The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature by Timothy Ferris

Liberal common sense, well-argued

American science writer Timothy Ferris published about a dozen books on astronomy before the 2010 release of his book The Science of Liberty, which is about a whole lot more than just astronomy. Ferris was a friend and colleague of Carl Sagan (the two worked together on that gold record that went out with the Voyager 1 space probe), and, judging by this book, he shares a lot of common ground with Sagan as a science educator/promoter and liberal activist. The message of The Science of Liberty could have come from Sagan’s pen, but I actually like Ferris’s journalistic style of writing better than Sagan’s more personal Henry-David-Thoreau-of-space musings. In The Science of Liberty, Ferris makes the case that—as simply put as possible—science is beneficial to liberty and vice versa. He argues that science furthers human happiness and freedom, thus advancing the cause of classical liberalism, and that science can only prosper in a liberal-democratic society that values civil liberties, academic freedom, and emancipation from dogma.

That may sound like common sense, but it’s surprising how many people and regimes in history have tried to argue the opposite, as Ferris recounts in this historical overview. In the opening chapters, Ferris outlines the framework of his political hypotheses. Then follows a series of investigations into chronologically presented periods in history—the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions, World War II, the Cold War, etc.—in which Ferris examines how science and liberty were furthered or hindered. Periodically interspersed are a few statistics-heavy chapters in which Ferris compares the successes and failures of liberal-democratic nations versus other, less scientifically inclined societies.

Ferris introduces a simple but insightful new model of political ideology. Instead of the familiar spectrum analogy in which liberals fall to the left and conservatives to the right, Ferris proposes a triangular model in which liberals, conservatives, and progressives are the three equidistant corners. This book was published before Donald Trump entered politics, so Ferris doesn’t cover the most recent wave of anti-intellectualism from the conservative right, though he does hint at its foreshadowing with some brief mentions of George W. Bush. Surprisingly, Ferris spends fewer pages discussing conservative anti-science (e.g. fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Islamist terrorists) than he spends discussing progressive anti-science (e.g. communists, Marxists, ultra-woke academics, postmodern deconstructionists). Ferris, in my opinion, is too dismissive of socialism, implying that it always leads to totalitarianism. While Stalin and Mao were nightmares that certainly didn’t do science or liberty any favors, FDR’s New Deal or Scandinavia’s social service programs could be considered socialist science experiments that worked out for the good.

Prior to reading this book, I already agreed with just about every aspect of Ferris’s thesis, so I didn’t really need any convincing. Most of what he argues here just seems like common sense to my Jeffersonian side. While reading the first couple chapters, I found myself wondering, do I really want to read a whole book that’s persuading me to believe what I already believe? As I got further into the book, however, I really enjoyed it, and I learned quite a bit. The historical chapters present a lot of familiar characters and stories from science history, but Ferris fleshes them out with many interesting details that were new to me. I gleaned all sorts of fascinating biographical tidbits on scientists like Galileo, Newton, Locke, Jefferson, Darwin, Edison, and even anti-science figures like Hitler. Ferris also has a real knack for selecting memorable and relevant quotes, and the statistics he cites are well chosen and quite eye-opening. Though I primarily expected a book on science history, Ferris’s explication of political ideologies as they relate to science and liberty also prompted me to reexamine some of my own political preconceptions. 

The Science of Liberty is a very thought-provoking read. It really spoke to me, not only aligning with much of what I believe but also helping to clarify some of those beliefs. People who already believe in liberalism and the value of science will appreciate this book immensely, but will it convince anyone who needs convincing? Will conservatives want to read it? They should read it, but unfortunately, they probably won’t.

