disappointing astro books

[mcolbert]

recently we've seen in different threads comments about various books that are useful.  It got me thinking about the books that have been less than what they promised.  Many years ago I saw a promo for a text on the sun - brilliant images (pun not intended), the book written by an Italian astronomer.  When I finally got to see a copy of the full text I was frustrated primarily due to the absence of an index.  (maybe a small issue but worrying for me)

When I contacted the publisher - OUP, their response was, with words to the effect "oh well, the author died before that could be done...we can't do anything about it..."  From that time on I've never bothered with OUP because that response showed poor professionalism, especially as they were 'pushing' it as text and not as a coffee table book.  Surely it wouldn't have taken an inordinate amount of effort or fees for an editorial assistant or consultant to provide an index?

OK so rant over.  So what are the other books which have been a disappointment for you?

michael

[ronin]

Not an astro book but I bought one that although on the subject as described it was a totally technical one not as descriptive as I had expected, everything is detailed technical engineering specifications. I had to wait about 4 to 6 months to get it and the odd thing is I suspect it is easily now worth four or five times what I paid.

[Paul M]

While not really an astronomy book, A Brief History of Time, gets mentioned on SGL occasionally. I bought it during the initial rush and was very disappointed.

It seemed like an overstatement of the obvious or a regurgitation of old news. I don't think I actually made it to the back cover.

A less prestigious author would have been slated for it...

All in my very honest opinion

[baggywrinkle]

'Astronomy with small telescopes' from Springer.

Expensive! Poor images and based on some very old scopes, at £35 very disappointing indeed. It certainly has not been re-edited to take into account what is available today.

Even the Kindle edition carries an eye watering price tag.

The only saving grace are some good articles on how scopes of various types up to 5'' perform.

[Paul73]

Just about any annual publication. They seem to have been superseded by monthly publications (magazines) and Internet forum such as SGL.

Paul

[beamer3.6m]

I'm going to go out on a limb here but...

Turn Left At Orion

I know it is much praised and I understand why it is such a useful tool for the beginner however I felt the book was underwhelming.

My preference is Illustrated Guide to Astronomical WInders as I think this gives a more comprehensive view of what can be seen/viewed in a range of scopes whilst also being a little more scientific.

IGAW seems to cater for both visual and imaging which is a bonus and allows the reader to progress.

I just felt TLAO was over very quickly and did not cross line between beginner book and sophisticated guide well enough.

I know, I know... let the ear bashing begin.

[pete_l]

I have been the owner of many quite poor astronomy books. I won't name any names but there are now entire series that I won't even consider individual books from as they are so tainted with low quality content.

Lesson: don't judge a book by its title or by the reputation of anyone who's name is associated with it. Check the contents pages and samples very thoroughly before either buying or asking for it as a present.

[r3i]

'Astronomy with small telescopes' from Springer.

Expensive! Poor images and based on some very old scopes, at £35 very disappointing indeed. It certainly has not been re-edited to take into account what is available today.

Even the Kindle edition carries an eye watering price tag.

The only saving grace are some good articles on how scopes of various types up to 5'' perform.

The titles in the Springer 'Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series' are very much a mixed bag.  Some are good, others are most decidedly not. 

As you point out, quite a number of them relate to specific equipment, which inevitably becomes dated rather quickly.  These kind of subjects are better covered within a magazine article or a website rather than in a book.  For this reason I try to only purchase books whose content will essentially be 'timeless' or at least have some longevity,  which can be tricky as Astronomy is a constantly evolving subject.

And yes the prices of a lot of them are way too high for what they contain.  Best purchased on the second hand market.

[laudropb]

I am another in the minority as far as Turn Left at Orion is concerned. I have never found it particularly useful. I too much prefer the Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders, but each to his own. Many will obviously disagree.

[Alfian]

Regarding TLAO, I think it all depends on where you are at. When I first got TLAO I was really impressed and it got me going  I  then, full of enthusiasm, bought the Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders and was initially a bit underwhelmed but soon realised I was a bit overwhelmed by it. With time and experience though I have grown into it and now see it as a really good source book and I now rarely pick up TLAO. Its hard though not to recommend TLAO for a complete beginner because of the way it talks you through things in such a easy can do style.

I had a slightly similar (initial disappointment) experience with Kambic's Viewing the Constellations with Binoculars. After extolling the virtues of using 10x50 binos, the book seems to show pictures of objects that are a long way from what you can see with 10x50s. However I then realised what a wealth of useful and interesting information the book contains and really like and value it.

I have bought one or two books on quantum physics, and have somewhat predictably put them down at about chapter 3. I am hoping to pick them up again sooner or later, and who knows, they may hopefully finish up on my recommended list! 

[mikeDnight]

I find most of the springer series disappointing and little more than a poor regurgitation of material found elsewhere. Though I've bought many over the years, most have been consigned to the big file with wheels on it. I feel similarly about astro mags, as these also contain copious amounts of pointless supposition and vacuous reviews giving meaningless percentage ratings to equipment, and worthless comments about an instruments performance, such as "the ring nebula looked nice." Unbelievable!

My library of astronomy books tends towards the hands on and classic historical gems of yesteryear, which although the science is somewhat outdated, the incredible passion, knowledge and skill of the authors, as astronomers, really shines through.

