Fantasy Author Worth Reading

Finally available in ebook, here are some stories by Mary C. Aldridge that I’ve read and enjoyed.  One of them, The Adinkra Cloth, was nominated for a Nebula Award for best short story.  The stories dwell in an interesting corner of the imagination: African fantasy.  Maybe not your first choice of genres for your reading pleasure, but they work really well.  If you’re a cheapskate, you can buy the stories individually for 99 cents each.  Or you can splurge and buy all five for $2.99.  I recommend splurging.

Anybody want an encyclopedia?

The Encyclopedia Britannica is going out of print–the company is just going to concentrate on online services from now on, according to the Times.

Back in the 70s we bought the first of the macropedia/micropedia sets of the Britannica — a big expense for newlyweds.  We still have it, sitting unused in its own special bookcase.

I remember the controversy over the new structure, which seemed unnecessarily complicated to me (and lots of other people).  I used to dip into the encyclopedia a bit, but I haven’t opened a volume in years.  I occasionally think it would be interesting to see what the state of knowledge was in some field back then, but I was never curious enough to actually find out.  I don’t think our kids ever used it.  The Times article mentions that these encyclopedias are widely available on Craigslist and eBay.  We’ve tried to give ours away–surely someone would have a use for it!.  But no success.  The world has passed it by.

Free to a good home…

Update: Some of us were reminiscing about encyclopedias, and we recalled that there was an Encyclopedia Britannica booth at the Harvard Coop way back when, manned by a distinguished silver-haired guy wearing a tweed jacket who patiently answered all the questions from the crowds besieging the booth desperate to purchase the latest edition.  Okay, that last part was a lie.  We never saw him talking to anybody, except maybe one of the clerks in the Coop’s book department.  We figure that the only people who would buy an encyclopedia at the Coop would be rich parents who thought that their kids needed one for their dorm rooms.  Why should Muffy have to trek over to the library and share an encyclopedia with the unwashed masses when she could do her research in the comfort of her well-appointed room?

What was that guy’s story?  How did he end up sitting by himself on a stool, waiting in vain for someone to ask him about the difference between the macropedia and the micropedia?  There’s a depressing novel in there waiting to be written.

The Swerve

Last time we checked in with The Swerve, we were complaining about typos.  I’ve now finished the book, and I enjoyed it (maybe because I didn’t encounter any more typos).  The plot is straightforward: a 15th-century Italian humanist named Poggio went in search of ancient manuscripts, and in an old monastery he came across De Rerum Natura by the ancient Roman poet Lucretius.  The poem celebrates the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, which was not a good fit (to say the least) with Christianity.  The rediscovered poem then plays a role in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: it helps Montaigne write his essays; it helps Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence.  (It also helps Giordano Bruno get burned at the stake.)  The Western world swerved from its accustomed course, and the poem was part of the reason why.

The book could have been shorter–I started skimming when Greenblatt went into the details of Poggio’s employment history at the Vatican and elsewhere.  But he could also have brought the story forward to the present.  Here is Greenblatt’s summary of what Epicurus and Lucretius believed:

Everything is made of invisible particles.

The elementary particles of matter are eternal, infinite in number but limited in shape and size. All particles are in motion in an infinite void.

The universe has no creator or designer.

Everything comes into being as a result of a “swerve”–a random, indeterminate change in motion that changes everything.

The swerve is the source of free will.

Nature ceaselessly experiments.

The universe was not created for or about humans.

Humans are not unique.

Human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquility and plenty, but in a primitive battle for survival.

The soul dies.

There is no afterlife.

Death is nothing to us.

All organized religions are superstitious delusions.

Religions are invariably cruel.

There are no angels, demons, or ghosts.

The highest goal of human life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain.

The greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it is delusion.

Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder.

Well, some of the science is wrong, but it’s closer to the truth than what Thomas Aquinas had to offer.  And 600 years after Poggio rediscovered Lucretius, Richard Dawkins and others are making many of those same points; and if they aren’t getting burned at the stake, maybe it’s because their critics lack the power.  They face many of the same arguments that were lodged against Epicurus and Lucretius: How can people be moral without religion and the fear of Hell?  How can you view the universe with wonder if there is no God behind it and in it?

If Rick Santorum is a legitimate candidate for president, how much have we really swerved?

The World’s Oldest Dickens Movie?

