Analysis Please

Fanwork
Title:	Analysis Please
Creator:	Ann Popplestone
Date(s):	June 1978-September 1984
Medium:	print
Fandom:	science, Star Trek: TOS, Star Wars
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Analysis Please is a popular series of science articles by Ann Popplestone.

They appeared in thirteen issues of Warped Space beginning in June 1978.

From a fan in 1984: "I'm glad that there are people like Ann Popplestone around to remind me of the "S" in SF."

The Series

• Analysis Please: Clones (from "Warped Space" 37, 1978)
• Anaylsis Please: Ion Drive (from "Warped Space" 38, 1978)
• Analysis Please Recombinant DNA (from "Warped Space" 39, 1978)
• Analysis Please: Anti-Matter (from "Warped Space" 40, 1979)
• Analysis Please: Miscellanea (scientific myths) (from "Warped Space" 41, 1979)
• Analysis Please: Evolution (from "Warped Space" 42, 1979)
• Analysis Please: The Force (from "Warped Space" 43, 1980)
• Analysis Please: Hello, Out There? (from "Warped Space" 44, 1980)
• Analysis Please: Talking Chimps (from "Warped Space" 45, 1981)
• Analysis Please: Dinosaurs (from "Warped Space" 47, 1982)
• Analysis Please: Archeoastronomy North of Mexico (from "Warped Space" 48, 1983)
• Analysis Please: Continental Drift (from "Warped Space" 49, 1983)
• Analysis Please: Gross Anatomy (from "Warped Space" 51, 1984)

Fan Comments

...talk about impressive I Ms. Popplestone is way over my head but that doesn't stop me from sitting back and admiring the sheer gorgeous technicality of her explanations. Does she want questions on anything? ... The nicest thing about Ann's articles is that I can sit in my office (or any place that takes life too seriously) with my WS open to her beautiful and completely scientific prose and nobody suspects that I am in reality sneaking in my fix of fantasy under the guise of a popular science format. Thank you, Ann!

Ann Popplestone's "Recombinant DNA", that I could understand. It's been in enough papers! A clear analysis.

I'm picking up a trick or two from Ann's previous endeavors or the lady is striving to make her digressions not only simpler for the layperson, but even humorous, thus making the whole column generally more palatable.

Ann Popplestone's science fact article was a real treat. Can her column be made into a permanent feature?

I was very pleased to see some topics which were not of fannish nature. One being the short article on evolution by Ann Popplestone. I found this article while not detailed, enough (for my taste) interesting enough to read.

When is Ann Popplestone going to start writing hard science books? I think her "Analysis Please" (for the last several ishes) has been some of the finest science-fact I've read for the last few years, including Asimov's science-for-idiots texts. Even to a science major (me) the explanations were NOT insultingly simple nor were there significant quantum leaps in logic as is so often found in novice-explanation pieces. Bravo! How about one on black holes and the curved-universe theories?

Ann Popplestone's "Analysis" this time is a bit meatier than the last couple but certainly as enjoyable and instructive. I finally had the pleasure of meeting said writer, now that she's stationed in the Pitt, and found her to be every bit as knowledgeable and entertaining as her articles imply. She did tell me, however, that she's not really getting the batch of interesting requests for analyses she had hoped for so I would urge your readers to not be shy and submit to Ann all those burning questions they've always wanted explained without further ado. Otherwise I'll be forced to send in those zingers I've been saving for her like "Analysis and Ramifications of Copper-Based Blood and the Effects of Alcohol (if any) Thereon", "Wookiees and Primate Anatomy", and "Is 'Ambrov Zeor' Really Religious?". Anyway, it's nice to know that Charles Darwin didn't exactly corner the market on evolutionary theories.

An informative article by Ann Popplestone. Does she know all that stuff, or did she look it up? Nice vignettes, but too short to satisfy me.

Ann Popplestone's analysis of the force was interesting, however I thought that it would be an entire article on the force as we saw it in SW and TESB. The article was interesting, anyway.

"Talking Chimps"—for once Ann Popplestone is discussing something a derf like me can understand. Presumably the PLANET OF THE APES is not too far from us. Consider the possibilities of workers who will literally do the job for peanuts (or bananas). Some studies show chimps in the wild starting to use tools and even weapons. Whither is all this leading us?

Ann Popplestone's "Talking Chimps" of issue #45 was indeed so intriguing a topic as to warrant further analysis. Ann makes even the rather dry recitation of experiments and test results not only comprehensible to extreme laypeople (such as yours truly) but also interesting. Another possible linguistically oriented subject for Ann to tackle, if she has any sources, might be the whale and porpoise songs and whistles as a language and whether any potential communication is possible between Homo sapiens and our waterbound mammal cousins.

Ann Popplestone's article on "Talking Chimps" was most interesting. I have read about teaching chimps to speak by sign language rather than spoken language much earlier, and at the time of seeing STAR WARS thought that the inability of Chewie to speak English (though obviously he understood it) made him a more believable alien. Same for Yoda in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK—although certainly intelligent enough to master English (Galactic) he plainly has trouble with it because of his totally alien voice-box and brain.

More about ape communications from Ann Popplestone — perhaps after chimps learn to read and write they would have to be given the vote, I can see a whole array of interesting political problems here! After all, there are quite a few humans who can't read and write! How then do you tackle such matters as equality?

For once, Ann Popplestone's "Analysis Please" was redundant for me. I had a very long and thorough dinosaur period, and to this day, remain quite fond of the creatures. A well-documented piece, though, and quite up to date.

Ann Popplestone's talking chimps lecture was informative, though Ihave read that some scientists believe that the chimps' education is nothing more than glorified training, i.e., the chimps are trained to react to infinitesimal gestures, and to certain tones of voice that the scientists are unaware of projecting. The "teacher is then acting as a simple trainer, as he establishes a rapport with a particular animal.

Ingested as much of Ann Popplestone's analysis on "Continental Drift" as my brain could take. The best thing she does is make me aware of the vast holes in my store of knowledge. A scientist I'm not. I can now add "alas," something I wouldn't have done 10 years ago.

Once again Ann Popplestone has come up with a good article. i never knew anything about dissection except on how to do a frog back in the seventh grade. Ann has given me some new insight on the area.

"Gross Anatomy" reminded me of the sort of things I used to read in FANTASY & SF; I'm thinking of or, Asimov's little articles. I'm glad that there are people like Ann Popplestone around to remind me of the "S" in SF.

Ann Popplestone's "Gross Anatomy" was interesting, although I'm familiar with much of the material here. I thought at first the title would be a horrid pun. The material here is a good background to all these body-snatcher and Frankenstein stories as well as being historically interesting. I was intrigued by the detail about skeletonized Crusaders.