Charles Darwin was born 200 hundred years ago today! To celebrate and commemorate the father of the theory of the evolution of species who published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life 150 years ago in November, here is a small selection of things that I think are relevant.
jeudi 12 février 2009
mercredi 11 février 2009
So here we are detecting in Victorian England
The suspicions of Mr Whicher by Kate Summerscale
In a nutshell: Part social history, part biography, part depiction of Victorian England and part whodunnit, this book deals with the early days of detection though the prism of a true murder committed in Road in 1860.
The blurb: This multi-layered book starts with the true story of the murder of Saville Kent, the youngest member of a middle class Victorian family. This is the whodunnit part of the book : a murder, a large household and a house locked from the inside. We then follow the investigations and suspicions of Detective Jack Whicher, one of the first London detectives, at a time when detection was a new science that had the nation in the grip of 'detection fever'. In this respect, this book is also a social history of the time, cleverly showing the side effects this gruesome- and mystifying- murder had on literature (with the emergence of a new type of novel) and the attitude of Victorian society to the case and the methods used to solve it.
IMHO this was an interesting but not particularly gripping book, definitely not a page turner. It was not written as a whodunnit so, despite not knowing who the murderer is until late on, there is none of the satisfaction of detection in your armchair. Then again, this is a true story, and therefore not as well crafted as a good Agatha Christie. That said, it sometimes seems a little confusing as we skip from Whicher's detection to broader descriptions of society at the time, from trials to flashbacks, from mini-biographies to the influence the case had on Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens, amongst others. It works out as an interesting history of early detection and investigation methods, and a pretty mediocre whodunnit.
In a nutshell: Part social history, part biography, part depiction of Victorian England and part whodunnit, this book deals with the early days of detection though the prism of a true murder committed in Road in 1860.
The blurb: This multi-layered book starts with the true story of the murder of Saville Kent, the youngest member of a middle class Victorian family. This is the whodunnit part of the book : a murder, a large household and a house locked from the inside. We then follow the investigations and suspicions of Detective Jack Whicher, one of the first London detectives, at a time when detection was a new science that had the nation in the grip of 'detection fever'. In this respect, this book is also a social history of the time, cleverly showing the side effects this gruesome- and mystifying- murder had on literature (with the emergence of a new type of novel) and the attitude of Victorian society to the case and the methods used to solve it.
IMHO this was an interesting but not particularly gripping book, definitely not a page turner. It was not written as a whodunnit so, despite not knowing who the murderer is until late on, there is none of the satisfaction of detection in your armchair. Then again, this is a true story, and therefore not as well crafted as a good Agatha Christie. That said, it sometimes seems a little confusing as we skip from Whicher's detection to broader descriptions of society at the time, from trials to flashbacks, from mini-biographies to the influence the case had on Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens, amongst others. It works out as an interesting history of early detection and investigation methods, and a pretty mediocre whodunnit.
samedi 7 février 2009
So here we are in Sarkozy's economic crisis
About ten days ago, an estimated 2 million French workers went on strike and marched through the streets of France's cities. They were not protesting specifically about job losses like in England, nor only from the public sector which is often the case. This strike was about a more abstract sense of fear and helplessness due to the crisis and a hefty dose of anger directed at Nicolas Sarkozy. This was about the country's relationship with its president, the man who won the election on the promise that people would work more to earn more, that he would boot up people's disposable income, that he would modernise the French economy by basing it on a more flexible anglo saxon model, complete with low unemployment.
In retrospect, these election pledges seem both awkward, absurd and hilarious. Unemployment is soaring; purchasing power is collapsing; the French car industry, which indirectly employs 1 in 10 French workers, is close to collapse; and the banks have had to be bailed out. This last point has gone down especially badly with the French. As they struggle with inflaion and stagnant wages, reducing consumption in many cases to bare necessities, the government managed to magic up billions for the banks, seen by the population as inefficient, dangerous and corrupt. Despite Sarkozy's characteristic hyperactivity- he has been running around France giving huge conferences every two days on average- his now-ludicrous promises and idiotic remarks ("Hoho! Now when there's a strike in Frane nobody notices" he said at a public meeting, which was seen a pure provocation by the unions) have made him a resented and distrusted figure.
All he could do was respond. So he decided to give an interview, that would be shown on 3 channels simultaneously, in his offices at the Elysée. The two journalists, which he chose, are the newsreaders of the leading private and state channels, bit they didn't reallydo much, just let Sarkozy talk.