As far as astro mags go, I'm definately an S&T fan.

Mike

[pete_l]

 I feel similarly about astro mags, as these also contain copious amounts of pointless supposition and vacuous reviews giving meaningless percentage ratings to equipment, and worthless comments about an instruments performance, such as "the ring nebula looked nice."

Heh, heh. Yes.

My particular "beef" with the magazines (with one notable exception) is that they contain so little astronomy. Sure, they contain lots of stuff about cosmology, astrophysics, space-flight and such, but very little that addresses me: someone with a telescope (and lots of other astronomy kit) who wants to get the best out of it.

Rockets 'n' stuff is all very nice - but it's not astronomy.

[coulthamst]

Heh, heh. Yes.

My particular "beef" with the magazines (with one notable exception) is that they contain so little astronomy. Sure, they contain lots of stuff about cosmology, astrophysics, space-flight and such, but very little that addresses me: someone with a telescope (and lots of other astronomy kit) who wants to get the best out of it.

Rockets 'n' stuff is all very nice - but it's not astronomy.

.......and when they deal with astronomy the major effort is always directed towards astrophotography. All very well for those into this topic, but the space (ho ho) given to actual visual astronomy is miniscule.

[Tim]

I'm going to go out on a limb here but...

Turn Left At Orion

I know it is much praised and I understand why it is such a useful tool for the beginner however I felt the book was underwhelming.

My preference is Illustrated Guide to Astronomical WInders as I think this gives a more comprehensive view of what can be seen/viewed in a range of scopes whilst also being a little more scientific.

IGAW seems to cater for both visual and imaging which is a bonus and allows the reader to progress.

I just felt TLAO was over very quickly and did not cross line between beginner book and sophisticated guide well enough.

I know, I know... let the ear bashing begin.

I agree!

[Stu]

such as "the ring nebula looked nice." Unbelievable!

That sounds like one of my observing reports Mike , although I occasionally throw a 'lovely' in there

[estwing]

I too wasn't impressed with Turn left...until I joined the dots!

[Scott]

Setting up a small observatory. (from concept to construction). My big mistake was not realising that this ment it stopped short of anything close to useful on construction. By far THE most disappointing astronomy related book I've bought. 

I also think that TLAO is more of a cult book than anything else. I think most astronomers would out grow this book before getting half way through it. I think a good star chart is much more useful

[Tomjo59]

.......and when they deal with astronomy the major effort is always directed towards astrophotography. All very well for those into this topic, but the space (ho ho) given to actual visual astronomy is miniscule.

I would agree with that. I suppose it's due to manufacturers of astro imaging gear paying the magazines loads of dosh to advertise. Those of us just into visual aren't going to be very profitable for them.

[Scott]

I would agree with that. I suppose it's due to manufacturers of astro imaging gear paying the magazines loads of dosh to advertise. Those of us just into visual aren't going to be very profitable for them.

Most guys I know who are serious about ther visual astronomy could buy my entire imaging set-up with just their ep case and still have money left over .

[jkwhinfrey]

The titles in the Springer 'Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series' are very much a mixed bag...

I've been very disappointed by the production quality of these titles - printing, binding and layout - considering their high price even second hand.

I won't buy them again.

James

[steppenwolf]

I would agree with that. I suppose it's due to manufacturers of astro imaging gear paying the magazines loads of dosh to advertise. Those of us just into visual aren't going to be very profitable for them.

What and telescope manufacturers don't pay the magazines loads of dosh to advertise? :grin:

[Astro Imp]

I find the writing style used in the the deep sky guides by James O'Meara really annoying. O.K. I accept that he is an experienced observer and his sketches are of a high standard but his style just grates.

I know there are a number of fans of O'Meara on the forum but this is just my opinion.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Mike Meets Martians.

In fairness thought i should have seen the +5yr old label.

In my defence i am older then 5 yrs old.

[bish]

Another vote for TLAO. I would rather use a decent star atlas.

[ollypenrice]

In terms of magazine space devoted to imaging over observing I'd make one observation. Quite simply, there may be more to say about how how to image an object than there is to say about how to observe it. The object itself is equally interesting either way, in terms of astrophysics. This is not a value judgement placing imaging over observing, though I dare say some will choose to see it as such. But it isn't. It's an observation about writing - which I've done for magazines. Ask me to write 500 words on how to image M27 and I'll beg for permission to write a thousand. Ask me to write 500 words on how to observe M27 at the EP and I might feel a hint of panic. I say again that this is a point about writing, not about the relative value of two activities. But, sure, I have more expertise (little as it may be) in imaging than I do in observing but I've read lots of commentaries on both. I, too, find many visual observing guides irksome and wordy. At least the imaging articles can come down with some hard information on how to make a workable picture.

WIth regard to the OP, I'd be much more comfortable running through the astronomy books which I found inspiring rather than the reverse. But if you are after an introduction to cosmology then A Brief History of Time isn't the best that's out there. That said, I think that it has to be a privilege to be addressed by the man himself in his own words. It's rather fine that you can find books for the general reader written by Hawking, Edwin Hubble, E.E.Barnard, Kip Thorne, Lee Smolin, Sir Martin Rees, John Barrow, Bart Bok, Richard Feynman... and so on and on and on. We're a lucky lot!

Olly