Screwing with Darwin 2
(Continued from Screwing with Darwin 1.)
An incredible ability to pay attention may have been Darwin’s defining characteristic. This was the guy, remember, who found it possible to study barnacles for eight years straight. That superhuman ability to observe and notice was surely the reason he was able to figure out the puzzle of natural selection. And as a result of this well-honed ability, the original Autobiography is just bursting with sharp observations of the people around him.
Sir Frank’s version? Eh, nassomush.
I’ll focus on four of my favorite passages from the original, two brief and two longish-but-worthit. First there’s Darwin on himself, a childhood memory:
About this time [age eight], or as I hope at a somewhat earlier age, I sometimes stole fruit for the sake of eating it; & one of my schemes was ingenious. The kitchen garden was kept locked in the evening, & was surrounded by a high wall, but by the aid of neighbouring trees I could easily get on the coping. I then fixed a long stick into the hole at the bottom of a rather large flower-pot, & by dragging this upwards pulled off peaches & plums, which fell into the pot & the prizes were thus secured. When a very little boy I remember stealing apples from the orchard, for the sake of giving them away to some boys & young men who lived in a cottage not far off, but before I gave them the fruit I showed off how quickly I could run & it is wonderful that I did not perceive that the surprise & admiration which they expressed at my powers of running, was given for the sake of the apples. But I well remember that I was delighted at them declaring that they had never seen a boy run so fast!
That fun bit of Charlie candor was entirely cut — lest the world learn that he picked fruit that wasn’t his when he was eight.
He had this to say about Charles Lyell, one of his greatest influences:
On my return from the voyage of the Beagle, I explained to him my views on coral-reefs, which differed compared to his, and I was greatly surprised and encouraged by the vivid interest which he showed. On such occasions, while absorbed in thought, he would throw himself into the strangest attitudes, often resting his head on the seat of a chair, while standing up. His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind.
Frank removed the best part of that one – Lyell’s quirk with the chair. See how it reads without that:
On my return from the voyage of the Beagle, I explained to him my views on coral-reefs, which differed compared to his, and I was greatly surprised and encouraged by the vivid interest which he showed. His delight in science was ardent, and he felt the keenest interest in the future progress of mankind.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzngk.
In one long passage, Charles offers incisive character sketches of a half dozen colleagues and friends:
[Scottish botanist Robert Brown] was capable of the most generous actions. When old, much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him. This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific penuriousness or jealousy. He was rather given to sneering at anyone who wrote about what he did not fully understand: I remember praising Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences to him, and he answered, “Yes, I suppose that he has read the prefaces of very many books.”
I often saw Owen, whilst living in London, and admired him greatly, but was never able to understand his character and never became intimate with him. After the publication of the Origin of Species he became my bitter enemy, not owing to any quarrel between us, but as far as I could judge out of jealousy at its success. Poor dear Falconer, who was a charming man, had a very bad opinion of him, being convinced that he was not only ambitious, very envious and arrogant, but untruthful and dishonest. His power of hatred was certainly unsurpassed. When in former days I used to defend Owen, Falconer often said, “You will find him out some day,” and so it has proved.
At a somewhat later period I became very intimate with [botanist Joseph Dalton] Hooker, who has been one of my best friends throughout life. He is a delightfully pleasant companion & most kind-hearted. One can see at once that he is honourable to the back-bone. His intellect is very acute, & he has great power of generalisation. He is the most untirable worker that I have ever seen, & will sit the whole day working with the microscope, & be in the evening as fresh & pleasant as ever. He is in all ways very impulsive & somewhat peppery in temper; but the clouds pass away almost immediately. He once sent me an almost savage letter for a reason which will appear ludicrously small to an outsider, viz. because I maintained for a time the silly notion that our coal-plants had lived in shallow water in the sea. His indignation was all the greater because he could not pretend that he should ever have suspected that the Mangrove (and a few other marine plants which I named) had lived in the sea, if they had been found only in a fossil state. On another occasion he was almost equally indignant because I rejected with scorn the notion that a continent had formerly extended between Australia & S. America. I have known hardly any man more lovable than Hooker.
A little later I became intimate with Huxley. His mind is as quick as a flash of lightning & as sharp as a razor. He is the best talker whom I have known. He never writes & never says anything flat. Given his conversation no one would suppose that he could cut up his opponents in so trenchant a manner as he can do & does do. He has been a most kind friend to me & would always take any trouble for me. He has been the mainstay in England of the principle of the gradual evolution of organic beings. Much splendid work as he has done in Zoology, he would have done far more, if his time had not been so largely consumed by official & literary work, & by his efforts to improve the education of the country.
He would allow me to say anything to him: many years ago I thought that it was a pity that he attacked so many scientific men, although I believe that he was right in each particular case, & I said so to him. He denied the charge indignantly, & I answered that I was very glad to hear that I was mistaken. We had been talking about his well-deserved attacks on Owen, so I said after a time, “How well you have exposed Ehrenberg’s blunders;” he agreed and added that it was necessary for science that such mistakes should be exposed. Again after a time, I added: “Poor Agassiz has fared ill under your hands.” Again I added another name, & now his bright eyes flashed on me, & he burst out laughing, anathematising me in some manner. He is a splendid man & has worked well for the good of mankind.
I may here mention a few other eminent men whom I have occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel & was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the C[ape] of Good Hope & afterwards at his London house. I saw him, also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to. He was very shy & he often had a distressed expression. Lady Caroline Bell, at whose house I dined at the C. of Good Hope, admired Herschel much, but said that he always came into a room as if he knew that his hands were dirty, & that he knew that his wife knew that they were dirty.
That priceless passage, including some of the best available portraits of these guys, was reduced by Frank Darwin to this yawny blob of paste:
[Robert Brown] was capable of the most generous actions. When old, much out of health, and quite unfit for any exertion, he daily visited (as Hooker told me) an old man-servant, who lived at a distance (and whom he supported), and read aloud to him. This is enough to make up for any degree of scientific penuriousness or jealousy.
I may here mention a few other eminent men whom I have occasionally seen, but I have little to say about them worth saying. I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel & was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the C[ape] of Good Hope & afterwards at his London house. I saw him, also, on a few other occasions. He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to.
Gah!
Finally, a passage that captured the personality of two major figures of the time and illustrated one of the human foibles Darwin disliked most — the craving for status and glory:
All the leading geologists were more or less known by me, at the time when geology was advancing with triumphant steps. I liked most of them, with the exception of [geologist and minister The Very Rev. William] Buckland who though very good-humoured & good-natured seemed to me a vulgar & almost coarse man. He was incited more by a craving for notoriety, which sometimes made him act like a buffoon, than by a love of science. He was not, however, selfish in his desire for notoriety; for Lyell, when a very young man, consulted him about communicating a poor paper to the Geol. Soc. which had been sent him by a stranger, & Buckland answered — “You had better do so, for it will be headed, ‘Communicated by Charles Lyell’, & thus your name will be brought before the public.
The services rendered to geology by Murchison by his classification of the older formations cannot be over-estimated; but he did not possess a philosophical mind. He was very kind-hearted & would exert himself to the utmost to oblige anyone. The degree to which he valued rank was ludicrous, & he displayed this feeling & his vanity with the simplicity of a child. He related with the utmost glee to a large circle, including many mere acquaintances, in the rooms of the Geolog. Soc. how the Czar Nicholas, when in London, had patted him on the shoulder & had said, alluding to his geological work — “Mon ami, Russia is grateful to you,” & then Murchison added rubbing his hands together, “The best of it was that Prince Albert heard it all.” He announced one day to the Council of the Geolog. Soc. that his great work on the Silurian system was at last published; & he then looked at all who were present & said, “You will every one of you find your name in the Index,” as if this was the height of glory.
The whole passage was cut.
I could go on and on. Over two dozen passages like these were cut out of the Autobiography, draining much of the color and humanity out of Darwin’s self-portrait.
The reason we know what was cut, btw, is that granddaughter Nora Barlow’s 1958 edition includes a list, in the back, of the formerly excised passages.
As I said last time, I do understand Frank’s impulse here, even though all of these people were dead at the time of publication except Huxley. But I am terribly grateful for Nora (at left).
It wasn’t the character sketches that put the Darwins at each other’s throats, though. It was the question of whether Charles Darwin’s description of the development of his own religious views should see the light of day.
We’ll look under that rock next time.
Screwing with Twain (a tangent)
[A brief tangent in a series on editorial shenanigans. Series begins here.]
