Scientists Peruse the Odyssey!

This post is a bit of a break from my cocktail-enhanced analysis of the great works of literature. But as a scientist, I had to report this latest breaking research for all you literature fans out there. As part of my job, I have to keep up with the scientific literature, which is a bit like drinking from a fire hose these days. So recently when I was looking over the table of contents to a recent issue of "The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" I came across an article titled "Is an eclipse described in the Odyssey". Despite this being far afield from my area of research (mostly things DNA-related), I had to check this paper out. The authors are a physicist and an astronomer. Here's the abstract of the article, which provides a good summary:

"Plutarch and Heraclitus believed a certain passage in the 20th book of the Odyssey ("Theoclymenus's prophecy") to be a poetic description of a total solar eclipse. In the late 1920s, Schoch and Neugebauer computed that the solar eclipse of 16 April 1178 B.C.E. was total over the Ionian Islands and was the only suitable eclipse in more than a century to agree with classical estimates of the decade-earlier sack of Troy around 1192–1184 B.C.E. However, much skepticism remains about whether the verses refer to this, or any, eclipse. To contribute to the issue independently of the disputed eclipse reference, we analyze other astronomical references in the Epic, without assuming the existence of an eclipse, and search for dates matching the astronomical phenomena we believe they describe. We use three overt astronomical references in the epic: to Boötes and the Pleiades, Venus, and the New Moon; we supplement them with a conjectural identification of Hermes's trip to Ogygia as relating to the motion of planet Mercury. Performing an exhaustive search of all possible dates in the span 1250–1115 B.C., we looked to match these phenomena in the order and manner that the text describes. In that period, a single date closely matches our references: 16 April 1178 B.C.E. We speculate that these references, plus the disputed eclipse reference, may refer to that specific eclipse."

So basically, they wanted to see if the date of an eclipse that may or may not have been described in the Odyssey correlated with any other astronomical references noted in that work, and indeed they found that everything points to the same time in history, namely April 16, 1178 BC. This corresponds to a date that is approximately ten years after the historic sack of Troy, which totally fits the timeline of the Odyssey. My scientific take on this is: "Woah, that's kinda cool"!

The eclipse incident in the Odyssey is described as this in the paper:

"In the 20th book of the Odyssey, as the suitors are sitting down for their noontime meal, Athena "confounds their minds" (Od. xx.345) so that they start laughing uncontrollably and see their food spattered with blood. Then, the seer Theoclymenus makes a most remarkable speech foreseeing the death of the suitors and their entrance into Hades, ending in the phrase (xx.356) "The Sun has been obliterated from the sky, and an unlucky darkness invades the world." The word that we have translated as "invades,"had a connotation of "attacking suddenly or by surprise," the modus operandi of an eclipse"

There's a rub, though, which is how the heck could Homer have known not just about the eclipse, but about the correlating astronomical phenomenon, when the Odyssey was written centuries after the events. As the authors themselves state:

"...our conjectural Homer would have had to be aware that there was an eclipse on a certain date and what the planets did on nearby dates. This is problematic enough, because the dates were centuries before his time; how this knowledge was acquired—we dare not conjecture, for all possibilities sound equally outlandish. Much research is needed before we can move beyond such speculations; we can only modestly hope to convince other scholars...to ponder if the remarkable coincidence described in this paper may in fact not be coincidental at all."

So in other words: "Woah, that's kinda cool. But maybe a coincidence". Still I find this exercise in the scientific method quite refreshing,thought provoking, and just plain fun.

Book #15 - Look Homeward, Angel (Thomas Wolfe)

After finishing "Kim" I wanted to move on to something very different, and I got it. I'm now 100 pages into Thomas Wolfe's novel "Look Homeward, Angel". Wow. This is a big and sprawling 700 page book, with an emphasis on BIG! The novel, so far, chronicles the history of the Gant family. The father, Oliver Gant, is one hell of a character. In my blog I may discuss the finer points of sipping whiskey, but Oliver Gant is not a sipper, he's a gulper. He's an alcoholic who goes on benders every now and then, before pulling out of it and returning to his family. He also has a huge, outsized personality...much like the novel itself. He screams, yells, and curses, sometimes with malice, sometimes with humor. He's a force of nature. He moves to the hills of western North Carolina, and raises a big family. His son, Eugene, is clearly going to be the focus of the book. I've often heard the phrase "Southern Gothic", and didn't really know what it meant, but I'm guessing the Gant family meets the description.