This is supposedly the death of Jo the crossing-sweep from Bleak House, filmed in 1901:

Love the understated acting and the smooth camera movement.  But something is lost in the translation from book to cinema.  Here is what Dickens actually wrote (thanks, Project Gutenberg!) As always, the sentimentality is almost too much for the modern sensibility.  But it works.  And note the way he pulls the camera back in the final short paragraph — just far enough to indict an entire society.  Tell me that it doesn’t give you goosebumps.

"Well, Jo! What is the matter? Don't be frightened."

“I thought,” says Jo, who has started and is looking round, “I thought I was in Tom-all-Alone’s agin. Ain’t there nobody here but you, Mr. Woodcot?”

“Nobody.”

“And I ain’t took back to Tom-all-Alone’s. Am I, sir?”

“No.” Jo closes his eyes, muttering, “I’m wery thankful.”

After watching him closely a little while, Allan puts his mouth very near his ear and says to him in a low, distinct voice, “Jo! Did you ever know a prayer?”

“Never knowd nothink, sir.”

“Not so much as one short prayer?”

“No, sir. Nothink at all. Mr. Chadbands he wos a-prayin wunst at Mr. Sangsby’s and I heerd him, but he sounded as if he wos a-speakin to hisself, and not to me. He prayed a lot, but I couldn’t make out
nothink on it. Different times there was other genlmen come down Tom-all-Alone’s a-prayin, but they all mostly sed as the t’other ‘wuns prayed wrong, and all mostly sounded to be a-talking to
theirselves, or a-passing blame on the t’others, and not a-talkin to us. WE never knowd nothink. I never knowd what it wos all about.”

It takes him a long time to say this, and few but an experienced and attentive listener could hear, or, hearing, understand him. After a short relapse into sleep or stupor, he makes, of a sudden, a strong
effort to get out of bed.

“Stay, Jo! What now?”

“It’s time for me to go to that there berryin ground, sir,” he returns with a wild look.

“Lie down, and tell me. What burying ground, Jo?”

“Where they laid him as wos wery good to me, wery good to me indeed, he wos. It’s time fur me to go down to that there berryin ground, sir, and ask to be put along with him. I wants to go there and be
berried. He used fur to say to me, ‘I am as poor as you to-day, Jo,’ he ses. I wants to tell him that I am as poor as him now and have come there to be laid along with him.”

“By and by, Jo. By and by.”

“Ah! P’raps they wouldn’t do it if I wos to go myself. But will you promise to have me took there, sir, and laid along with him?”

“I will, indeed.”

“Thankee, sir. Thankee, sir. They’ll have to get the key of the gate afore they can take me in, for it’s allus locked. And there’s a step there, as I used for to clean with my broom. It’s turned wery dark, sir. Is there any light a-comin?”

“It is coming fast, Jo.”

Fast. The cart is shaken all to pieces, and the rugged road is very near its end.

“Jo, my poor fellow!”

“I hear you, sir, in the dark, but I’m a-gropin–a-gropin–let me catch hold of your hand.”

“Jo, can you say what I say?”

“I’ll say anythink as you say, sir, for I knows it’s good.”

“Our Father.”

“Our Father! Yes, that’s wery good, sir.”

“Which art in heaven.”

“Art in heaven–is the light a-comin, sir?”

“It is close at hand. Hallowed be thy name!”

“Hallowed be–thy–”

The light is come upon the dark benighted way. Dead!

Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, right reverends and wrong reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day.

Janacek

For reasons best known to Haruki Murakami, Janácek’s Sinfonietta is a major thematic element in 1Q84. (For reasons best known to WordPress, they don’t provide any way that I can see to add that accent-thingy over the “c” in “Janacek”.)

Here is the last movement, played at the Proms.  Most of the comments about the video have to do with 1Q84.  One guys says: “Well, I enjoyed that, so that’s one single positive thing I can say about 1Q84: it went on about this so much I felt obliged to look it up.”

It’s worth cranking the volume up to 11 for the final couple of minutes, where every horn player in London gets to join in:

Why do books have typos?

The Swerve was written by a distinguished professor from what some folks apparently call “The World’s Greatest University.”  It was published by a top-shelf publisher (W. W. Norton).  It won the National Book Award for Nonfiction.  It’s a big deal.

But in the book we have Greenblatt referring repeatedly to Ptolomey and the Ptolomaic dynasty.  And in a footnote he talks about a “palimsest”.   How can this happen?  Microsoft Word’s spellchecker catches these mistakes.  Heck, even the WordPress text editor I’m using to write this post catches them.  Heads should roll!

My guess is that Greenblatt still uses an electric typewriter or a quill pen or something, and to save money Norton sends manuscripts out to harried freelance copy editors who don’t have time to do anything but skim.  So some of the writer’s mistakes are going to get through.

