Book Review: Celestial Delights: The Best Astronomical Events Through 2020

by dianne on February 22, 2012

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Book Review: Celestial Delights: The Best Astronomical Events Through 2020Recently, we announced an invitation for anyone who would like to review space books for Universe Today. We here at Universe Today were overwhelmed by the huge response from readers all over the world. And now, we’re so glad to feature the first book review submitted by Dave DeHetre, an astrophotography enthusiast from Kansas. Here’s Dave’s review of the book, “Celestial Delights: The Best Astronomical Events Through 2020 by Francis Reddy.”

In 2001 or 2002, I can’t remember which, I saw on the TV news that there was going to be a meteor shower that night (the Leonids). At some time late into the night, I found myself unable to sleep, and figured I’d go take a look. I walked barefoot onto my front lawn and looked up to a chaos of movement. There were so many meteors that they almost blended into a static noise pattern. There were dozens of smaller, and several larger streaks across the sky at any given moment. I was impressed. I went inside and woke up my wife, and both of us stood on the lawn, heads craned back, mouths open in awe until impending hypothermia chased us back inside.

That was the first time I’d seen a meteor shower, and since then, I’ve thought that was what all meteor showers were like. Recently, I’ve developed an interest in astrophotography, and at each opportunity, I’ve gone out to try to capture something like what I saw that first night, only to be disappointed. I figured I was just having bad luck, but it turns out that event I saw a decade ago was something of a record breaker. I only found this out while reading the book “Celestial Delights,” by Francis Reddy.

The back cover copy for Celestial Delights leads with: ‘…TV Guide for the sky’, and that’s a very apt description. The book provides a ‘listing’ for everything that’s going to happen in the sky during the decade from 2011 to 2020, giving you a reference to when the sights you want to see are happening, providing plenty of detail about each event, and also introducing you to things you hadn’t considered before.

The book is organized by broad topic, ordered by how commonplace the event is. Starting with the sky itself, then to the Moon, then the inner planets, eclipses, Mars, the gas giants, constellations and key stars, nebulae, galaxies, meteors, and finishing with ‘Unpredictable Events’ (aurora, comets, novae, and supernovae). Having the events grouped this way allows for there to be plenty of background and history of each type of event included, as well as explanations of the underlying principles and mechanics involved. It’s not a book meant to be read cover to cover necessarily, though it is engaging enough that you might.

Topics are covered extensively, stopping just short of the physics and mathematics detail of a textbook. Even so, the style is always readable and easily understood. Each topic chapter provides a calendar of events, with highlights and points of interest. There are ample photographs and illustrations throughout the book, mostly in black and white, with color plates used to good effect on occasion.

Overall, the impression is that this is a comprehensive guide, written by someone who knows the topic well and is passionate about it. Reddy has been writing about astronomy and space science for 30 years and has published numerous books for skygazers of all ages. He is a senior science writer for Syneren Technologies Corp., and writes for the Astrophysics Science Division at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Previously he served as a senior editor at Astronomy magazine.

If you were going to buy just one book on astronomy, “Celestial Delights” would be an ideal candidate.

Click here to read more reviews or buy this book from Amazon.com.

  • SJStar

    IMO a truly shockingly and disappointing book (if the 1st and 2nd editions are anything to go by.) “TV Guide to the Stars”, eh? As most of us know, much of what is on television is both banal containing programs that is not worth your time.

    Just look at the definitions in the Glossary. “Electrophonic sounds” (pg.267, 407), “Chaos”, etc. are not run-of-the-mill astronomical terms. Others too.

    It mentions zenith but doesn’t mention nadir!
    It mentions “light-years” but not “parsecs”
    It mentions “Nautical Twilight” but not “Civil Twilight” (Even the Index under “Twilight”, gives only “Nautical Twilight” on pg.411, 413!) Aren’t most observer on land not sea??

    Worst in this. “International Astronomical Union – An international non-governmental organization that promotes all aspects of astronomical science.” Eh? Promotion ? It mostly exists for astronomy nomenclature and designations, teaching and education. organising cooperation for future large scale facilities, etc.

