I’ve gotten a fair number of free science books in the last few years, from publishers looking for bloggy publicity, but Mark Alpert’s Final Theory is the first time that I’ve been asked to review a novel on ScienceBlogs (I’ve gotten advance copies of some other novels, but I’ve specifically requested those). Mark Alpert is an editor at Scientific American, and Final Theory is his debut as a writer of thrillers.
David Swift, a former physics student turned historian of science, gets a call to come to the dying bedside of Hans Kleinman, a former mentor from his physics days, who has been brutally tortured. Before he dies, Kleinman whispers a string of numbers that he says hold the key to finding a theory of everything– in his younger days, Kleinman was one of Albert Einstein’s assistants, and it seems that Einstein in fact succeeded in finding the unified field theory (“Einheitliche Feldtheorie” in German), but hid the results from the world because he feared how it would be used.
Shortly after Kleinman dies, David is detained by the FBI, and interrogated to find out what he knows. After a harrowing escape during an attack on the building where David is being held, he finds himself on the run, trying to figure out the theory before he’s caught by either the FBI or the sinister Russian mercenary who tortured and killed Kleinman and Einstein’s other assistants.
I’m all in favor of the idea of this book. It’s a thriller that uses science as the hook, and scientists as the main characters. The physics discussions are a little improbable, but the basic use of the ideas is solid– Alpert avoids the sort of ridiculous howlers that plague so many of the appearances of physics in pop culture. And I definitely support having more books out there that depict physics as exciting enough to kill people over.
The fact of the book is hampered, for me, by the fact that I’m just not much of a thriller reader. And while somebody probably could build a The Name of the Rose style intellectual thriller in which the entire plot turns around an abstract point of theory, this is not that book. It’s very much a standard thriller, with car chases and gun battles and dastardly villains and a ticking-bomb scenario in which only David and his companions can save the world.
This is not a book that will be remembered for its deathless prose, in other words.
I suspect that it’s a solid entry in the thriller genre, but that’s not my preferred genre of trashy fiction, so it’s a little hard for me to evaluate fairly. There were some eye-rolling moments, but I can’t really say whether they would bother somebody who regularly read the bestselling authors whose blurbs adorn the cover.
(I sketched the plot for Kate last night, and she looked dubious. “Does this book have any female characters?” she asked. “Why, yes,” I said, “there’s a brilliant and beautiful black woman string theorist who helps figure everything out.” “Oh,” she said, “one of those.”)
I hate to give this a “Sure to appeal to people who read this sort of thing” review, because I think we could use more thrillers by people who have read more of a physics textbook than the index. But really, that’s all I can honestly say– if you like Douglas Preston, Tess Gerritson, Kyle Mills, and Javier Sierra (to choose some names off the back cover), you may very well like this.
My impression of Final Theory was that it was for people who read through Dan Brown novels despite wanting to throw them against the wall for the abuse of science and other intellectual disciplines. Similar style and plot devices, including a strong element of “ok, what happens next”, but the science was much more plausible for “suspension of disbelief” purposes.
That’s a pretty good description, based on what little I know about Brown’s books. I’ve never read one, though I confess I’ve been tempted to pick up Angels and Demons, because the descriptions of CERN sound hilarious.
No, Mark Alpert is better than Dan Brown: he doesn’t have the extremely contrieved cliffhangers all the time.
But on the whole I must say that I was not really impressed. I really wanted to like it, but I could not. It’s a competent thriller, but I’m not interested in the thriller parts. I wanted to see more of the lab! Why are the scientists always mostly theorists?
Well, my review should be on LabLit.com by the weekend.
Sounds like “The Da Vinci Code” under a different coat of varnish to me (Yes, I admit it…I read it…BUT ONLY IN THE BATHROOM!!!)
You know, I read this book and liked it a lot. Fun read. Good science. He definitely knows what he’s talking about.
But,let me just point out, to your suspicious wife (who doesn’t believe there are any beautiful string theorists), I am 99% sure the very beautiful Lisa Randall at Harvard (see http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/12/12/1/a-conversation-about-physics-with-lisa-randall
was the person that Monique Reynolds was based on. C’mon! Not all beautiful women are models and publicity agents. The really smart ones go into science!
Jill Sheehy
St. Louis
For the record, my comment was not motivated by doubt that a string theorist could be beautiful. It was prompted by what I perceived as, shall we say, the extreme narrative convenience of such a character.
Also, I have a name, and I would appreciate it if people would use it.