Wolfe's writing style is quite fascinating. He'll write a few paragraphs, or pages, in straightforward, easy to follow, "story-telling" style. Then he'll lapse into what I would call "impressionistic" writing...a more poetic, free-form style of writing. I quite enjoy the contrast...The poetic parts are nice, and very visual sometimes, but if that was all there was, the book would be impenetrable. I think this book will continue to be fun to read...

Kim's Conclusion

After a hard week at work I was finally able to return to "Kim" this weekend and finish off the last 50 pages. I usually issue a "spoiler alert" for the discussion of the ends of books, but there really isn't anything to spoil here. Kim and his lama buddy travel to the Himalayas so the lama can continue his search for enlightenment and Kim can help stop some Russian spies. They encounter the Russian spies, and through a cultural misunderstanding one of them punches the lama in the face. An uproar ensues, allowing Kim and another spy friend to take the Russian's maps and secret papers from them. A spy success worthy of 007 himself! The lama becomes ill from his wounds and they must take him down the mountains back to the flatlands, where he gets better (well, somewhat) and eventually finds the river of enlightenment that he seeks, and vows to enlighten his pupil Kim. The End.

Now, if you're like me, your saying...huh? I enjoyed this book for the most part, but there was just a lot I did not get. And I mean two different things by this. First, as I mentioned in previous posts, there is the language and writing...I just found some of Kipling's passages incomprehensible. These were usually passages of dialog, where I could not tell who was talking, or what the heck they were trying to convey. Second, there's the book as a whole. It seems to me that Kim probably symbolizes India...He knows the way of all types of Indian folks, from whites to Hindus to Buddhists, and can pass for any of them. He is the "friend of all the world". He plays "The Great Game" of imperial politics, yet earnestly follows his lama to seek enlightenment...He combines the worldly with the spiritual to an ultimate extent (just like India!). But when I finished the book I thought "that's it"? I dunno. It was a fun read, and I would not discourage anyone from reading it, but I guess that ultimately I didn't get that much out of it...which is a first for this reading project!

So it's on to the next book! I've read a streak of Victorian novels lately, and I have a lot more in that vein I want to read this summer, but I'm thinking for the next book I'll take a break from that genre just to mix things up a bit. As to which book that will be, I haven't decided yet. One of the hardest parts of this project is picking the next book, because I really want to read them all at once. An embarrassment of riches!

Kim Continued

Tonight I'm sipping on some Bernheim Wheat Whiskey...an odd, exotic whiskey that tastes nothing like bourbon, or Irish, or Scotch whiskey; instead it has some qualities of each. Which makes it a good pairing with "Kim", a novel of exotic India, which I thought was going to be a road trip story but has turned into a a spy novel. And a road trip story. When I last posted, Kim and his friend an old buddhist monk (lama) were traveling the countryside of 19th century British India, looking for a magical healing river which the lama says was created when Buddha split the ground with an arrow. Kim was going along for the ride, but all that changed when they came across a regiment of Irish soldiers. The regiment had as their flag a red bull on a green field, which matched a prophesy made by Kim's father before he died...that Kim would some day be attended to by hundreds of men lead by a red bull on a green field. Turns out this was Kim's father's regiment, and when they figure out who Kim is, they take him from the lama and decide to raise him as an Irish kid, instead of the somewhat feral Indian child he thinks he is. Well, Kim's not too happy about this, because he just wants to hang with the lama. Naturally, complications ensue, and the commanders of the regiment figure out just how wily and street-smart Kim is, which makes them realize he'd be a great spy! So they send him to a good school, paid for by his friend the lama, and he gets to travel India with the lama during holidays. He learns to read and write, and eventually graduates and can become a spy. Kim digs this...he gets to use his acting and "people skills", he can still travel around with his lama buddy, and he quickly becomes good at what he does. He and his fellow spies refer to their endeavors as "The Great Game".