Sarkozy looks a bit older and more tired, and certainly wasn't as arrogant and lively as usual. He was, as always, fidgety but his voice had a grave and softer tone. On the crisis, he solemnly announced that this was the worst crisis in living memory and that there were no easy solutions. Not exactly the reassurance the population was after. He justified his plan to help the economy through investment and companies, rather than by encouraging consumption, which is what the UK have done by lowering VAT (and which the French socialists would like to do). He justified bailing out the banks because French savings were at stake, not the treacherous banks, which he is furious with. He went off into a little spiel about how he had "summoned the G20 to refound world capitalism" which sounded a little bigheaded. He then dropped a couple of shock factor proposals. First to arrange a huge meeting on the 18th of february with the Unions, the different interest groups and so on where they would discuss, among other things, cutting taxes for the poorer slices of the population (50% of French workers don't pay taxes already) and getting rid of the taxe professionnelle, which represents 30% of companies' costs (but is also what funds local collectivities).
But behind the gravity and proposals, it was impossible not to notice a kind of megalomania: as well as the "I summoned the G20", there was also "I am your President, it is my role to protect you", "I went to wherever and did this", "I decided this and it was done". Amusingly, only when he suddenly came under fire for an unpopular measure unrelated to the financial crisis did he suddenly start saying that he didn't work alone, that he had a full council of ministers working round the clock and that he was absolutely not responsible alone for anything.
What came out of this was very little concrete measures. People had been expecting some emergency solution like Obama's $1000, but what they got was justification for saving the banks and helping companies, and a lot of Sarkozy saying that he would take on the crisis single handedly and not to worry. People are worried though. In the poll published today 52% of the French were unconvinced by his statements.
In retrospect, these election pledges seem both awkward, absurd and hilarious. Unemployment is soaring; purchasing power is collapsing; the French car industry, which indirectly employs 1 in 10 French workers, is close to collapse; and the banks have had to be bailed out. This last point has gone down especially badly with the French. As they struggle with inflaion and stagnant wages, reducing consumption in many cases to bare necessities, the government managed to magic up billions for the banks, seen by the population as inefficient, dangerous and corrupt. Despite Sarkozy's characteristic hyperactivity- he has been running around France giving huge conferences every two days on average- his now-ludicrous promises and idiotic remarks ("Hoho! Now when there's a strike in Frane nobody notices" he said at a public meeting, which was seen a pure provocation by the unions) have made him a resented and distrusted figure.
All he could do was respond. So he decided to give an interview, that would be shown on 3 channels simultaneously, in his offices at the Elysée. The two journalists, which he chose, are the newsreaders of the leading private and state channels, bit they didn't reallydo much, just let Sarkozy talk.
Sarkozy looks a bit older and more tired, and certainly wasn't as arrogant and lively as usual. He was, as always, fidgety but his voice had a grave and softer tone. On the crisis, he solemnly announced that this was the worst crisis in living memory and that there were no easy solutions. Not exactly the reassurance the population was after. He justified his plan to help the economy through investment and companies, rather than by encouraging consumption, which is what the UK have done by lowering VAT (and which the French socialists would like to do). He justified bailing out the banks because French savings were at stake, not the treacherous banks, which he is furious with. He went off into a little spiel about how he had "summoned the G20 to refound world capitalism" which sounded a little bigheaded. He then dropped a couple of shock factor proposals. First to arrange a huge meeting on the 18th of february with the Unions, the different interest groups and so on where they would discuss, among other things, cutting taxes for the poorer slices of the population (50% of French workers don't pay taxes already) and getting rid of the taxe professionnelle, which represents 30% of companies' costs (but is also what funds local collectivities).
But behind the gravity and proposals, it was impossible not to notice a kind of megalomania: as well as the "I summoned the G20", there was also "I am your President, it is my role to protect you", "I went to wherever and did this", "I decided this and it was done". Amusingly, only when he suddenly came under fire for an unpopular measure unrelated to the financial crisis did he suddenly start saying that he didn't work alone, that he had a full council of ministers working round the clock and that he was absolutely not responsible alone for anything.
What came out of this was very little concrete measures. People had been expecting some emergency solution like Obama's $1000, but what they got was justification for saving the banks and helping companies, and a lot of Sarkozy saying that he would take on the crisis single handedly and not to worry. People are worried though. In the poll published today 52% of the French were unconvinced by his statements.