    Even the Index is inadequate or simply nuts

    I.e. “Fertility” is mentioned on pg. 32, 34, 52, 53, 55, 188. “Stonehenge” on 5, 35, 121

    “Sirius” is mentioned on fourteen separate pages. (under ‘Stars’) Alpha Centauri / Rigil Kent our nearest star not even once in the index in a book of 423 pages!

    “Precession” is in the Index, “proper motion” isn’t!

    “Magnitude scale” appears in the index but not anything under “magnitudes” nor telling the difference between apparent or absolute magnitude! (In the book everything is termed and placed under “brightness” all distributed under 51 separate pages.)

    Also “Inferior Conjunction” appears in the Index but “Superior Conjunction” does not

    Under “Calendars” it doesn’t mention the most important — our everyday civil calendar
    .
    The book is also entirely northern-centric, live or travel to the southern hemisphere it is next to useless!

    Frankly, new and established readers would be better of buying a general astronomy book and/or a computer star atlas I.e. Stellarium (free) and even a general yearbook, and get much better value. Norton’s Star Atlas (20th Edition) comes to mind. Doing so will last a lifetime!

    You say; “If you were going to buy just one book on astronomy, “Celestial Delights” would be an ideal candidate,

    I really have to disagree, Dianne.

    • squidgeny

      The review was written by Dave DeHetre, not Dianne – Dianne just posted it.

      That’s quite a damning review of the glossary and index ;) But is the meat of the book also riddled with omissions? I don’t think you can judge a book by its glossary any more than by its cover!

      • SJStar

        I stand corrected on the reviewer. Thanks.

        I too agree that the book (3rd Edition) might not be riddled with omissions. I have seen 1st and 2nd Editions and have read the 2nd, and I could also equally comment as heavily on the ‘meat’ too as you put it.

        As I have not read the 3rd edition, so in fairness I cannot really make comments. And so I haven’t. yet I have seen the available abridged edition on-line, and can comment on what I’ve seen.

        Like most books on all sorts of subjects, there are certain criteria you can easily check to assess its thoroughness. All that is required is two select a few pages and examine the content carefully. Pick out the keywords, and see if they appear in the Glossary and/or the Index. Next look for the opposites of certain keywords. I.e. zenith and nadir OR related subgroups of ideas. I.e. Seeing Inferior or Superior conjunctions, twilights, calendars, magnitudes, etc. If related words like astronomical, nautical and civil twilight don’t appear, or have one instead or over another, you have to question the thoroughness of the information.

        If the book is were ‘universal’ selected various celestial objects in north or south hemispheres. I.e. Stars or bright deep sky objects that are fifth or sixth (midrange) in the pecking order and see if they appear in the printed Index. [in this case it should be entitled, say, 'Northern Celestial Delights' so southern observers don't waste their time.]

        It doesn’t take very much time or effort to see how exacting and complete the text really is. Frankly, the authors should be doing similar questioning before publishing, [You would think this might have been corrected by a 3rd Edition.]

        Being critical of many others books to some standard – Norton’s Star Atlas is by far the best standard here – you so know how to rank books.

        The question remains. How much of a ‘pot boiler’ is this book? Does it offer better insights or ideas that are either new or inventive? [As an example, Walter Scott Houston's Book "Deep Sky Wonders" Pub. S&T (1998)oe E.J Hartung's "Astronomical Objects for Southern Telescopes" (1968) are both revolutionary in its approach and elegance; and classics for many years to come. There are many imitators of varying degrees of completeness, exactness or brilliance.]

        Like most amateur astronomers, you have finite cash and a much wider preponderance of near equal texts – with both their advantages and faults. Choosing well is quite important, especially for novices who need to learn the ropes.

        That’s how I see it. Sorry if you disagree.

        • squidgeny

          I generally don’t read books like these so I can’t really comment myself – I was just perplexed at your original post focussing so much on the glossary/index. But you might well be right about the accuracy of the glossary/index being a good measure of the book as a whole.

          I very much agree on the hemisphere point – even though I live in the North, I still find it irritating when people ignore the Southern perspective, or pretend everything happens in the North.

          • Charles Muddwrack

            Great review! I’ll grab the book. Even for nothing more than a reference, it’s valid for a decade and will be great to have.

