Review - The Telephone Gambit

Home Authors Books Subjects Events Software Features Links Newsletter Gifts Blog Write Review What's New

Review - The Telephone Gambit - Seth Shulman

If there's one thing that common knowledge is particularly poor on, it's who invented what. Edison, for instance, only shared joint honours on the light bulb, and didn't invent the gramophone (yes, he did invent the phonograph, using a cylinder, but not the gramophone). But we all know Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone... didn't he?

Seth Shulman's book sets out to explore who really did invent it, and why after all these years, Bell still has the laurels. While Bell did win the patent battles (unlike Edison over the light bulb), there was already plenty of evidence back in the nineteenth century that Bell wasn't the first to the telephone, and wasn't even the first to submit his patent - but skulduggery and commercial manipulation seems to have triumphed.

It's a good story, and well told here. It's something of a meta history - rather than plunge us into Bell's time, Shulman tells us the story of his own discovery of a key similarity between the diagram in Bell's notebook and the (at the time supposedly secret) drawings of his competitor, already lodged with the patent office. It's very much a story of detection and unweaving the tangled record, rather than straight history. I found this very interesting, though there is a slight danger of giving us too much archival content and not enough well-crafted narrative.

If you thought you knew the story of the telephone, think again. Seth Shulman will change you view (reluctantly, I suspect - Bell is something of a hero figure) on what really happened back in the 1870s.

Also in hardback: Also on Kindle:

Review by Brian Clegg

DISCLAIMERS

This site has no connection with Popular Science magazine or other sites and publications with a similar name.

Much of the content of this site is written by popular science writers or friends of popular science writers. Inevitably many of the reviews in such a small community are written by or about someone we know. We always aim to be impartial in our reviews, but there is a connection which we need make clear, as there is no intention to deceive. The content of any review or article is solely the opinion of the author and should not be read or understood on any other basis. The site exists to promote popular science writing and popular science authors and for this reason should be considered promotional material, just as the editorial reviews in an online bookshop or the blurb on the back of a book should be considered promotional.

The website should not be eaten or used where it can come into contact with water.

Disagree with our review? Want to comment on a feature? Contact us at info@ popularscience.co.uk - have your say!

Part of the site