So here we are in London and an Egyptian tomb
Chook and I went off to London for a birthday weekend and it wa sabsolutely great. We saw the Rothko exhibition at Tate modern, ate pub lunches and English breakfasts, saw my family and met up with some old uni friends for a couple of drinks. We went to the Britsh museum and plodded around in the snow which fell in abundance in London and the South East on Sunday and Monday.
We had an amazing time and one of my highlights was visiting the new Egyptian gallery in the BM. I've always loved their Egyptian wing and when I was a child would spend ages with my poor suffering mother looking at the Rosetta stone and animal mummies, the dried out corpse of Ginger and other slightly gruesome displays. Later I also started to appreciate the statues and artefacts, pottery, jewellry and so on, and know a bit more about Ancient Egyptian history and archeology.
This new gallery is like nothing I have ever seen before. It is a actually an average sized room that is solely dedicated to the tomb of an temple accountant who lived three and a half thousand years ago. The famous Egyptian tombs are typically royal ones : from the valley of the Kings to Tutankhamon's, or the even more ancient pyramids. The lives and deaths of the everyday Egyptians are comparatively unknown. A few years ago the Louvre had an exhibition on the people who made the pyramids, not slaves as it turns out(contrary to popular belief) but highly skilled craftsmen, experts in stone cutting, woodwork, engraving, painting and so on. It looked in to the lives of the Egyptian working classes, neither pharoahs nor farmers nor slaves.
In a similar way, this tomb is the tomb chapel of Nebamun, a "scribe and counter of grain" who died in around 1400 BC. His tomb chapel was discovered in the 1820s by a Greek grave robber who later sold the incredible paintings that are on display. Though we know the tomb was located near the city/temple devoted to Amun, where he worked, in Thebes (today Luxor),the exact location is today lost. Though it is a tomb, the paintings are a celebration of Nebamun's life, with paintings glorifying his everyday activities, from fishing to family and his job. The eleven large fragments, which have been restored and preserved over the last decade, are beautiful in colour and the level of detail in each one is captivating; the artist is unknown but has been called an "ancient Egyptian Michaelangelo".
One painting shows a young Nebamun fishing on the marshes and surrounded by spieces of birds and reeds and fat fish. Amongst the reeds his cat is somersaulting and hunting. The different species symbolise life, rebirth and vitality which is what the painting inspires.
In another, we see Nebamun at work. His name literally means "he works in the service of Amun", to whom the temple which employed him was dedicated. Here he is counting and inspecting cattle, who have been painted in such a way that you can hear the clatter of their hooves and the shouts of the servants driving them.
In another, slave giirls entertain at a banquet: a display of luxury, sensuality and wealth.
The exhibition also has a terrific 3D video that explains the tomb chapel's probable location and layout, and has some nice artefacts such as toys, jewelry, games and preserved offerings. The explanations are great and fascinating (such as the fact that the word "Amun", present everywhere in the hieroglyphs, including in Nebamun's name, was smashed centuries later) and to top it all the whole gallery, like the rest of the museum, is free.
We had an amazing time and one of my highlights was visiting the new Egyptian gallery in the BM. I've always loved their Egyptian wing and when I was a child would spend ages with my poor suffering mother looking at the Rosetta stone and animal mummies, the dried out corpse of Ginger and other slightly gruesome displays. Later I also started to appreciate the statues and artefacts, pottery, jewellry and so on, and know a bit more about Ancient Egyptian history and archeology.
This new gallery is like nothing I have ever seen before. It is a actually an average sized room that is solely dedicated to the tomb of an temple accountant who lived three and a half thousand years ago. The famous Egyptian tombs are typically royal ones : from the valley of the Kings to Tutankhamon's, or the even more ancient pyramids. The lives and deaths of the everyday Egyptians are comparatively unknown. A few years ago the Louvre had an exhibition on the people who made the pyramids, not slaves as it turns out(contrary to popular belief) but highly skilled craftsmen, experts in stone cutting, woodwork, engraving, painting and so on. It looked in to the lives of the Egyptian working classes, neither pharoahs nor farmers nor slaves.