            JSStar, I’d say go write your own book but then, you practically did here and I just don’t like your style.

          • SJStar

            … and I don’t like unquestioning mindlessness.

            Please feel free to attack my ideas, but please not me!

      • SJStar

        I stand corrected on the reviewer. Thanks.

        I too agree that the book (3rd Edition) might not be riddled with omissions. I have seen 1st and 2nd Editions and have read the 2nd, and I could also equally comment as heavily on the ‘meat’ too as you put it.

        As I have not read the 3rd edition, so in fairness I cannot really make comments. And so I haven’t. yet I have seen the available abridged edition on-line, and can comment on what I’ve seen.

        Like most books on all sorts of subjects, there are certain criteria you can easily check to assess its thoroughness. All that is required is two select a few pages and examine the content carefully. Pick out the keywords, and see if they appear in the Glossary and/or the Index. Next look for the opposites of certain keywords. I.e. zenith and nadir OR related subgroups of ideas. I.e. Seeing Inferior or Superior conjunctions, twilights, calendars, magnitudes, etc. If related words like astronomical, nautical and civil twilight don’t appear, or have one instead or over another, you have to question the thoroughness of the information.

        If the book is were ‘universal’ selected various celestial objects in north or south hemispheres. I.e. Stars or bright deep sky objects that are fifth or sixth (midrange) in the pecking order and see if they appear in the printed Index. [in this case it should be entitled, say, 'Northern Celestial Delights' so southern observers don't waste their time.]

        It doesn’t take very much time or effort to see how exacting and complete the text really is. Frankly, the authors should be doing similar questioning before publishing, [You would think this might have been corrected by a 3rd Edition.]

        Being critical of many others books to some standard – Norton’s Star Atlas is by far the best standard here – you so know how to rank books.

        The question remains. How much of a ‘pot boiler’ is this book? Does it offer better insights or ideas that are either new or inventive? [As an example, Walter Scott Houston's Book "Deep Sky Wonders" Pub. S&T (1998)oe E.J Hartung's "Astronomical Objects for Southern Telescopes" (1968) are both revolutionary in its approach and elegance; and classics for many years to come. There are many imitators of varying degrees of completeness, exactness or brilliance.]

        Like most amateur astronomers, you have finite cash and a much wider preponderance of near equal texts – with both their advantages and faults. Choosing well is quite important, especially for novices who need to learn the ropes.

        That’s how I see it. Sorry if you disagree.

    • Peristroika

      Wow, you did a lot of work to find all of those “omissions”. Sorry, but I’ll go by the first review. Yours sounds like a rant. Every book that deals with astronomy doesn’t have to explain every word used by science. It explained the ones it used. If you want an astronomical primer, that’s another book altogether. As another reply says, you didn’t even deal with the information the book DID offer and touted itself as offering. Abject negativity does not a fair judgement make.

      • SJStar

        I knew of these general errors from the 2nd edition. I read the first 20 pages or so (again of the 3rd edition.)

        There are some positives, but the initial review is equally one sided without any criticism of negative review. (I agree, for example, I like the literary style of the author.)

        As for ‘ranting’, well, you are entitled to your opinion. I thought i was being to the point. In the end, can you point out where I am technically wrong here?

        Dave here says; “Topics are covered extensively.” This is quite true, but remaining are some preexisting flaws in accuracy (as I’ve already pointed out.) They still remain in parts the 3rd edition. Why?

        Perhaps the best thing about the 2nd Edition. I bought it, I read it, and it still sits on my bookshelf not opened again. If you asked me if I could recommend this book to you, in honesty, I’d have to say no.

        It’s my opinion. It is the way I see it, negative or otherwise.

        At last I’ve read a version of a book. Have you?

    • Peristroika

      Wow, you did a lot of work to find all of those “omissions”. Sorry, but I’ll go by the first review. Yours sounds like a rant. Every book that deals with astronomy doesn’t have to explain every word used by science. It explained the ones it used. If you want an astronomical primer, that’s another book altogether. As another reply says, you didn’t even deal with the information the book DID offer and touted itself as offering. Abject negativity does not a fair judgement make.

Previous post:

Next post: