Book Review: The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet
Review by Ashley Yeager
font_down font_up Text Size
access
The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet by Neil deGrasse Tyson

Americans love the pla … err, dwarf pla … err, plutoid Pluto. The feeling is so strong, in fact, that it sparked an overwhelming public outcry when in 2006 the International Astronomical Union kicked Pluto from the planet club, writes astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson.

His latest book chronicles the history, science and controversy that ultimately led to the planet’s demotion. By reprinting song lyrics, editorial cartoons and letters from third graders, among others who challenged and still challenge the IAU decision, the author illustrates Americans’ cultural love affair with Pluto. He also explains how Pluto’s fall from grace divided the nation. Among all planet names, he writes, “Pluto sounds the most like a punch line of a hilarious joke,” and now “Pluto is not a red-blooded planet.… How rude.”

It’s these jibes and Tyson’s personal anecdotes that make the book a fun read. But, had he toned down his signature writing style when describing the science supporting Pluto’s demotion, The Pluto Files would have made a better case for rejecting the planet label for Pluto — and perhaps ultimately for all planets.

The author argues that children could instead learn about the solar system by grouping objects with similar features into families. A person interested in volcanoes, for example, might study Earth, Mars, Jupiter’s moon Io and Saturn’s moon Titan. Explaining Pluto’s lack of planethood in less stylized prose may have made the author’s reasoning a bit crisper and perhaps would have made his family organization scheme sound a bit more practical.

W.W. Norton & Co., 2009, 194 p., $23.95


Comments 1
  • The book is fun, but Tyson's--and the IAU's--scientific case for demoting Pluto is on shaky ground. Pluto as a planet is not in a category of one. There are several of these smaller planets that need to be distinguished from asteroids because their makeup is exactly like that of planets in that they are in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. This means they have enough self gravity to pull themselves into a round shape, which makes them
    geologically like the larger planets and unlike shapeless asteroids and comets. Tyson blurs this crucial distinction
    by lumping Pluto and other small Kuiper Belt planets with comets and asteroids.

    The demotion of Pluto was adopted by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. No absentee voting was allowed. It was done so in a highly controversial process that violated the IAU’s own bylaws, and it was immediately opposed by a petition of 300
    professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons, saying they will not use the new definition, which they described accurately as “sloppy.”

    Also significant is the fact that many planetary scientists are not IAU members and therefore had no say in this matter at all.

    Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star.

    Tyson's comparison of Pluto with comets is a red herring. Yes, if brought into Earth's orbit, Pluto would begin sublimating and appear to grow a tail. However, so would any planet brought close enough to its parent star. If Earth were placed in Mercury's orbit, it would appear to grow a tail as well. Pluto is also far larger than any comet, and its orbit never takes it into the inner solar system.

    Even now, there are scientists and lay people working behind the scenes to get the demotion overturned. More information on this can be found on my Pluto blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com

    laurele laurele
    Feb. 14, 2009 at 1:50am
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.