In a similar way, this tomb is the tomb chapel of Nebamun, a "scribe and counter of grain" who died in around 1400 BC. His tomb chapel was discovered in the 1820s by a Greek grave robber who later sold the incredible paintings that are on display. Though we know the tomb was located near the city/temple devoted to Amun, where he worked, in Thebes (today Luxor),the exact location is today lost. Though it is a tomb, the paintings are a celebration of Nebamun's life, with paintings glorifying his everyday activities, from fishing to family and his job. The eleven large fragments, which have been restored and preserved over the last decade, are beautiful in colour and the level of detail in each one is captivating; the artist is unknown but has been called an "ancient Egyptian Michaelangelo".
One painting shows a young Nebamun fishing on the marshes and surrounded by spieces of birds and reeds and fat fish. Amongst the reeds his cat is somersaulting and hunting. The different species symbolise life, rebirth and vitality which is what the painting inspires.
In another, we see Nebamun at work. His name literally means "he works in the service of Amun", to whom the temple which employed him was dedicated. Here he is counting and inspecting cattle, who have been painted in such a way that you can hear the clatter of their hooves and the shouts of the servants driving them.
In another, slave giirls entertain at a banquet: a display of luxury, sensuality and wealth.
The exhibition also has a terrific 3D video that explains the tomb chapel's probable location and layout, and has some nice artefacts such as toys, jewelry, games and preserved offerings. The explanations are great and fascinating (such as the fact that the word "Amun", present everywhere in the hieroglyphs, including in Nebamun's name, was smashed centuries later) and to top it all the whole gallery, like the rest of the museum, is free.
mercredi 28 janvier 2009
So here we are talking about science
Science and scientific methodology vs beliefs and emotion. Ten minutes long and excellent presentation!
mardi 27 janvier 2009
So here we are reading the book without end
World without End by Ken Follet
In a nutshell, this is exactly the same book as Pillars of the earth (read review here) by the same author, only it is set 200 years later and is a bit shorter I think. Aliena is called Caris, Jack is called Merthin, William is called Ralph, the cathedral is a bridge and there is the plague.
The blurb: Follett sold and made millions with PoE so he kept exactly the same formula for this "sequel". Not so much a sequel as it does not take up where the last left, nor does it give any info on the characters of its prequel. Instead we follow the descendants of PoE's heroes (which can justify the very similar characters) much as we did their ancestors. The backdrop, depending on where you are in the book, is the building of a bridge, the social and economic devastation (and opportunities) linked to the plague and the usual politics of religion and power, only this time in the 14th century. Again we span 50 or so years of British history, from the invasion of France to the horrors of the plague, and from every point of view- nuns, evil knights, heartbroken builders, farm labourers and so on with a hefty dose of sex, rape and violence.
IMHO this book would have been OK if its prequel hadn't been almost identical. My mistake was probably reading Pillars of the Earth and World without End one after the other. Serious overdose. Again, the book is characterised by rather 2D (albeit enjoyable) characters, debatable historical accuracy and insane ups and downs in the people's lives. Fair enough, a couple of (sub)plot lines are original, but it's not really worth trawling through 1200 pages of WwE to get 90% rehashed PoE (already over a thousand pages). If you liked PoE definitely wait a while before reading this or it will all seem too familiar. If you didn't like PoE, then forget it. if you haven't read PoE, start with that.
In a nutshell, this is exactly the same book as Pillars of the earth (read review here) by the same author, only it is set 200 years later and is a bit shorter I think. Aliena is called Caris, Jack is called Merthin, William is called Ralph, the cathedral is a bridge and there is the plague.
The blurb: Follett sold and made millions with PoE so he kept exactly the same formula for this "sequel". Not so much a sequel as it does not take up where the last left, nor does it give any info on the characters of its prequel. Instead we follow the descendants of PoE's heroes (which can justify the very similar characters) much as we did their ancestors. The backdrop, depending on where you are in the book, is the building of a bridge, the social and economic devastation (and opportunities) linked to the plague and the usual politics of religion and power, only this time in the 14th century. Again we span 50 or so years of British history, from the invasion of France to the horrors of the plague, and from every point of view- nuns, evil knights, heartbroken builders, farm labourers and so on with a hefty dose of sex, rape and violence.