The Winter of Our Discontent by John Steinbeck

The author is out of his element

Ethan Hawley, the protagonist and sometimes narrator of The Winter of Our Discontent, lives with his wife and two kids in New Baytown, a small town on Long Island, New York. Although Ethan is the descendant of glorious whalers, pilgrims, and pirates who founded New Baytown centuries ago, he has since descended from the distinguished heights of his ancestors. Due to the failure of some family business ventures, Ethan finds himself working as a clerk in a grocery store owned by an Italian immigrant and struggling to make ends meet for his family. With such a lowly position comes a fair amount of shame, and everyone in town seems to want Ethan to pick himself up by his bootstraps, aim for higher prospects, and live up to the aristocratic status of his ancestry.

Published in 1961, The Winter of Our Discontent is John Steinbeck’s last novel (not counting a book of King Arthur legends that was published after his death). This book is a bit of an oddball entry in Steinbeck’s oeuvre, for a number of reasons. Like many late-career artists, it seems that Steinbeck wanted to try something different in order to break out of his pigeonholes, but, also like many late-career artists, this effort is nowhere near as good as most of his earlier works.

Steinbeck is one of the great novelists, if not THE greatest, of Western America. Almost all of his stories take place in California or Mexico, and usually contain some notable level of appreciation for the natural landscape of those regions. The Winter of Our Discontent, however, is set on the Northeastern Atlantic Coast. Although technically not New England, the characters in this novel have a sort of stereotypical New England attitude of Anglo-Saxon arrogance. The characters take pride in the fact that their ancestors came over on the Mayflower, and they fret over whether they are upholding their blue-blooded Puritan pioneer heritage. I find it hard to believe that everyone in the Northeast brags about how long their family lineage has resided in the U.S., but this novel gives you the idea that that’s a constant preoccupation, at least for the whitest of the whites, who look down on more recent immigrants, such as the Italian businessman in this story.

Another irritating aspect of the book is that the dialogue is loaded with 1950s slang, which makes for slow and awkward reading. This problem is heightened by the fact that Ethan fancies himself a comedian, so his speech and interior narrative often resemble the rapid-fire string of extemporary non-sequiturs from an old Robin Williams stand-up routine. The plot of the book hints at film noir and dips its toe into crime fiction, but never goes far enough in either of those directions. Nobody really does much of anything until about 240 pages into the book. Prior to that, it’s all get-acquainted time. Then, when things finally start moving, albeit slowly, we’re led to believe that certain potentially exciting actions are going to take place. For the most part, however, they don’t. The purpose of this novel is to exhibit Ethan and his fellow townspeople as examples of moral decline, a fall from the greatness of America’s forefathers to the looser morals of the mid-20th century. In this fall, however, the fall is not great enough—barely a stumble.

TFor most of his career, Steinbeck wrote in a predominantly naturalistic form of realism. Compared to earlier California writers like Jack London and Frank Norris, Steinbeck was more of a proto-modernist, but still he generally opted for good old-fashioned naturalistic storytelling and social realism over narrative ambiguity and existentialist angst. Albert Camus he ain’t. Here in 1961, however, every novelist wanted to prove himself a cracker-jack psychoanalyst, and Steinbeck is likewise guilty of that conceit, so the bulk of this novel takes place inside Ethan’s head and beats his neuroses like a dead horse. The Winter of Our Discontent has little in common with the rest of Steinbeck’s literature, so even if you’re a fan of the author, don’t feel like you’re missing much if you skip this one.

The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton

Too ridiculous to succeed on any of its many levels

The Man Who Was Thursday, a novel by English author G. K. Chesterton, was published in 1908. In the (fictional) London suburb of Saffron Park, two would-be anarchist poets, Gregory and Syme, engage in a snarky debate about anarchy and poetry, in which they essentially accuse each other of being posers. Gregory reveals that he is indeed a true anarchist, and he invites Syme to a meeting of his underground terrorist cell, complete with a basement full of bombs. Syme, in turn, reveals that he is an undercover police detective from Scotland Yard assigned to a special counterterrorist task force designed to thwart the anarchists’ nefarious schemes. As the meeting proceeds, Syme meets the high council of this anarchist ring. Its seven members bear code names drawn from the days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Thursday, etc—hence the title.

