and a tiny[MEB9] world[JNAM10].
HeTyson tells a good-humored but serious[MEB11][JNAM12]tale of his personal role in raising the world’s consciousness about Pluto’strue [JNAM13]standing[MEB14]. Astronomers had been privately questioning the status of Pluto since the 1992 discovery of the first small object in the Kuiper[MEB15] Belt[JNAM16]. But it was the Hayden Planetarium’s decision to group Pluto separately from those other eight big things in the solar system that eventually brought the astronomers’ private dilemma out into the open. In his book, Tyson, the planetarium’s director, plays the role of themessengerbeing shot at[JNAM17], but you can tell that he relishes both delivering the message and dodging the bullets.
The book delivers the message[MEB18][JNAM19]about Pluto well. Tyson gives a bit of the history of planetary discovery and explains where Pluto fits in, though most of the book is a spirited telling of the battering from the public and the astronomical communityhe’sendured over Pluto’s fate. His tales of school children’s outrageare amusingenough[JNAM20], but, for my money, it’s his discussion of the handful of astronomers still sentimentally attached to Pluto’s planethood that comes off the funniest.
Now if, after finishing the quick and breezy Pluto Files, your airplane neighbor still has questions or wants to delve deeper into the science and the scientists, then you are still in luck. Simply pull outThe Hunt for Planet Xand your neighbor is likely to be absorbed throughout even the longest flight. The book goes into enough detail and interesting side diversions that you might find that your fellow flier [JNAM21]is reluctant to hand the book back to you when the airplane sets down—so buy a few as give-aways[JNAM22].
Schilling gives a journalistic account of time periods covered in Tyson’s book. But it is a type of account that will never be repeated. Schilling had the good fortune to be already at work on a book about searching for planets in the outer solar system when, suddenly, they became big news.His book not only gives the history of the exploration of the outer solar system, but also includes vignettes of Schilling’s visits to almost all of the astronomers currently active in the field. Most of those visitsoccurred while the discoveries and controversies[MEB23][JNAM24]were still fresh and unsettled. Thoughthere will likely be subsequent retellings of this bit of history, Schilling’s account will be the only one from a journalist embedded amongst astronomers—I was one of them[JNAM25]—as it happened. It wasinteresting to read what my colleagues[JNAM26] and I said to him before we[JNAM27]knew the final outcome of the searches in the outer solar system and howthe arguments about planethoodwould eventually play out. [JNAM28]More interesting, though,was to havethe chance to peer into the thoughts of my friends and colleagues who were interviewed and see their more personal sides. They’re a likable bunch, this group of men and women spending their lives trying to make sense of the outer reaches of the solar system. It’s fun to listen [JNAM29]to their stories, and I can’t wait to see what they do next[MEB30].[JNAM31]
My favorite part of Schilling’s book, I must admit, is the chapter he devotes to Nibiru, a rogue planet that will supposedly collide with Earth in 2012[JNAM32]. Haven’t heard of that one? That’s OK: It existsonly in the minds of pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists. I get questions about Planet Nibiru all of the time, but I’ve never read a coherent explanation of what it is supposed to be, where the myth originated, and why people still talk about it. Schilling’s many reasons why Niburu makes no sense will never change the mind of a devoted pseudo-scientist because now, of course, Schilling has simply become part of the cover-up. But finally, I have a book to hand people when they ask me whether or not I think the world is going to end in 2012. “Read this chapter and tell me what you think,” I’ll say. And then I’ll put on my headphones and go back to thinking about how to find the real Planet X.
Mike Brown is a professor of planetary astronomy in the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences at Caltech. His discovery of the dwarf planet Eris led to Pluto’s eventual demotion to thatsame class.[JNAM33]
[MEB1]If I don’t comment on a comment it is because I concur.
[JNAM2]Correct? To tie into the 3 years since the removal.
[JNAM3]Ok? To introduce Kuiper Belt so uninformed readers aren’t taken by surprise in the following paragraph.
[MEB4]Stylistically I loathe quotes. How about “and our new view of the solar system” instead.
[JNAM5]Okay? The quote marks are because the solar system hasn’t changed in appearance.
[JNAM6]OK?
[JNAM7]Is should be deleted. First, the astronomer on the plane isn’t the author of the book, so he doesn’t have a reader. Second, while I understand where you might be heading with the word gauge, you’ll have to explain why a gauging is needed.
[JNAM8]Delete? They really do cover much of the same ground, don’t they? You even say later that much of the same events are covered.
[MEB9]Sadly, I couldn’t make that work, could I. The contrast in the rest of the article is between Tyson’s personal humorous but light account and Schilling’s journalistic serious in depth account. See if this works better.
[JNAM10]How familiar are people with this contrast? What is a tiny world? Also, I don’t find that you compare or contrast the two books that much, and this sentence sets up for an extensive discussion of the contrast.
[MEB11]Hmmm, no, by serious I think I mean “serious.” It is not simply factually correct, but is a serious discussion. By serious I mean “adult” perhaps
[JNAM12] By serious, do you mean “factual?”
[JNAM13]Isn’t there still some legitimate grumblings over the demotion? If so, is “true” too strong? Would replacing “true” with “new” work?
[MEB14]No, I think this works correctly. Tyson talks about Pluto’s true standing, not about semantics of planet naming.
[MEB15]Correct: nobody has seen a comet in the Kuiper belt. Or anything other than Pluto.
[JNAM16]Is this what you really mean? Had nobody seen, say, a comet in the Kuiper belt?
[JNAM17]Ok? If he dodges the bullets, he hasn’t been hit.
[MEB18]Simply an echo of the phrase above. If Tyson is the messenger being shot, he must be delivering a message, no? The next few sentences tell what the message is.
[JNAM19]What does this mean? The history? The science behind?
[JNAM20]Ok?
[JNAM21]I think passenger would work a bit better. Do you concur? MEB: OK
[JNAM22]Ok?
[MEB23]The sense here is meant to mean “the discoveries that have led to our new view of the solar system and the controversies around Pluto” but that seemed too long to spell out.
[JNAM24]What discoveries and controversies? Pre-demotion or post-demotion?
[JNAM25]See suggested deletion below.
[JNAM26]See suggested deletion below.
[JNAM27]Correct?
[JNAM28]Correct? OK? I wasn’t clear with the wording in the original.
[JNAM29]Read?
[MEB30]I will mourn the deletion of this passage, but I will get over it.
[JNAM31]Can we delete this for space? It seems tangential enough and this seems the only place in this engaging review that could be cut.
[JNAM32]Ok here?
[JNAM33]Ok?