…(as the saying goes) it’s nice to get the real thing from time to time.
I’m almost fully in retreat mode now, being back at Aspen and settled in to my office at the Center and so forth. It’s good to see some familiar faces and catch up a little on physics news, and gossip (still waiting for some good juicy stuff there). I’ve settled into my accommodation (which on the plus side has no wireless or other web connection, but on the minus has HBO, which I shall have to studiously avoid), and have done a quick cycle around town (brought the Brompton again of course) to check that everything is in order. So by mid-afternoon on day one, yesterday, I was settling into my project(s). All good.
The good news of the title? Well, usually when someone contacts me about my book, D-Branes, it is to point out a typographical error, omission, or a potential error. I usually reply, and then never hear from them again. This is not bad, since it helps improve the book (future printings, and so forth). So don’t stop pointing things out if you feel moved to do so.
The ratio of the number of people who’ve pointed out errors within to the number of copies of the book sold is such that I’m very happy to assume that everything’s mostly ok, of course. But I’ve never, ever, ever had someone tell me out of the blue (or close enough) that a particular set of equations is correct. This happened yesterday soon after I arrived. Someone who’d contacted me earlier (many months ago) to suggest that, due to a computation they’d been working on and finding an error, a set of equations they were using from my book might be wrong. I’d replied, confused, a while back, and never heard from her again. I completely forgot all about it. Well, at lunch, I sat down with the group under the trees, and she immediately said, “It’s ok, they’re correct”.
Might not sound like much of anything to you, but it’s rather nice (thanks!!) to hear when someone found the book useful for something (other than e.g., in the picture above right – an interesting situation spotted at a workshop (click for larger view). Ironic caption: “D-branes not quite as versatile as Gravitation”) and did not complain about any factors of two or a minus sign. Indeed, I’m not ashamed to look for those positives wherever I can find them. They’re additive*, you know.
-cvj
(*That’s “additive” as in (roughly) “cumulative”… not “addictive”.)
Thats pretty funny Clifford, reminds me of a maths class I had where the lecturer used green chalk to write on the chalkboard when the the topic of Green’s functions came up.
Hi,
Funny you should mention that. I especially did not want a fancy cover for my book. I grew up with the Cambridge Monographs on Physics series as a student and *loved* the look that they’d cultivated, and when I decided I wanted to do a D-branes book I sought them out for that reason above all others. There was one cover colour with white trim and black writing, but then each book in the series had its own cover*. Put together on the shelf gave a lovely look, overall. Rather like having a large block of CDs of 1960s Blue Note albums on your shelf, spines pointing out. Just looks great, in a minimalist way. So I wanted my book to continue in that tradition. The multi-volume texts by Weinberg and Polchinski are in that series too, and have special covers (maybe the only ones in that series that do), and maybe that is appropriate since they are especially powerful books by high-value authors, but that was not what I wanted at all. I wanted the minimal look. It is timeless and beautiful.
My other book projects (lurking at the back of my mind, and in scribbles here and there) will be very different though. Maybe you’ll see them one day.
Cheers,
-cvj
*For those who are in the field and might remember them or have them to hand, there’s a lovely inside-ish bit of cleverness about the two volume of Green, Schwarz, and Witten that not many people seem to have noticed. It is also in the colour scheme I mentioned (white trim, black writing, main colour), and the principal colour for these books is green. Now look again at the names of the authors.
I judge books by their covers; I think most people do too.
That’s not to say my opinion stops there, because of course it’s the actual content that counts. But as I’m not wholly aware of the publishing process, how much more difficult is it to put something pretty (a highly subjective adjective, obviously) on the cover?
I know a handful of biologists and a psychologist (academics themselves), and I love perusing their bookshelves if ever I’m left alone in their offices because they more often than not, are adorned with fantastic representations of the subject matter. But when it comes to physics or mathematics the fiducial appearance is always (to me) a foreboding one of monotone covers with block lettered text in black or white.
I know that this argument seems some what facetious; and I’ll admit that it is, partly. Really, I’m just curious as to what you, Clifford, might think given that you’ve actually published a textbook.
Thanks for the news on that, robert!
-cvj
Thats good news robert, though to be honest, I would have been very surprised if they did close it down both because its such an icon of British science and because they just spent a lot of money upgrading it. Congratulations on the book Clifford.
Wholly unrelated good news – Joddrell Bank, which was to be shut down as a result over over-zealous and unaccountable accountancy, has been reprieved, according to today’s Times (can’t find it in the on-line version) Enjoy your retreat