In the ebook world, everything ends up in a Word file at some point in the process, and that means you can use its spelling and grammar checkers to full advantage.  And you’re an idiot if you don’t.  Of course, they’re not going to catch the amusing faces/feces typo that the scanning process introduced into Summit.  The author is on his own to catch that sort of thing.

Ultimately, these sorts of typos reduce the authority of the text.  It’s not as if Greenblatt is a classics scholar or an expert on the Italian Renaissance — he’s a Shakespeare guy who is extending his range.  So you end up thinking: if he doesn’t know how to spell Ptolemy, what else is he missing?

Can books be forever?

I’ve started reading The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt, author of Will in the World, a book I enjoyed very much. (How did they come up with a price of $9.43 for the Kindle edition of this thing?  Did someone just pick a number out of a hat?)

The Swerve is about the discovery, at the dawn of the Renaissance, of a long-forgotten copy of the great poem De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”) by the ancient Roman writer Lucretius, who otherwise would have been totally lost to history.  The book has a lot to say about science and religion, which you may have noticed are topics of some interest to me.  But for now I just want to talk about how it relates to my post “Is the Internet Forever?”

Greenblatt talks about how few books have come down to us from the ancient Greek and Roman world.  And, until some manuscript fragments were found at Herculaneum (next door to Pompeii), all we had were copies:

Apart from the charred papyrus fragments recovered in Herculaneum, there are no surviving contemporary manuscripts from the ancient Greek and Roman world.  Everything that has reached us is a copy, most often very far removed in time, place, and culture from the original. And these copies represent only a small portion of the works even of the most celebrated writers of antiquity.

Depressing.  Greenblatt recounts the sacking of the great Library at Alexandria by Christian mobs in the early fifth century.  This is also the subject of the really fine movie Agora, which pretty much disappeared in the US.  (What genius thought a movie that presented Christians as a bunch of crazed book-burners would be a box-office winner in this country?)

Anyway, this brings us to a guy I used to work with named Brewster Kahle.  He subsequently made a lot of money at a startup and is using it to digitally preserve old web sites and lots of other stuff at www.archive.org.  Now, the New York Times reports, he wants to save physical books as well.  So he has a huge warehouse in California where he hopes to collect 10 million physical items, mostly discarded from libraries or personal collections–just in case.

“We must keep the past even as we’re inventing a new future,” [Kahle] said. “If the Library of Alexandria had made a copy of every book and sent it to India or China, we’d have the other works of Aristotle, the other plays of Euripides. One copy in one institution is not good enough.”

Is Brewster nuts?  Some people quoted in the article don’t sound especially enthusiastic about his project.  But it seems to me there are worse ways to spend your Internet millions.  Lucretius would probably think so, too.

A Universe from Nothing

I finally finished the book.  It’s fairly short — please note that Summit is twice as long and a quarter of the price, and it contains absolutely no equations (although I’ll admit it has lots of Russian names to keep track of).

The first part of the book is an overview of the current state of cosmology — suffice it to say that things are looking weirder and weirder, and the more scientists find out space and time and matter and energy, the more difficult it becomes to present a tidy narrative like the Big Bang of why things are the way they are.  Much of this material was also covered in the Yale astronomy course I listened to, but that doesn’t mean I can understand it at even the most general level.  I certainly can’t judge whether Krauss is right.  He seems to have the credentials, although anyone who would write a book calledThe Physics of Star Trek has some ‘splainin’ to do (although it could be a great book, for all I know).

Krauss discusses the ramifications of modern cosmological research in the second part of the book. So:

Something from nothing. This is the key discussion.  There is now a scientific approach to understanding “creation” — how something comes from nothing.  It will undoubtedly not satisfy theologians, but putting creation ex nihilo within the reach of scientific explanation means that theologians and philosophers become irrelevant to the discussion.

The anthropic principle.  This is the puzzling concept that physical laws seem fine-tuned for our existence. If some of the baseline constants of the universe were even slightly different, life couldn’t have formed and we wouldn’t be here to measure those constants and ponder this puzzling concept.  Another way of thinking about this is Einstein’s famous question: “What I want to know is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe.”  (What Einstein meant by God is not what theologians mean byGod.)  That is, do the laws of nature have to be what they are?  If not, why are they what they are?

