The New York Times Guide to the Return of Halley’s Comet
1985
Thanks to a submitter for this helpful title. Actually, I was thinking this is really forward thinking since every 75 years its probably a good title! Gotta love those forward thinking collection development people. Get your request in since 2061 isn’t that far away!
Mary
15 responses so far ↓
Bibliotek // July 1, 2009 at 6:37 am |
Actually, Halley’s Comet returned for a (poor) visit to Earth in 1986, so the book was published at about the right time. Thanks for sharing all the Awful Library Books here. Makes me wish I had saved some of the ones I have weeded out over the past 2 decades!
Bibliotek // July 1, 2009 at 6:44 am |
Mary, cancel my earlier comment, and blame it on the early hours of the day. Of COURSE this thing should not be on the shelf…. going back to my library cubicle, now. Thanks again for all the good work you are doing! -Teresa
Ira // July 1, 2009 at 9:25 am |
I’d argue that learning about one of the more historic periodic comets of all time might be a valuable library item. It is precisely that it does not come around for another 50 odd years that it is so fascinating.
Pober Saltine // July 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
I actually owned a copy of this in 1995-6, but I never got to see the infernal thing.
asphalt // July 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
john noble wilford is frankly completely great. this title *could* still be useful, *if*… reference staff know about its less time-sensitive content; and *if* they can successfully educate the user that any location-specific ‘viewing information’ will be *wrong* the next time around.
but unless the ‘history and lore’ have changed significantly (did nirvana or soundgarden or prince or britney or the jonas brothers do a song about it or anything?), really it could be an ok, unique resource.
it sure does *look* awful, though.
marykelly48 // July 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
Submitter said it really did look awful and was sent to the bindery in the mid 90’s.
Mary
Andrea // July 7, 2009 at 3:11 am
Whoa! They sent it to the bindery?! With 75 years or so to go until it comes around again? Why didn’t you mention that? That puts it way over the top for me!
Jen // July 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
I remember waking up at 4am and getting my tired dad to drive me (I was only 14) to a pier in our town to see it. That was a real long time ago!
taotianone // July 1, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
i waited for over 40 years to see it, more anxious some years than others, but always excited with the idea of what was coming. when it finally got here, it was a dud, and i’d already seen numerous better ones in the meanwhile. punt the book.
there is plenty of technical info about haley’s and other comets in a zillion astronomy books.
Brenda Shaw // July 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
I had this book! I read it to pieces. I went out a bunch of times to try and see the comet, but I remember looking through the binoculars and not being able to see a thing. (I ended up studying astronomy at university anyways, so the disappointment couldn’t have been too bitter.)
Our local astronomical society’s library has a copy, as well as a lot of other books that are kept around for their historical-curiosity value. I mean, I’d love to read articles about Halley’s Comet from 1910. But it definitely needs to be retired in favour of books with more, erm, current information on comets.
Michael A. Burstein // July 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
I had that book; I wish I remembered what had happened to it.
Isaac Asimov also wrote a guide to Halley’s Comet at the time. He tried to beg off, pointing out that in 1986 the comet wasn’t going to look very impressive, but some publisher insisted. So Asimov tried to make his book more universal, and he advised folks over and over that there would be more interesting comets to see within one’s lifetime.
Chris // July 9, 2009 at 3:41 am |
On Planet Literate, books have forewords, not ‘forwards.’
Mary K. // July 13, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
I was gathering some books for an astronomy display today and discovered that we actually have this book in our collection! Mind you, we did have plenty of good, current books for the display but yes, this was nestled in the astronomy section.
J // July 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
Hmm, without reading it myself, it’s hard to judge it. This could well be a useful historical document for understanding public perception of the 1986 apparition, or a quick reference for those writing about the comet’s history from a general-audience perspective. It may be a useful reference to comets, history of; comets, observing of; comets, composition and scientific knowledge of. It might also be a quick, cheap, shallow cash-in. I can’t really say.
But I will say that our certain knowledge of comets hasn’t advanced very far since 1985 (or 1950, for that matter). Several research programs have turned up interesting questions, but not definitive answers, yet. The past history of the comet hasn’t changed, though the fizzle of 1986 is a piece of the history this doesn’t cover. Observing techniques have not significantly changed, though there are cyanogen comet filters on the market these days.
I’m curious: with what modern, popular book would you replace this that covers the astrophysics, the history, and practical observing tips? And is it really worth the money to replace?
Also, with fundamental facts changing yearly, how often should libraries replace their science texts? In the last two years, for instance, scientific research mostly using existing data has doubled our estimates of its size and the thickness of its core and has eliminated two of the four arms that were previously imagined. I think those are more fundamental changes than the strata of comet bodies, yet I bet that very few books on the market, even the most recent, cover these.
I fervently hope that one day the internet will solve all these problems and the idea of weeding books will seem quaint and backwards. You can’t protect people from stupid ideas, only (in the best case) overpower the stupid ones with better ones more engagingly delivered.
J // July 13, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Sorry, editing error in the previous post:
“In the last two years, for instance, scientific research mostly using existing data has doubled our estimates of the Milky Way’s size and the thickness of its core and has eliminated two of the four arms that were previously imagined.”