Gregory and Syme, the anarchist and the detective, give each other their “word” that they won’t blow the other’s cover or turn the other in to their respective organizations. This is one of those absurd plot twists that Victorian British authors like to work into their stories in order to show off how clever they are and because they’re obsessed with what constitutes a “gentleman.” In reality, an anarchist, in dealing with a mortal enemy, would not consider himself bound by some conventional moral code, and a detective, hopefully, would take the possible loss of thousands of lives more seriously than any adherence to some “gentlemen’s agreement.”

This early plot element is just the start of many instances of ostentatious cleverness that remove the narrative from any semblance of reality. Some scenes in the book are clearly meant to be comical, but overall I’m pretty sure Chesterton intended this to be a suspenseful thriller. Though the novel is subtitled “A Nightmare,” however, it’s so far removed from realism that one can’t take it seriously enough to feel any fear, shock, or thrills from it. In the final two chapters of the book, Chesterton goes in an entirely different direction, abandoning the detective story altogether in favor of a more surreal scenario that seems intended to be profound. There are obvious allusions to God, Satan, Christ, and other Christian imagery, but how it all fits together is a puzzle to me. I don’t feel too bad about not knowing what’s going on, however, because the characters in the novel never know what’s going on either. Something else to note is that there really are no female characters in this book because women apparently don’t factor into Chesterton’s grand Christian-English-gentleman view of the universe.

In summation, The Man Who Was Thursday ostensibly begins as a mystery/thriller about terrorism, but it fails to deliver any thrills. For a while, it ventures into comedy (intentionally or not), but then it ultimately results in some kind of allegory of religious mysticism. It’s quite possible I’m just too lazy to figure this book out, but then again I have little desire to do so when I know the answer is just going to be some Christian sermon. If that’s what Chesterton wants to write about, he shouldn’t dress it up as a detective story. Some literary authorities—Kingsley Amis, Jorge Luis Borges, Michael Dirda—praised this book to high heaven, but I really ended up hating it. It’s just a pretentious and pointless waste of time.

Blood and Sand by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez

The Raging Bull of bullfighting

Blood and Sand, a novel by Spanish author Vicente Blasco Ibáñez, was published in 1908. In some English-language editions, the original Spanish title, Sangre y Arena, has been translated as Blood of the Arena, which isn’t entirely inappropriate, since this is a novel about bullfighting. Juan Gallardo is born the poor son of a cobbler. At a young age, he develops a fascination with bullfighting and dreams of being a matador. He gradually works his way up as a bush-league journeyman before getting his first big break in a big-city arena. With success comes fame and fortune, and all the vices and vicissitudes that go with it.

The first couple chapters of this novel read as if it might turn out to be one of those clichéd, romanticized portrayals shown in every bullfighting movie you’ve ever seen. In fact, however, the reverse is probably true: the familiar image of the matador has become stereotypical because so many storytellers have patterned their bullfighting narratives after Blood and Sand. The novel was adapted into at least half a dozen films from 1916 to 1989. Much like boxing stories in American literature and film, there’s a whole set of preconceived expectations and familiar plot elements attached to the sport of bullfighting. Blasco Ibáñez, however, is not only a realist writer but also a naturalist in the ultra-bluntly realistic style of Emile Zola, so he doesn’t settle for predictable, contrived storytelling. As long as we’re making analogies to American boxing films, this would be the Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull of bullfighting. Blasco Ibáñez gives a much more complex and nuanced depiction of bullfighting than American authors like Ernest Hemingway (The Sun Also Rises) or James Michener (Mexico).