I find this a curious book. First, as I mentioned previously, I sometimes find it hard to follow. Sometimes there will be a conversation, and I'll think "Woah...is it the whiskey or do I just have no idea what these people are trying to say to one another". Then I'll realize I haven't even had any whiskey. And then, a page or two later, everything is clear again. Not sure if this is due to Kipling's style, or whether it's just ADD kicking in. Regardless. it's disconcerting. Then there's the problem of a lot of vernacular in the book. There are a bunch of different types of people, English (white), Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and each of them seems to have their own nickname...pahari, faquir, sahib, pathan, etc. While exotic and colorful, it's also hard to follow. An annotated version of this book would be an excellent help. There's also the issue of politics...just who is spying on who in "The Great Game"? We all know Britian ruled India in the 1800s, but who were they spying on? We get some clues...rebellious kings, Russians, but the historical background is unknown to me.

The joys of this book, though, for me are two-fold: the character of Kim, and his friendship with the lama. Kim is incredibly likeable...young, smart, sassy, clever, often irreverent, wise beyond his years. People in the book like him a lot too, and his nickname is "Friend of all the World". The lama is old, innocent, pure at heart. Kim is very much of this world, while the lama is mostly on a more spiritual plane and is usually quite naive in dealings with other people. So far Kim can travel with the lama and work as a spy on occasion, and the lama is none the wiser. But Kim totally loves the lama, and vice versa...their bond, as master and pupil, as well as two companions, is deep and moving, despite (or perhaps because of) the great differences between the two. Kim definitely has an issue with his identity, or lack thereof...although he's technically white (a sahib), he doesn't relate to any one ethnicity or caste. He's ambiguous, which, of course, makes him great spy material.

Anyway, I have about 60 pages left. I'm quite curious to see how this all ends up. Of course, I'll be sure to let you know.

Book #14 - Kim (Rudyard Kipling)

I'm traveling this week, and for reading on my trip I picked up Rudyard Kipling's "Kim". Turns out it's not a bad choice, since for at least the first part of the novel the two main characters are themselves traveling. I seem to have been reading a streak of 19th century English literature recently...not planned, really, but it's been fun to stay within the same cultural context. Kipling, though, write this book in 1900, so I'm now at the tail end of that era, whereas "Frankenstein" was from the beginning of it. And this book takes place far from the British Isles, but rather in the British colonial posession of India.

I'm about 60 pages into the book. I've never read any Kipling before...never even saw the movie version of "The Jungle Book". I always had this vague conception in my mind that Kipling wrote for kids, probably because of "The Jungle Book" (or wait, was that written by Walt Disney?). While the protagonist of Kim is a young lad, I'm not so sure I'd call this a kid's book. In fact, the language gets a little dense in places, and can be hard to follow. It's the story of a young Irish boy whose father was a soldier in India. He is orphaned at an early age and is forced to grow up on the streets of a town in India, fending for himself. Sounds a bit like Dickens, but it really isn't. In Dickens, Kim's story would be one of squalor and constant danger, but Kipling's Kim is a wily, unbelievably street-smart kid who can more than take care of himself. He can totally confound and manipulate all the adults he runs across. He meets a traveling Tibetan Buddhist priest, who is looking for a magical river whose waters have wonderful powers. Kim tags along with him, and together they leave Kim's town for parts unknown...the priest to find his river, and Kim to, well, to just travel around. The story so far mostly concerns the different people they meet up with along the way. Kipling lived in India, and his descriptions of the different customs and castes of people there are well worth reading. It is indeed a whole different world.

One thing that's a bit hard for the modern reader (i.e. me) to get around is Kipling's attitude toward race. I don't think he's a racist, but he does focus on race a lot, and in stereotyped ways that would not be PC today. He refers to Kim as being burned as black as the natives. He says that Kim can "lie like an oriental". Race was certainly an issue in colonial India. After all, these were the days of the "white man's burden" (a phrase coined by Kipling, and the title of a poem he wrote). It was the height of the British Empire, and issues of the goals of empire were in question, as were the roles and obligations of the British to the non-white subjects they ruled over in their colonial possessions. But it's hard for the modern reader to relate, as there are no more European empires, and as ideas of race have changed so dramatically in the last 100 years. And unfortunately, I know very little about the history of colonial India. Nonetheless, it's an entertaining tale so far. I'm not sure where it's all going, but I'm willing to go along for the ride.