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
Mark Twain, letter to George Bainton, Oct 1888
JUST as I sat down to write the last installment in this series on editing reality to suit our preferences, news breaks about a professor in Alabama who’s releasing new editions of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer to suit his preferences — among other things, replacing 223 occurrences of the word “nigger” with “slave.”
This is EXACTLY what I’m on about. So my last post will have to wait for a passing Twain.
This particular edit presents more than one problem. All black characters, freed and not, are referred to as “slave” in the new edition. In addition to confusing matters, this kills the powerful linguistic subtext in the original, which reflected the common white attitude of the time toward freed slaves: “Maybe you’re free,” said that subtext, “but you’re still a nigger.” (And yes, despite Roger Ebert’s preferences, the word was already a documented insult 50 years before Huck.)
Another problem: Huck Finn was one of the first American novels written in a regional vernacular. Twain himself was very particular about word choice and chose “nigger” to reflect that vernacular and those attitudes. But oh well. To paraphrase myself, if future readers of the Gribben edition want a window into the everyday life of the 19th century, they’ll be out of luck. But if they hanker to know what a 21st century person thinks they ought to know about life in the 19th century, boy will they have the right book.
Finally, there’s the pretty certain fact that Twain would shit blazing coals over this. And authorial intent is (or should be) the highest editorial court, especially when the author isn’t around to loose the defecatory fireworks himself.
Gribben attempts to bring the Harlem Renaissance into his corner, noting that in his 1940 autobiography The Big Sea, Langston Hughes made a plea to remove the word from all literature: “Ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of comedy, it doesn’t matter…Negroes do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or play ever so sympathetic.”
But even Hughes isn’t entirely with Hughes on this one. He used the word searingly in more than one poem, including 1931’s “Christ in Alabama”:
Christ is a nigger,
Beaten and black:
Oh, bare your back!Mary is His mother:
Mammy of the South,
Silence your mouth.God is his father:
White Master above
Grant Him your love.Most holy bastard
Of the bleeding mouth,
Nigger Christ
On the cross
Of the South.
The poem would lose all effect without that word. Hughes apparently agreed, since he reissued “Christ in Alabama,” complete with “nigger,” in 1967. In any case, it’s doubtful that Hughes would have relished the idea of an editor making the post-mortem decision for him.
Several black commentators before and since the Gribben story have added nuance to the discussion and as far as I can see come down primarily against the revision.
Yes, the print run for the Gribben edition of Twain is pretty small. But like the Ray Comfort edition of On the Origin of Species (complete with a “clarifying” creationist introduction), future readers will now have even more reason than usual to wonder just how many grimy revisionist fingers have been at work since the manuscript left the author’s pen.
PBB in NYC!
I am delighted to report that I’ll be in New York City to give a Platform Address and PBB seminar at the New York Society for Ethical Culture this very weekend – Sunday January 9.
Long-time readers may remember me swooning at length over the Brooklyn Society after my visit there in April ’09. After visiting four others (Chicago, St. Louis, Bergen County NJ, and Northern Virginia), I’m even more convinced that Ethical Culture is the best articulation yet of a community built around shared values and principles rather than beliefs.
Housed in a gorgeous building on Central Park, the NYSEC is the mother ship of the Ethical Culture movement, founded in 1876 by social reformer Felix Adler as the first such Society.
So if by chance you’re in the New York area this weekend, pop over to NYSEC (2 W 64th St at Central Park West) for the morning address, the afternoon seminar, or both. I’ll try to be handsome and/or fascinating.
Post script: What should Taylor’s colleagues do?
A reader question on the “final” post in the Mr. Taylor series:
I’m curious about what you would say to a teacher with concerns about a colleague’s coverage of evolution. We have a science teacher who is evangelical, doesn’t believe in evolution or global warming, and “teaches the controversy” from what we hear. The problem is, I’m not in a position to have proof about what he teaches or how he does it. Any suggestion? — teacherlady
Boy that’s a good one. Teachers have an obligation to be responsive to parents. They have no such obligation to colleagues, and pointed questions from a faculty peer can (and probably would) be seen as galling presumption.
I forwarded the question to NCSE, and once again Glenn Branch provided what seems like a solid, reasonable answer:
It’s a little delicate, obviously, since this is a problem with a colleague, and there may be complicated workplace politics involved. But she should take the problem upstairs, to her department chair (if there is one) or her principal, whose job it is to worry about whether the teachers are doing their jobs right.