One area where Blasco Ibáñez tends to depart from realism and venture into more romanticized territory is his romantic subplots. He likes to put a femme fatale character into his books, and in that regard the love story here is very similar to that found in his 1900 novel Entre naranjos (a.k.a The Torrent). One aspect of Blood and Sand that I really like, however, is his examination of issues of class. Gallardo is born a peasant but works his way up to celebrity, which allows him to mingle with the aristocracy while never really being accepted into their ranks. The members of Gallardo’s support team, or cuadrilla—his banderilleras and picadores—live very working-class, proletarian lives compared to the wealthy matador they serve. Gallardo’s right-hand man, Nacional, is a socialist agitator. These elements of class commentary in the story give the reader an insightful glimpse into Spanish society of the time.

Rest assured that this novel isn’t just a glorification of bullfighting. For those who think bullfighting is a barbaric sport and are disgusted by its cruelty to animals, Blasco Ibáñez has you covered too. This is not a flattering depiction of the sport. Blasco Ibáñez explores the role of the bullfight as a cultural phenomenon, giving it its due consideration as a Spanish institution, but he also admits the sport’s needless brutality and pageant of bloodlust. He likens the corrida to a gladiatorial spectacle in which cattle and horses are the sacrificial victims. Again, like Zola, Blasco Ibáñez doesn’t shy away from the more coarse and disgusting aspects of his subject and at times will exaggerate them for visceral (sometimes literally) dramatic effect.

The last chapter of Blood and Sand is a little odd. It feels tacked onto the end and somewhat ambiguously detached from the chronology of the narrative. That’s a shame, because the rest of the novel is well-conceived and tautly plotted. I’ve only recently discovered Blasco Ibáñez, and I’ve been impressed by everything I’ve read by him. Blood and Sand is not his strongest novel—I would more readily recommend The Cabin (La Barraca) or The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—but though it falls short of perfection, a subpar outing by Blasco Ibáñez is still better than at least 90 percent of the work of his contemporaries.   

The Cloister and the Hearth by Charles Reade

Vivid and colorful Renaissance Odyssey

A century ago, if you asked an educated reader to name the greatest works of literature in the English language, chances are The Cloister and the Hearth would have made the shortlist. This novel by English author Charles Reade, published in 1861, enjoyed high regard in the Victorian Era. In his reading memoir Through the Magic Door, Arthur Conan Doyle named The Cloister and the Hearth as his favorite novel. Rudyard Kipling, Thomas Wolfe, and Walter Besant also highly praised the novel as one of the greatest works of English literature.

The story takes place in the mid-15th century. Gerard Eliassoen is one of nine children born to a shopkeeping couple in the town of Tergou. Gerard’s parents destine him to become a member of the clergy, which is fine by him because he loves reading and writing. He enters his religious studies as a novice and works his way up to the rank of exorcist. He also becomes a scribe with a notable talent for calligraphy and illuminating manuscripts. On the verge of being ordained into the priesthood, however, Gerard meets and falls in love with a young woman, Margaret Brandt. He wants to withdraw from the clergy and marry her, but his parents forbid it. To prevent an elopement, his father, having every legal right to do so, sends the local authorities to arrest and imprison Gerard, who eludes his pursuers and flees the Netherlands. This forces a separation between the two young lovers, but they steadfastly retain hope of being united in the future.

At the time The Cloister and the Hearth was published, Sir Walter Scott was considered the gold standard of English novelists. To the 21st century reader, however, Scott’s historical novels aren’t entirely user-friendly. He uses a lot of antiquated language and clunky syntax, and he takes it for granted that his readers know the entire history of Britain and its monarchy by heart. The Cloister and the Hearth, on the other hand, delivers all the good aspects of a Scott historical epic without any of its faults. You don’t need to know anything about European history to enjoy this book. Only a few real-life historical characters are mentioned, and whatever details you need to know are accessibly provided by Reade. What I really like about this Renaissance novel is that it’s not about kings or queens or wealthy aristocrats. It’s about plain working people: artisans, musicians, parsons, shopkeepers, soldiers, farmers, and so on. This grounded perspective really brings this bygone world to life for the reader.

