'Binocular Astronomy' by Stephen Tonkin REVIEW

[pendas Fen]

This 284 page softback book is published by Springer-Verlag as part of the Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy series.

By reading this book will I learn much about the choosing, use and maintenance of binoculars? Yes, indeed you will!

Does the book list deep sky objects viewable in binoculars? Yes, it does; it also includes charts for each object!

Does the book include reviews of different makes and sizes of binoculars, detailing their pros and cons? Eh ... no, it does not; all you learn is that the author's choice bins are a pair of two and a half grand 100 mm apo Miyauchis. Mr Tonkin believes that the nature of equipment reviews is far too subjective, and controversial, to warrant the inclusion of a buyer's guide in his book.

The above questions aside, however, prospective buyers of this book should note the following. Tonkin assumes two things about his readers: (1) they are seasoned amateur astronomers, and (2) they are educated – and by 'educated' I mean a university or college degree would come in handy! (Exhibit 1, my Lord: Figure 2.15 on page 20.) For me, this book - although educational - was not a pleasant read. Each sentence appeared to be crafted with an analytical precision that made for very dry, tedious, and at times dull reading. Tonkin comes across as a highly educated, well-read and dare-I-say snobby (the cricket match anecdote on page 49 hints at this) individual who positively delights in reminding his reader of this fact. The author's word choice attests to this, with extensive use of eyebrow-wrinklers like 'ameliorate' and 'efficacious' (and a pleb like me thought that 'efficacious' was just a fancy word for 'efficient' - how wrong I was!); interestingly, 'imbibe' was never once used in the text! The chapter on the Seidel aberrations proved, reading-wise, to be the literary equivalent of a console game 'boss' fight (with no rocket launcher in-hand!).

Recently, I read entertaining (that's the word Mr Tonkin missed out!) telescope books by Rod Mollise (on SCTs) and Neil English (on dobs). Said books were well written and informative without being patronising, pompous or condescending. Tonkin's book has not put me off binoculars, as such - it's just reminded me of the stuffy academics and lexicon pedants I encountered at university (where I was a student, by the way, not the janitor! - er ... no offence to any janitors out there).

[Polar Bear]

Oh dear , sorry to read you did not enjoy it , I have a copy and have read it several times without thinking Steve was a " stuffy academic and lexicon pedant " and he certainly does not come across as such with his help to beginners regarding binoculars here on the forum.

The book to me is informative and clearly explains the technicalities of using binoculars for astronomy, and add to that plenty of charts to help you along the way.

My copy is rather dog eared so if you like I will be happy to take yours of you for £13.00 if you include postage

Paul

[Ptarmigan]

(Exhibit 1, my Lord: Figure 2.15 on page 20.)

Oh Dear !

You entitle this massive missive "a review", thus you would be wise to assume that we have not yet read it, else we would not need your review. Thus your use of "Exhibit" and "my lord" is pretentious, not only without value but with no point of reference.

> (the cricket match anecdote on page 49 hints at this)

I refer my honorable friend to the reply I gave above. I have no idea what cricket match is being anecdotealised (! please dont google that ! )

> eyebrow-wrinklers like 'ameliorate' and 'efficacious' (and a pleb like me thought that 'efficacious' was just a fancy word for 'efficient' - how wrong I was!)

Yes you were, I have no trouble with those two words, you wear your problems upon your sleve.

Without the hyperbole this could have been a useful review, sadly ,,

[BinocularSky]

Dr Snedden,

I've just been pointed to your review. I'm sorry that you did not enjoy the book, but it is very useful for me to read what others dislike about my writing style and choice of subject matter, so thank you.

Normally I wouldn't comment further, but you have made a few erroneous assumptions:

Does the book include reviews of different makes and sizes of binoculars, detailing their pros and cons? Eh ... no, it does not; all you learn is that the author's choice bins are a pair of two and a half grand 100 mm apo Miyauchis.

I wish! However, I have to "make do" with the second-hand non-apo version that appears in the book. I'm also sorry that you missed the descriptions, and images, of the smaller budget binoculars that I also use. (FWIW, my "choice bins" are a Fujinon 40x150 mounted on a StarChair under mag 7.5 skies, but...)

Mr Tonkin believes that the nature of equipment reviews is far too subjective, and controversial, to warrant the inclusion of a buyer's guide in his book.

Not quite. What Mr Tonkin believes (with some justification) is that, in the months between a book being written and it appearing in print, some binoculars will have disappeared from the market, new ones will have appeared, and the specifications of some of those that remain will have changed. He therefore thinks it might be more helpful to try to explain the principles and criteria by which someone can make his/her own judgements. I would agree that I could have done this better, and I hope to remedy this to some extent in a new edition (in hope of which I am currently "crafting" the appropriate sentences "with analytical precision" ) -- but you probably won't like that either.

Tonkin assumes two things about his readers: (1) they are seasoned amateur astronomers, and (2) they are educated – and by 'educated' I mean a university or college degree would come in handy!

Actually, the two things that Tonkin assumes are that they are (1) keen on astronomy and (2) intelligent. He tries not to patronise them.

And yes, I agree that I'm not as skilled a writer as Rod Mollise. Rod is good, very good!

[Peter Drew]

"Two cultures separated by the same language".

[BinocularSky]

"Two cultures separated by the same language".

Very much so, it seems, in the case of England and Scotland!