Thinking with Sound: A New Program in the Sciences and Humanities Around 1900

in a thriller or whodunit setting; it is the scientists who trap themselves in a labyrinth of chaos as well as order, leading to death and madness but also to beauty and deep human feeling. No less important than the intelligent mix of science and fiction is the use of the comics medium. A translation from the French (first edition: 2019), this book maintains the typical French hardcover album format, distinguishing itself from the nowcommonplace trade novel format of nonfiction comics work. The style of the art is radically anti-mimetic, another feature that sets it apart from most nonfiction works on science and scientists in the comics field. The Phantom Scientist does not attempt to faithfully document or illustrate the idea of science in action, as Bruno Latour put it. The characters and the settings are drawn in highly stylized and decidedly cartoonish ways, closer to Garfield than to Watchmen, for example. The background is equally schematic, sometimes reduced to one single color field, while the structure of the building and the park hosting the research institute look more symbolic than real. Yet this schematic way of drawing perfectly matches both the layout and the narrative techniques of the book, which establish a strong dialogue between the page’s grid and the hard-edged visual representation of people and objects. The use of colors, finally, is that of an extreme clear line style, with sharp contour lines and no chromatic variations within each contoured section. These seamless echoes between lines, forms, and colors continue in the elementary yet efficient montage and linear storytelling techniques, which shy away from any form of temporal disruption to slowly build a tight network of correspondences. The Phantom Scientist is not a puzzle but a journey, one with an open end where each new step helps thicken the plot, allowing for countless rereadings. Even if the story unfolds in a linear way, many gaps remain. As one of the scientists confesses near the end: I can speak about the “how” but not about the “why.” The work wins in both ways, however. It is a wonderful introduction to the stakes and challenges of modern science. It also discloses the no-less-mysterious questions that link machines and algorithmic thinking to what we can continue to call the human factor.