Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why do people write new text books?

  1. Feb 19, 2007 #1
    A lot of people seem to write text books on engineering. But my question is.....why bother?.

    I am willing to bet you $20 bucks that if you go to a section on say, 'thermodynamics' and take 5 books at random written at the same level, you are going to find nearly identical content in all of them. In fact, they are probably even in nearly the same order.

    So why do people insist on re-writing one book after another? :confused:

    I say, we only have two books, that everyone revises and re-reads. The reason I say two is because you can usually prove things more than one way. But this way, you get two books of quality that can be a 'bible', if you will....and not the 50-100 books that regurgitate the same garbage.

    More quality, less quantity....

    Ok, now you may call me ku-ray-zay!

    I think if your going to write a book and only repeat what other people have already done, you have no business writing books.

    Dont believe me, open a book by Hibbeler and then get Beer-Johnston. They are the same book. How is that not plagiarism?
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2007 #2
    There's one good reason:

  4. Feb 19, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If a textbook is good enough, it will become the 'bible'. Why not let people write as many as they like? The good ones will get known, and the crap ones will not get noticed. Look at the 'bibles', like Timoshenko's, Mark's, Haywood's or Machinery's! Not just popular by chance. They're popular because they're actually really good.

    I borrowed quite a few thermodynamics books at uni. Most had similar content, but the 'teaching' (or presentation) methods of one suited me more than the others. Other people wouldn't find my choice so helpful.
  5. Feb 19, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It's the same reason why there are tons of Intro Physics text - they are different in how they APPROACH and PRESENT the subject. It is a matter of pedagogy. It is why many people prefer Griffith's E&M versus, let's say, Ritz-Milford-Christy text. Same material, different way of presentation.

    I would also rather have too many to choose from rather than too few. Each one of us learn differently and have different approach to a new material. I would think that the more books there are, the greater the chance of finding one that suits one's needs, style, and preferences.

  6. Feb 19, 2007 #5
    Because you get to points where the author is slopy. Also, a school will use a book written by a staff over a 'bible'.

    There is no need for 50 books on the same subject. You can condense all of that into one book that is VERY good, and VERY tight in its logic, so that you dont need more than one book to understand whats going on!
  7. Feb 19, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If the author is that sloppy, they won't get published. And if they do, nobody will buy the book, and it won't get a second publishing.

    It's only like anything else. Why are there so many car manufacturers? Why are BMWs available when you could buy an Audi? You pay your money, and make your choice, based on your requirements and personal preference.
  8. Feb 19, 2007 #7
    But thats not what you will get stuck with when you take a class at the university! (And everyone cant buy their textbook, and another 'better book' and read them both for every single class.)

    Heres my gripe. I have a thread in the HW help section on a proof. Now if I am reading this textbook, and this author is showing me a proof. I should be able to logically and clearly follow all the steps.

    I *could* get another book and see a different proof that gives me the same end result. But that means I know the material half way. The author wrote the proof the way he did for a reason. I should be able to understand *BOTH* ways on how and why things are being done. That is my entire point.

    I fully agree that there should be more than one approach, but they should both be very very tight and precise.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  9. Feb 19, 2007 #8
    You certainly deserve that funniest member award ^^
  10. Feb 19, 2007 #9
    I dont get it?
  11. Feb 19, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And that's when someone opts to write a new textbook, because for the class they are teaching, they are not satisfied that the material in any existing text focuses on the right thing. There are many levels of courses taught as well. One simply cannot include absolutely everything on a subject in one textbook of a manageable size and price, so they include what they think is most important. Others may not agree.

    Also, content gets outdated, and authors die or retire, so old texts don't get updated, and instead, new ones get written to keep course content current. Look at what's in an introductory biology text from 15 years ago and today, and it's pretty different. When that level of rewriting and updating is necessary, a bunch of authors will decide to start working on textbooks, a bunch will hit the market, and the few good ones get most widely used.
  12. Feb 19, 2007 #11
    But thats the thing, the content of a good physics book is the same for nearly 200 years now. I am saying there should be a 'community book'. So it is a collective effort. Everything should be written is as few words as possible, but at the same time as clear as possible.

    I had one line in my book that took the derivative of a sclar function w.r.t. vector function. Thats fine, except I could not get the same end result after trying for half a day. I asked a professor to show me the proof and it took us about 40 mins for him to do it on the top of his head. He then said, this is NOT something that is obvious unless someone shows you.

    Now thats fine, but if your going to do things like that at least *mention* it in a footnote in the book. This kind of stuff annoys me to no end. You do NOT omit things like this.

    For the rest of the book, the author does very good proofs. But its these slip ups here and there that REALLY make things unnecessarily hard.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  13. Feb 19, 2007 #12


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    So do you mean a sort of physics wiki?
  14. Feb 19, 2007 #13
    Heres a good example. Try and find a good book on vibrations. There are a LOT of books out there that are bad and full of mistakes. So, someone writes a new book that is no better than the last.
  15. Feb 19, 2007 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Really? Quantum Mechanics is not that old.

    ..and who decides what goes in? and what is "as clear as possible"?
    As a teacher, I hate to be told what I should teach. I don't want to be micromanaged by some textbook. I need to make adjustments all of the time to coordinate with student preparation, with labs, with selected topics of interest, etc...

    I haven't found a book [or a small set of books] that I would regard as "perfect" for me, for my students, for my colleagues... There are lots of good ideas out there.... which can't be funneled into a few texts. If it could, I would think that I'm in the wrong field.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  16. Feb 19, 2007 #15
    Right, I mean the 'classical' stuff, for example.

    Im not telling anyone what to teach, far from it.

    Ah, exactly! What I am saying is that you can take a selection of 'good books' and work to improve them so that they are 'great' rather than re-write the same book over and over with different authors, example problems and order of material. Thats hardly anything 'different' from whats already been done.

    Theres enough books out there, why not just improve those books?
  17. Feb 19, 2007 #16
    But "great" differs from person to person according to needs & tastes. In fact that's exactly why we have different textbooks.
    Well for one, copyright won't let you. You're welcome to contribute to my wiki.
  18. Feb 19, 2007 #17
    But im saying that most of them are not 'different' at all! There nearly carbon copies!

    If the author writes a book, I should understand his logic every step of the way (provided im paying attention). If I have to run to another book to understand whats going on, there is a *problem* with the book Im reading. The point of a book is to get a point across. If the author cant do that, trouble.
  19. Feb 19, 2007 #18
    Don't blame other people because you're not discerning :tongue:
  20. Feb 19, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Is there a general understanding of what makes a good textbook?
  21. Feb 19, 2007 #20
    That’s a good question. To me, a 'good' text book is one that is logical, clear, and concise the whole way through.

    I can have 'two' good books, for example on the same material. One might explain something one way, the other book a different approach. Now those are two, *distinct*, good books. There is nothing wrong with more than one approach.

    I think there is something entirely wrong with the same approach, shuffled in a different order, and slapped on with a new cover and author’s name.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Why do people write new text books?
  1. Why do people drink? (Replies: 54)

  2. Why do people laugh (Replies: 24)