I was hoping for more. This collection of articles from Popular Mechanics does give a snapshot of how the past imagined the present and future. I think it would have been a stronger book with more analysis and fewer filler entries. As it was, only a few predictions seemed to merit discussion about how [in]accurate they were. I suppose the author figured we could figure out the rest on our own. ( )

A compilation of snippets of text and pictures, all of which were originally published in Popular Mechanics between 1903 and 1969, all attempting to predict the future (which, of course, is now our present, or even our past).

It's an irresistible topic. I don't know about you, but I feel an endless fascination with the prognostications of the past, a never-ending amusement at its failures and surprised delight at its successes. Books like this always send me into a highly entertaining fantasy in which I somehow travel back in time, smugly inform the writers about what actually happened, and then demonstrate the awesome technological magic of my smartphone.

All that having been said, though, I found this book a little disappointing. A lot of the snippets aren't actually all that interesting, and many of them get a bit repetitive after a few pages. (Yes, I get it, we were all expected to be commuting to work by air by now!) SF writer Gregory Benford's introductions to the book and the various chapters (on future cities, communications, transportation, etc.) don't actually add much, and are poorly edited, to boot. Plus, while the book is fun to flip through -- it's glossy and colorful -- the layout isn't great for reading straight through.

Rating: 3/5, although, honestly, it's that high only because of the subject matter, not the execution. ( )

The graphic design distracts from the original artwork instead of highlighting it, which is disappointing. Surprising number of copy errors, too, pretty shoddy. ( )

Stupendous idea, astoundingly bad execution.

This book is a collection of predictions made by Popular Mechanics magazine in the early 20th century. I think? Other than the year, there's no attempt to identify any of the predictions, which was one of my big complaints. Are they quotations from past issues? Paraphrased or integrated from multiple issues by the author? There are introductions to each section (presumably by the author), but the consistent typeface throughout means they're poorly distinguished from the predictions, leaving me constantly confused about whose "voice" any particular bit of writing was supposed to be in.

The page design made it frustratingly hard to read straight through the book, but perhaps it wasn't intended to be read that way, so I'll give them a pass. The pages did look pretty.

Perhaps most importantly, the book lacks a sense of humor or playfulness, and it all comes off a bit robotic. There's precious little analysis, either -- a few facts are identified as "TRUE!" with a note about when they came true, but at a guess I would say it's no more than 10%. Fun commentary would have transformed this dull brick of a book into the interesting popular science book it was meant to be. ( )

Stupendous idea, astoundingly bad execution.

This book is a collection of predictions made by Popular Mechanics magazine in the early 20th century. I think? Other than the year, there's no attempt to identify any of the predictions, which was one of my big complaints. Are they quotations from past issues? Paraphrased or integrated from multiple issues by the author? There are introductions to each section (presumably by the author), but the consistent typeface throughout means they're poorly distinguished from the predictions, leaving me constantly confused about whose "voice" any particular bit of writing was supposed to be in.

The page design made it frustratingly hard to read straight through the book, but perhaps it wasn't intended to be read that way, so I'll give them a pass. The pages did look pretty.

Perhaps most importantly, the book lacks a sense of humor or playfulness, and it all comes off a bit robotic. There's precious little analysis, either -- a few facts are identified as "TRUE!" with a note about when they came true, but at a guess I would say it's no more than 10%. Fun commentary would have transformed this dull brick of a book into the interesting popular science book it was meant to be. ( )