Reade is a superb master of the English language. His prose is lively and smooth-flowing. The writing always sounds as if its appropriate to the period but without any archaic words to stumble over. The dialogue in this book is the best faux-medieval speech I’ve ever read. It really puts you in the mindset of these characters and the world they live in. Any author of European historical novels or Dungeons & Dragons-genre lit could learn a lot from reading Reade’s expertly crafted phrasings. On the downside, this book is much longer than it needs to be. I’m not against long books if the length is necessary. Alexander Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers, for example, are both very long novels, but each scene is integral to the story. Reade, however, has put a lot of filler in the 100 chapters of The Cloister and the Hearth. There are some lengthy digressions that don’t really forward the plot at all, and the ending is so needlessly drawn out. Plotting may not be Reade’s strong suit, but with this book it’s the atmosphere that really gives you your money’s worth.

Like many a book of English literature from this time, the novel’s main message is one of Christian piety. Given that the main character is a member of the clergy, religious matters figure into this narrative more than most. Gerard and Margaret also draw obvious parallels to Odysseus and Penelope of The Odyssey, embodying the virtues of fidelity and devotion. Regardless of the morals this novel imparts, however, it’s just an enjoyable escape into another time with likable and memorable characters. It may not make many all-time top ten lists these days, but’s it’s still worth a read for those who like classic literature.

Lee Krasner: A Life by Gail Levin

A workmanlike accumulation of facts

Lee Krasner: A Life, published in 2011, is a biography written by art historian Gail Levin. Krasner (1908-1984) was an American abstract painter and also the wife of painter Jackson Pollock. Both were part of the abstract expressionist movement in New York City, and they also started a satellite hub of artists on Long Island. While this book doesn’t shy away from her marriage to Pollock, its definite purpose is to focus on Krasner’s own artistic accomplishments. Levin was a longtime acquaintance of Krasner’s, and her high regard for her subject sometimes calls into question her objectivity, but she includes enough oral history from Krasner’s friends and colleagues—testimony both flattering and unflattering—to convince you this isn’t just an exercise in hero worship.

There’s a myth or a misconception that Pollock held back Krasner’s artistic career. Levin sets the record straight, at least as far as what Krasner had to say about the couple’s relationship. Pollock peaked about a decade earlier than Krasner, and his meteoric success allowed enough financial security for both of them to paint full time. Pollock’s alcoholism was certainly no help to Krasner, but Pollock supported her painting and vice versa. Krasner’s career was not held back by Pollock but rather by sexist American society and its chauvinist artists and critics. Pollock’s career was certainly aided by Krasner’s tireless boosterism of his art, and she also elevated his posthumous stature through her shrewd stewardship of his legacy.

Given that Levin has a curatorial background rather than a journalistic background, it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that this book reads less like a biography and more like an exhibition catalogue or a master’s thesis. The main intention here is not to tell a story but to accumulate facts to support an argument. A typical sentence like “According to the 1930 federal census, Krasner apparently still lived at home at 594 Jerome Street with her parents,” is indicative of the research-paper style of the prose. Levin feels the need to summarize every letter Krasner ever sent or received, whether the contents are relevant to the lives of Krasner and Pollock or not. At one point, she unnecessarily quotes an advertisement for the brand of stereo system that Willem de Kooning owned. Levin’s constant reminding that she searched through a bunch of documents, and this is what she found, removes the reader from any emotional involvement in the narrative or any visceral or vicarious experience of Krasner and Pollock’s lives.