She should keep in mind that by doing so she’s going to be serving two interests: not only do the kids in the school need a decent science education, but also the district needs to be able to protect itself from possible lawsuit, as case law is clear. It’s difficult, we know, but she needs to do what is right, both for the kids and the district.
Any discomfort a teacher might feel in raising the question pales when weighed against those two interests.
In a later comment, teacherlady notes that the principal is also Christian and so might be disinclined to act. I wouldn’t assume that. In addition to the possibility that the principal is a sane, moderate Christian, the professional recognition of legal liability will generally trump personal leanings in all but the densest administrator.
Shorter, more often
I need to change my approach here. Damn good topics are piling up in my draft box. If I do my usual weekly 1K, they’ll all be stale by the time I get to them. So I’m going to more of a 400-word norm for a while, twice a week, with the odd novella.
Next time:
DALES OF OUR LIVES
7:30PM MOL-TV
“Weird Science.” The Great Karmic Wheel threatens to run Dale over. The very same day he posts about good and bad teaching in Georgia science classrooms, his son comes home with bad news about his current high school science teacher! Hilarity ensues when Dale’s usually live-and-let-live wife insists that he “do something!” He knows she’s right, but what to do? Great fun for the whole family. TV14: PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED (Sex, Language, Bad Science)
Pretend you missed me
I always get a chuckle out of blog posts that apologize for a long absence, as if readers are locked in solitary with a Kindle that can somehow only find the one blog. I know you were sleeping around while I was out of town. I’m hurt, but I still love you, and recognize pathetically that I need this relationship more than you do.
I actually tried to post something two weeks back, but a server switch at my host company preferred that I not. They say it’s been fixed, but I won’t know until I click PUBLISH.
Watch for a new post by week’s end. In the meantime, go jump into Hemant’s arms, see if I care, tramp.
Interesting times
May you come to the attention of those in authority
May you find what you are looking for
May you live in interesting times
Three (alleged) Chinese curses
Life is a bit too interesting at the moment. Since some of it relates to my books and other things of potential interest here, I’d like to file a brief report.
Foundation Beyond Belief ended its first quarter after raising $12,500 for charities and started its second with a brilliant new slate of beneficiaries. An extensive article about the Foundation is scheduled to appear in the New York Times this Saturday and another in the Chronicle of Philanthropy next week.
I submitted the final draft of my self-published second novel this week and learned that a (frankly) wonderful book I was planning about Radiolab will not go forward after all. I am trying desperately to finish my long-promised sixth video for the PBB Channel on YouTube, preparing for a seminar in Albuquerque, and co-teaching an online course on humanism for the Center for Inquiry this month.
Meanwhile, I’ve learned that my gall bladder has resigned in disgust and that steps must be taken to evict it from the premises, and soon. And we are planning to shortly make an offer on a house.
It’s all a bit much. But aside from the gall bladder and the dead Radiolab book, it’s good. Just know that posts will continue to be sporadic until I can clear this deck a bit.
There is too much. Let me sum up.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
Inigo Montoya
Too many things to blog about. I get started on a post and suddenly three new things pop up. I need to clear the deck a bit or I’ll never get back to the Can You Hear Me Now? series, which I swore I’d finish by Krismas. So here goes:
1. “Faith on Campus” is a video contest co-sponsored by Patheos and the Washington Post “On Faith” blog. College students are invited submit videos with their personal views on faith/belief. This challenge asks students 18 years and older to describe their beliefs on video. Students can submit videos here. In February, Patheos will award a $2,500 cash prize to the top video. Three runner-up prizes valued at $1,000 will also be awarded for each of the following three categories: (1) Why I am a [fill in your faith/belief]; (2) How I live my beliefs on campus; (3) Rituals and practices of my faith/belief.
Do I have to say how unbearably cool it would be for a secular humanist student to win this?
2. It’s a lovely week for Parenting Beyond Belief, which gets a mention in the current issue of Parenting magazine, another in Metro Parent Detroit, and an especially good article in Portland Family.
3. The whole McGowan family is co-featured in the current issue of Ruckus magazine in an article about secular families and their approach to Christmas. (Click on the turning pages to read the full mag online. Article starts on p. 26.)