The trendy cosmological response to this is the theory of multiverses, which Krauss supports.  There are lots of universes, goes the theory, maybe an infinite number, of which ours is just one.  Krauss says:

[I]n discussions with those who feel the need for a creator, the existence of a multiverse is viewed as a cop-out conceived by physicists who have run out of answers–or perhaps questions.  This may eventually be the case, but it is not so now.  Almost every logical possibility we can imagine regarding extending laws of physics as we know them, on small scales, into a more complete theory, suggests that, on large scales, our universe is not unique.

(That final sentence is not one of Krauss’s better ones.) If ours is not unique, then there is nothing special about the laws that govern it — they just happen to be ones that allow for the development of intelligent life.

Of course, to make this science, the multiverse theory has to be testable — and how can you test it if you can’t see or experience or measure anything outside our own little universe?  So is it science?  This guy, at any rate, doesn’t think so.

Here is Krauss’s summary of his book:

We have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing–involving the absence of space itself–and which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction.  In this sense, science, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible to not believe in God.  Without science, everything is a miracle. With science, there remains the possibility that nothing is.  Religious belief in this case becomes less and less necessary, and also less and less relevant.

The afterword by Dawkins is inconsequential.

 

Assassin and Victim

Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard jumped to the head of my reading queue.  It’s the story of James Garfield’s assassination by Charles Guiteau in 1881 and, in particular, the grotesquely bad medical care Garfield received after he was shot, which had as much to do with his death as the bullet from Guiteau’s gun.

  

It’s an interesting little story, although maybe not quite interesting enough for an entire book.  A few points:

  • Garfield’s life story was every bit as inspiring as Lincoln’s — born in a log cabin; lost his father at an early age; studied relentlessly to better himself; became a successful general in the Civil War despite having no military training; elected president in 1880 despite trying his best not to be nominated, then refusing to campaign….  His problem is that he ended up serving as president for only a few months, and the big national issue of his time was not the survival of the union but civil service reform.  Who cares?  So now he’s lost in the backwaters of history.  Millard tries hard to make us feel his greatness, but really, the best we can do is agree that he was a helluva guy.
  • Lincoln’s son Robert Todd Lincoln was his secretary of war.  He was nearby when his father was shot at Ford’s theater.  He was nearby when Garfield was shot at the Washington train station. He was with McKinley when he was assassinated in Buffalo in 1901.  This caused him to have second thoughts about accepting later invitations to presidential events.
  • We learned in school that Guiteau was a “disappointed office seeker.”  But the key element to Guiteau’s character was that he was absolutely bonkers.  The assassination theme of the book is relevant to Pontiff, but in novels characters need comprehensible motivations.  Being absolutely bonkers works in real life, but not in fiction.  And being a helluva guy doesn’t really work for the victim; you need something more than that to keep the reader interested.

The Republican Brain

Today is Darwin’s birthday, so I thought I’d make one more evolutionary point related to The Believing Brain before I move on.

In that post I worried about facile evolutionary explanations of psychological traits.  At the site Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne takes on just such an explanation, based on an article about a forthcoming book, The Republican Brain by Chris Mooney.  The book’s thesis is that Republicans and Democrats have observable differences in brain structure, and these differences have a genetic component.  The author then pushes the theory into the world of evolution, and Coyne (who is a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) will have none of it:

Mooney concludes, then, that liberals are a bunch of soft-nosed tree-huggers and bunny lovers, while conservatives are alert and wary, easy to perceive threat.  Where does the evolution come in? Because Mooney suggests that those differences, to the extent that they’re genetic, arose by natural selection.  Not only that, but “liberal” genes are less adaptive than “conservative ones”!:

The big question lying behind all this, of course, is why some people would have stronger and quicker responses than others to that which is perceived as negative and threatening (and disgusting). Or alternatively, why some people — liberals — would be less threat aversive than others. For as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers note: “given the compelling evolutionary logic for organisms to be overly sensitive to aversive stimuli, it may be that those on the political left are more out of step with adaptive behaviors.”

“Compelling evolutionary logic,” of course, is not data: it’s just the perceived ability to make a convincing story. I could easily make a story about why it’s more adaptive for people to smile at bunnies than to frown at Bill Clinton: perhaps that is a byproduct of devotion to one’s children and family, which is also adaptive.  The point, though, is that we have no idea a priori which sort of behavior is or was adaptive in the evolutionary sense of conferring reproductive advantage, and absolutely no data on the reproductive output of liberals versus conservatives.

Science is more powerful than superstition, but you need to think clearly about it, and that often requires experts.  Of course, those alert and wary conservatives don’t have anything good to say nowadays about experts.