The best part of this book is its insight into how Krasner and other New York artists lived, worked, and survived during the Great Depression. This isn’t just another art history exposé that trumpets the hallowed names of abstract expressionism. Levin’s coverage of this era mixes the experiences of A-list, B-list, and C-list painters in Krasner’s circle, an approach that really provides an authentic and informative look into the New York art scene and the lives of its artists during this period. After Pollock dies, on the other hand, the book gets really boring. The last four chapters are mostly just a series of Krasner gallery exhibitions, with details about what paintings were shown and excerpts from critical reviews, both positive and negative. Like many an exhibition catalogue, it becomes a glorified curriculum vitae. Two points are beaten like a dead horse: 1) Krasner was not just Pollock’s wife but an important artist in her own right; and 2) Her career was held back by sexism in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s, but finally in the 1970s she’s got the recognition she deserves. These points are repeated over and over and over again, ad nauseam, until the reader is ready to say enough, I get it, can we get to her deathbed already?

In general, I prefer Krasner’s painting to Pollock’s, but only her later, mature work. She certainly deserves recognition as a pioneering abstract expressionist, as Levin asserts in this book. For those wanting to learn about Krasner’s art, this is not a lavishly illustrated art book. There are two photo inserts, one of people photos and one of Krasner’s art. About 32 artworks are depicted. As a biography, it puts more emphasis on biographical photographs that chronicle Krasner’s life.

Browsings: A Year of Reading, Collecting, and Living with Books by Michael Dirda

Ephemeral woolgathering loosely related to books

Michael Dirda is a literary critic who has published several books, but he’s mostly known as a book reviewer for various periodicals, most notably The Washington Post Book World. From February 2012 to February 2013, Dirda wrote a weekly column, entitled Browsings, for the website of The American Scholar magazine. The book Browsings, published in 2015, collects the 52 posts Dirda wrote for that blog over the course of those twelve months.

What sets Dirda apart from most book reviewers these days is his love for old books by dead guys. He’s not one of those critics who thinks that literature was invented in 1950. Dirda is particularly interested in books published from 1860 to 1930, what he calls “The Great Age of Storytelling.” He often celebrates forgotten fiction in the genres of science fiction, horror, and mystery. Dirda is a professed Anglophile who doesn’t seem to have any interest in literature that’s not of British or American origin. Dirda is also a book collector and asserts that books aren’t really books unless they’re printed on paper, which is where he and I differ. I think the content is more important than the packaging, but Dirda admits he’ll buy three editions of the same book just because he likes the different bindings.

The Browsings columns were not intended to be book reviews in the standard sense, but rather more personal reflections from a book lover. The only stipulation set for the column was that the articles be somehow book-related, but in the writings collected here, Dirda often wanders outside even those wide parameters. The reason I would read a book about books is to learn about unfamiliar books that I might be interested in reading. Given Dirda’s profession as a book reviewer and literary critic, that’s not an unreasonable expectation, but Browsings really doesn’t yield much enlightenment of that sort. Instead, Dirda wanders farther afield to deliver articles about penmanship, paper stock, and grading papers (Dirda teaches college courses). In one column, he rants about a bad experience he had visiting Rocky Mountain National Park. In another, he complains about the poor service he gets from his local electricity provider. Who wants to read about that, and why would The American Scholar publish it? A typical chapter in this book, however, proceeds thusly: Dirda travels to a literary conference of some kind. While there, he visits three or four used bookstores, and here is a list of what he bought. Then you get a rapid fire stream of obscure author names and book titles, with almost no information on what those books are about or why Dirda likes them. The fact that Dirda likes them is supposed to be enough to satisfy you.

As the author of the Old Books by Dead Guys blog, I see Dirda as me taken to extremes. We both write about old books in the hopes of inspiring readers to give them a try. In my case, it’s a casual hobby. Dirda, however, eats, breathes, and sleeps this stuff 24/7, and somehow manages to make a living off of doing it. He even won a Pulitzer Prize for his lit-crit, but there’s nothing in these columns that would merit such accolades. For me, reading Browsings was a kind of warning cry of what I might become if I take this book habit too seriously: an annoying know-it-all who comes across as pretentious even when writing about so-called “lowbrow” popular literature that’s supposed to be fun. Maybe Dirda writes great reviews for The Washington Post or The New York Review of Books, but I found little of value to be gleaned from his Browsings.