Combining mathematics and comics may sound like a recipe for disaster, but Logicomix has achieved a remarkable level of success. Not only has the critical response been exceedingly positive, but the book has also made the New York Times bestseller list. I’m assuming it was quite a popular gift item as well, because up through Christmas eve it was on back order at Amazon.com. It’s certainly rare for anything so fundamentally imbued with mathematics to break into the mainstream.

Here’s a video trailer for the book.
Having just finished the book, I understand why it has received so much praise. Unlike most works created for mass consumption that try to tango with mathematics, Logicomix offers a rare example of a work that is able to give some insight into what mathematics is about, and what mathematicians do, without making things too opaque for a general audience to follow along.

Certainly the pretty pictures help. But more than that, by placing Bertrand Russell in the pilot’s seat, the reader is given a front row seat in the drama of early 20th century mathematical progress. Mathematics is given humanity: we see great thinkers struggle with fundamental problems, we see how their devotion to mathematics affects their relationships, and we see their work in a historical context as the world decays into war. Great mathematical ideas are not dissociated from their logical origins, but instead the reader sees in an organic way how a sizable chunk of mathematics from this time period was developed.

For example, a significant amount of time (some would consider too much) is spent explaining Russell’s paradox. There are many approaches to explaining this paradox for a non-mathematician: Logicomix tries to do it by means of the Barber paradox, but one can think of other ways to interpret it as well. For example, I stole the following explanation from Wikipedia:

Suppose that every public library has to compile a catalog of all its books. The catalog is itself one of the library’s books, but while some librarians include it in the catalog for completeness, others leave it out, as being self-evident.

Now imagine that all these catalogs are sent to the national library. Some of them include themselves in their listings, others do not. The national librarian compiles two master catalogs – one of all the catalogs that list themselves, and one of all those that don’t.

The question is now, should these catalogs list themselves? The ‘Catalog of all catalogs that list themselves’ is no problem. If the librarian doesn’t include it in its own listing, it is still a true catalog of those catalogs that do include themselves. If he does include it, it remains a true catalog of those that list themselves.

However, just as the librarian cannot go wrong with the first master catalog, he is doomed to fail with the second. When it comes to the ‘Catalog of all catalogs that don’t list themselves’, the librarian cannot include it in its own listing, because then it would belong in the other catalog, that of catalogs that do include themselves. However, if the librarian leaves it out, the catalog is incomplete. Either way, it can never be a true catalog of catalogs that do not list themselves.

Fantastic, we thought. Given the current uncertainty surrounding the future of the newspaper industry, subscribing made us feel like responsible citizens – like giving blood, but with fewer personal questions beforehand.

Unfortunately, once the newspaper began to arrive, we had to face the fact that we never read it. I think I skimmed through it a couple days that first week, but after that the papers would go from our doorstep to the recycling bin. Try as we might, we simply couldn’t fit a morning newspaper routine into our lifestyle. And so, with a heavy heart, we canceled our subscription.

To be honest, I haven’t really noticed a difference. All the news I need I can easily access on the internet. The only part I do sometimes miss is rifling through the comics. Sure, you can always go to a website like comics.com and see what your favorite syndicated cartoon characters are up to, but I still prefer the layout a newspaper provides, with dozens of comics squeezed together, allowing you to read them all rapid-fire without having to wade through a list of comics and be bothered by loading times.

My father remedies this by e-mailing me comics directly. Every day I know that I can look forward to the latest adventures of Liō, but this daily standard is sometimes intermingled with other comics. For example, just the other day my father sent me the following math-themed comic:


This is the work of a man named Dave Coverly, who apparently has been named Cartoonist of the Year by the National Cartoonists Society. More of his work can be found here. Some of his cartoons are quite good. Unfortunately, the one above is not.

The above cartoon has the potential to work on multiple levels, but fails to do so. Certainly anyone can read the comic and get the joke (ha ha, the description on the sign involves math, it’s funny because the books in the bin are math books!), but the sentence on the sign doesn’t make any sense. Forget that the mathematical expression is complicated – replace it by a number, such as 1.8. Then the sign reads “Math Book Sale: Buy 2, Get 1 at 1.8!”

Huh? What is this supposed to mean? If Coverly had written 1.8 instead of (3/4 x 2B) ÷ (7π/100), I would hope that an editor would’ve said something like “Hey man, that doesn’t make any sense, why not try for a joke that isn’t so sloppy?” Instead, we get basically the same punchline, but masked by a more convoluted expression. No doubt the reader is meant to simply see that the sign involves math, chuckle inwardly, and turn the page.

It may sound like I’m just trying to pick a fight, but I don’t think this kind of thing would fly with another subject. For example, suppose the comic had a Spanish theme rather than a Math theme. In such a case, Coverly’s comic might look something like this:

This cartoon, like the last one, works on one level: it’s a Spanish book sale, and the sign describes the sale with some Spanish. It’s not hard to get the joke.

However, anyone with a basic understanding of Spanish would probably find this comic more confusing than funny, because the Spanish phrase doesn’t make sense. The phrase certainly doesn’t explain the sale, but it’s also not particularly funny in it’s own right. Why wouldn’t the sign say “half price” in Spanish? Alternatively, one could write a joke in Spanish – this would be lost on people who don’t speak Spanish, but they would still be able to appreciate the basic joke, namely that the Spanish book sale sign is partially written in Spanish.

The situation with math should be no different than the situation with Spanish, but apparently a comic like this is allowed to slide by. Perhaps our population’s mathematical illiteracy is worse than our Spanish illiteracy. Even so, I think it’s fair to call out this comic for simply being lazy. It’s not hard to get the same joke across, but enhance it so that the sign actually makes sense. Here is just one way Coverly could’ve enriched his original idea:

Of course, one could argue that Parade Magazine is not the place one should go for a daily dose of mathematical humor. And indeed, you’d be correct. Of the nationally syndicated strips, Foxtrot is the only one that consistently uses math for a punchline, but such examples are few and far between. As always, for math themed comics, one is best advised to search here.