4. St. Louis Memlings: A great event is afoot in St. Peters one week from today. The Ethical Society Mid Rivers is hosting an event called “Raising Freethinking Kids,” led by Foundation Beyond Belief board member Trish Cowan. It’s Wed, Dec. 9, 7:00-8:30 pm at St. Peters City Hall. More info here.
5. I’ve heard your prayers! The annual page of PBB Recommended Gifts for science-minded kids is now updated and reposted. Each recommendation is based on a combination of formal reviews, customer ratings and comments, personal recommendations gathered from parents and kids, my own experience, and/or runecasting.
6. This is cool (thanks Tim!):
8. Someone please pull me off Tim Minchin. He’s turning blue.
9. Foundation Beyond Belief continues to march toward the full launch on January 1, with forums, personal profiles, and the ability to set up automatic deductions and distribute your impact among ten selected charities. Looking for one last tax deduction before the end of the year? We’d be grateful for your support. Thanks SO much to those of you who’ve already chipped in. While you’re on the site, why not join up?
Okay, that clears the dance floor a bit. See you soon.
50 Voices of Disbelief
We interrupt the series Can You Hear Me Now? to bring you even more combinations of 26 letters and 10 punctuation marks.
I’ve begun receiving more than the usual number of questions about my “path” vis-a-vis religious questions — which as it happens is the topic of my chapter in the newly-released 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. So I’ve decided to post the chapter here.
First of all, a note about the cover of the book, which I mentioned in passing a few weeks ago. I asked the co-editor Russell Blackford what the thinking was behind the snuffed black candle in darkness, which I thought might play into the idea of atheism as the death of hope.
No, he said:
It is supposed to represent the light of reason kind of snuffed out, and surrounded by the darkness of superstition. When you open the book, there’s a reference to this in the introduction, but then each essay has a lit candle near the top of its first page, next to its author’s name, as if the various authors are relighting the candle of reason.
Lovely. A bit subtle for the average cover-skimmer (c’est moi!), but there it is.
I just received my copy in the mail last week, so I’ve only just moved beyond cover-skimming to page-riffling, but it looks like a good read. Russell and Udo’s idea was to gather personal stories from prominent nonbelievers (and me) about why we believe as we do. Surprisingly, this was something of a gap in the literature, and I’m happy to be a part of filling that gap.
My contribution is too long for a regular post, so instead it’s a link in the sidebar, and will remain so. Might be a good thing, since I manage in the course of the essay to answer most of the common questions I get about my own background. Now, instead of stringing together letters and punctuation over and over, I can point and grunt.
Read “The Unconditional Love of Reality” by Dale McGowan,
from 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists
I’m not complaining
Really I’m not. First of all, it’d be pretty damn cheeky to complain of too much work when so many people, including several of my friends, have too little right now. Plus I can’t stand people who define themselves by how busy they are.
So I am ex-, not com-, plaining.
My freelance writing puts me at the computer way too much. My keyboard’s A and L keys are worn completely blank, and O and M appear to be next, even though I have never (until now) typed LMAO. I have, however, ghostwritten over 170 articles and 105 blog entries for clients since January. I’m U.S. Communications Coordinator for a fantastic civilian peacekeeping organization. And I’ve written or edited 9 newsletters, 26 columns (mostly about banking), and an annual report.
And you thought I sat around thinking seculo-parental thoughts all day. It is to laugh.
That is part of it, of course. I did 16 PBB events in 11 cities so far this year. Then there’s the new YouTube channel, the Foundation, and this blog. No surprise I’ve been bathing in the glow of this screen 12 hours a day and seven days a week since New Year’s.
The work itself is (mostly) very satisfying and interesting. But I have a real and growing fear that my kids will remember me, only and always, behind a laptop. That makes me ill. So I’ve made some promises I intend to keep. I now stop working at 5pm on the dot and no longer open the laptop on weekends at all. That way I can be a parent again instead of just playing one on the Internet.
Among other cutbacks, I’ll now be posting blogs only about once a week and YouTube videos about once a month. (I just filmed #5 and have to completely reshoot because I look and sound like Ben Stein.)
I’ll give y’all a real post (on the downside of older siblings) in a couple of days, then start the weekly schedule. Thanks!