Frankenstein's End (Spoiler Alert, sort of)

I finished "Frankenstein" yesterday. The ending was not at all surprising, because Shelley foreshadowed it into the ground, over and over again, for the last 60 pages or so. Frankenstein almost goes through with making the monster a bride, but then freaks out, thinking about the two monsters then reproducing, and then killing humans right and left. So he rips up the half finished female (which, although Shelley doesn't use must description, sounds pretty gross) and then the monster gets all gangsta on Frankenstein's ass and kills his friends and family. Oops. Then, Frankenstein proceeds to chase the monster up to near the North Pole, in hopes of seeking revenge, but the monster just keeps taunting him by staying just out of reach. Ha, ha!! That's when Robert Walton finds the near dead Frankenstein. Frankenstein tells his narrative, and then dies. And finally, Robert Walton finds Frankenstein's corpse is visited by the monster, who regrets what he's done, pays his last respects to Frankenstein, and then says he's going out on to the ice to kill himself. The End.

While I thought this book could have benefited from a good editor, it's still a ripping tale. But what's the moral? Is it that man should not attempt to create life...that there's a line between man and God that should not be crossed? Why is Frankenstein so repulsed at his creature? Is it that he's realized that he's crossed this line, and pulls back in horror at what he's done? Well, that's one idea, but it's not my favorite. My favorite, outlined in my last post, is that Frankenstein brought this on to himself. His fatal flaw was creating a life and then freaking out at the ugliness and running away from it, instead of taking responsibility. He could have covered the monster in a bag, ala the Elephant Man, if physical ugliness was the problem. But he should have "owned up" and taken care of his laboratory progeny. To me, this then is the moral of the story..."with knowledge comes responsibility". And that's a lesson that rings even more true in today's science and technology-centric society.

One final note: I wonder if the premise of this story is as shocking today as it was when it was written. After all, genetic engineering is now a reality, and genetically modifed organisms pervade the world around us, whether we like it or not. Plus, perhaps Shelley was not aware of this, but humans have been mucking with life for thousands of years. After all chihuahuas do not exist in the wild. And have you ever seen what corn looked like before humans started breeding it? So to go from humans to Frankenstein's monster does not seem such a big stretch today. Perhaps the modern Prometheus has already visited us. Although, as far as I know, no GMO has ever gone on a murderous rampage and killed it's inventor's entire family and circle of friends.

Deadbeat Dad

Man, is Victor Frankenstein a dick, or what? I mean, the more I read (and I've got about 75 pages left) the more I want the monster to do him some serious damage. Victor goes for a hike in the mountains, to escape his woes and thoughts of the monster, when who should he encounter...the monster! The monster tells him he needs to sit down and listen to his story or he'll rip Frankenstein's head off after killing all his family (or something like that). Frankenstein doesn't have to think about this for too long before agreeing. So the monster tells Frankenstein his story, which takes a few chapters. We learn the monster is quite intelligent, and has read Goethe and Milton (although he seems to believe that "Paradise Lost" is actual history). He's sensitive, and articulate, and doesn't like the fact that he's an outcast. He had tried to befriend a family in the country he had been spying on, and almost succeeds after approaching the blind father, but when the kids come back and see their dad with a monster, they naturally freak out and chase him away. Poor monster. In fact, the monster seems more human than Frankenstein. He's lonely, he's isolated, he's angry. Victor Frankenstein is all those things too, but in his case it's his own damn fault. In America today we'd call Victor Frankenstein a "deadbeat dad". He created a life, but then couldn't deal with it, and ran off. If only he'd stayed with the monster, and helped him find his way into society, all this wouldn't have happened. He should have "owned up" and showed some responsibility. Jerk. Anyway, the monster tells him he wants Frankenstein to make him a wife, or else he'll kill all his family and then rip Frankenstein's head off (or something like that). But if he does make him a wife, they'll go off to South America together and never bother anyone. Now THAT'S a great plot twist. I was not expecting that one. Frankenstein is not so excited about this idea, but he relents, having no other real option. He's being forced to "double down". We'll see where this goes, but it's clear it won't be good.

Incidentally, the narrative structure of this novel is quite interesting. "Bleak House" had the two narrators, and they were two entirely separate ones, with each having their own chapters. "Frankenstein" also has multiple narrators, but it's more like an onion skin, with layers upon layers. Robert Walton is telling the whole story, which is mostly of Frankenstein telling his story, but then Frankenstein is telling about the monster telling his own story, within which the monster is telling the story of the family in the woods he tried to befriend. Cool.