OUP published Visual Complex Analysis in 1999. MAA published Visual Group Theory in 2009. But no visualization counterparts have been published for other subjects like (Commutative) Algebra, Combinatorics, (Algebraic, Differential) Geometry, Harmonic Analysis, Matrix Theory, Measure or Ergodic Theory, (Advanced) (Real) Analysis, Rings Fields Modules, Topology. These subjects are abstruser than univariate calculus, but are the mathematicians listed below incapable of writing books on them?
Why don't these tyro authors publish, and wouldn't they profit more from, the aforementioned Visual equivalents to assist students visualizing other subjects, or problem books with full solutions to each problem? Why do these tyros persist in publishing univariate calculus textbooks that remain untrodden? These tyros must know that the market for univariate calculus textbooks is saturated and has little chance of being disrupted. In actuality, these tyros failed, because most instructors are unfamiliar with their untrodden textbooks probably because they don't say anything new or reform calculus education.
Instructors don't have time to read and compare the glut of univariable calculus textbooks. I read this review of Peter Mercer's More Calculus of a Single Variable (2014), but it doesn't distinguish it from other allegedly revolutionary books like Karl Menger's Calculus: A Modern Approach (2007), Daniel Velleman's Calculus: A Rigorous First Course (2017) or Dan Sloughter's Calculus From Approximation to Theory (2020).
Alex Himonas, Calculus: Ideas & Applications (2003).
Since there are so many calculus books and the coverage in them is so similar, I cannot say that this book is outstanding.
Dale Varberg, Edwin Purcell, and Steven Rigdon, Calculus (2006).
So: a mostly traditional book, with the real virtue of brevity but otherwise not too imaginative.
Robert Smith and Roland Minton, Calculus: Early Transcendental Functions (2007).
There's a numbing sameness to most calculus books. In part, that's inevitable: how many paths are there through this particular garden? Given that one must visit the usual tourist spots, there is little space for being really original. [...] Beyond that, this strikes me as plain-vanilla.
Jon Rogawski, Calculus (2008).
But now we come to the key question: Given that there are already thousands of calculus books in print, is it valuable to have a new calculus book that is just like nearly all of them, except that it is has clearer explanations and fewer errors? It's hard to make this sound exciting, and in fact I am not excited by it. Most calculus books are deadly dull, and even though this one has lots of pretty pictures and interesting sidebars I still had a hard time getting through it. I would have liked it much better if it had addressed some of the issues raised by the reform movement.
Arnold Ostebee, Calculus: From Graphical, Numerical, and Symbolic Points of View (2008).
When reviewing a general calculus text, the main question the reviewer needs to answer is “how is this book different from the existing mainstream choices?” The answer, in this case, is that the book is more ambitious and moves at a faster pace than most competing textbooks. It also makes a few unusual choices in the order in which the topics are covered.
Laura Taalman and Peter Kohn, Calculus (2013).
The Calculus textbook market is crowded, and the books on that market are very similar to one another. It is completely normal for two books in that category to overlap by ninety percent or more in their coverage of topics
Peter Lax, Maria Terrell, Calculus with Applications (2013).
My criticisms and suggestions aside, this is an altogether excellent text.
Michael P. Sullivan and Kathleen Miranda, Calculus: Early Transcendentals (2014).
Other than these aspects, there is nothing to differentiate this book from other books designed for the three-semesters of calculus market. In many ways I find myself wishing that there would be a moratorium on new calculus books because the field seems to have hit a wall regarding anything new in textbooks. [Embolding mine] I could have used this book to teach calculus 20 years ago and I could use my book of twenty years ago to teach it now and the outcomes would not be significantly different.
Alexander Hahn, Calculus in Context (2017).
Overall, this reviewer would not choose to use this text as the main text for a calculus course, but would (and has) utilized the myriad of applications as starting points for student projects.