IMHO this book would have been OK if its prequel hadn't been almost identical. My mistake was probably reading Pillars of the Earth and World without End one after the other. Serious overdose. Again, the book is characterised by rather 2D (albeit enjoyable) characters, debatable historical accuracy and insane ups and downs in the people's lives. Fair enough, a couple of (sub)plot lines are original, but it's not really worth trawling through 1200 pages of WwE to get 90% rehashed PoE (already over a thousand pages). If you liked PoE definitely wait a while before reading this or it will all seem too familiar. If you didn't like PoE, then forget it. if you haven't read PoE, start with that.
mardi 20 janvier 2009
So here we are laughing in French
Funniest joke of the year so far! Translation below.
Lorsque Dieu créa le monde, il décida de concéder deux vertus aux hommes de chaque peuple afin qu'ils prospèrent.
Par exemple il rendit :
-Les Suisses précis et pacifistes
-Les Anglais flegmatiques et ironiques
-Les Japonais travailleurs et réalistes
-Les Italiens joyeux et humanistes
Quant aux français, il dit :
"Les français seront intelligents, honnêtes et sarkozistes."
Lorsque le monde fut achevé, l'ange qui avait été chargé de la distribution des vertus demanda à Dieu :
"Seigneur, tu as dit que tu octroyais deux vertus à chaque peuple, mais les Français en ont trois. Est-ce pour cela qu'ils se placent au dessus des autres ?"
Et Dieu répondit :
"En vérité, Je te le dis, chaque peuple a deux vertus y compris les Français, car chacun d'entre eux ne pourra en posséder que deux à la fois.
Ce qui veut dire que :
-si un français est sarkoziste et honnête, il ne sera pas intelligent
-si un français est sarkoziste et intelligent, il ne sera pas honnête
-si un français est intelligent et honnête, il ne pourra pas être sarkoziste."
When God created the World, He decided to provide the men of every nation with two virtues so that they would prosper.
For example, He endowed
-the Swiss with pacifism and precision
-the English with composure and irony
- the Japanese with realism and the value of work
- the Italians with joy and humanism.
As for the French, He said:
-May they be honest, intelligent, and Sarkozy supporters.
Once the World was created, the Angel in charge of the virtues' delivery asked God.
"My Lord, why did you provide the French with three virtues when you said you were giving two to each people? Is that why they feel so superior?
And God answered:
In truth, believe me, the French, like all the others, will only possess two virtues, for they cannot possess more than two at a time. This means that
- if the man is honest and supports Sarkozy, he is not intelligent
- if the man is intelligent and supports Sarkozy, then he cannot be honest
- nd if he is intelligent and honest, then he cannot support Sarkozy!
Lorsque Dieu créa le monde, il décida de concéder deux vertus aux hommes de chaque peuple afin qu'ils prospèrent.
Par exemple il rendit :
-Les Suisses précis et pacifistes
-Les Anglais flegmatiques et ironiques
-Les Japonais travailleurs et réalistes
-Les Italiens joyeux et humanistes
Quant aux français, il dit :
"Les français seront intelligents, honnêtes et sarkozistes."
Lorsque le monde fut achevé, l'ange qui avait été chargé de la distribution des vertus demanda à Dieu :
"Seigneur, tu as dit que tu octroyais deux vertus à chaque peuple, mais les Français en ont trois. Est-ce pour cela qu'ils se placent au dessus des autres ?"
Et Dieu répondit :
"En vérité, Je te le dis, chaque peuple a deux vertus y compris les Français, car chacun d'entre eux ne pourra en posséder que deux à la fois.
Ce qui veut dire que :
-si un français est sarkoziste et honnête, il ne sera pas intelligent
-si un français est sarkoziste et intelligent, il ne sera pas honnête
-si un français est intelligent et honnête, il ne pourra pas être sarkoziste."
When God created the World, He decided to provide the men of every nation with two virtues so that they would prosper.
For example, He endowed
-the Swiss with pacifism and precision
-the English with composure and irony
- the Japanese with realism and the value of work
- the Italians with joy and humanism.
As for the French, He said:
-May they be honest, intelligent, and Sarkozy supporters.
Once the World was created, the Angel in charge of the virtues' delivery asked God.
"My Lord, why did you provide the French with three virtues when you said you were giving two to each people? Is that why they feel so superior?
And God answered:
In truth, believe me, the French, like all the others, will only possess two virtues, for they cannot possess more than two at a time. This means that
- if the man is honest and supports Sarkozy, he is not intelligent
- if the man is intelligent and supports Sarkozy, then he cannot be honest
- nd if he is intelligent and honest, then he cannot support Sarkozy!
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
