The Invention of Air

Steven Johnson

Nominally, this is a biography of Joseph Priestley, the late 18th century English natural philosopher (scientist), theologian, politician. More accurately, it is the story of how science worked 250 years ago, using Priestley as a protagonist to walk us through the process. And more importantly, Johnson intersperses commentary throughout to highlight how "doing science" has changed, both for better and worse. So while this is a biography and presentation of the historical record, it is also an opinion piece and a persuasive essay. Mixing this all together is ambitious, but Johnson is up to the task and, at least from the point of view of this scientist, hits a home run.

The foundation for the story is the scientific life of Priestley and his experimental investigation of air. He, along with Ben Franklin and a group of intellectuals that refer to themselves as "The Honest Whigs", over the course of 10 years in the 1770's are discovering the physical properties of air. Before this time, air was invisible nothing, and therefore there was nothing to discover. But new equipment (accurate scales, air pump, etc.) make investigation possible. Priestley is credited with "discovering" oxygen, and recognizing that plants and animals affect "common air" differently.

What I love about this book is what Johnson refers to as "the long zoom view". The fact that plants and animals affect air differently could be just a scientific fact. But these intellectuals are not just scientists. They are theologians, politicians, industrialists, etc. as well, which allows them to see "fact" differently. In this case, Franklin takes the 'affect air differently' fact and posits a systems view of life on earth. That is, he suggests for the first time ever the idea of an ecosystem and the possibility of a necessary global homeostasis. This is astounding insight. But it is not just his. Johnson suggests that most of the discoveries and scientific epiphanies that occur during this time are really the result of two social artifacts:

1. the communal nature of science. The Honest Whigs did not have a proprietary sense of knowledge. Instead, they were acting proponents of open source knowledge, sharing everything with each other and even with their scientific and industrial rivals. So Franklin on his own never makes this ecosystem observation, and
2. the long term "leisure" life of the scientists. That is, Priestley had 20-30 years of a hunch about the scientific fact of air being different that the common understanding of air. During this time, the idea was percolating and bouncing around as he investigated other things, as he shared ideas with others, as he delved into theology. Were Priestley to be working on a government funded grant that demanded results in a few years, perhaps he never makes the discoveries and history changes (the oxygen idea leads to better gunpowder production by the French, which is sold to American revolutionaries, giving them a military advantage over the British). 

Today's scientific research has neither of these factors. However, you can see elements of them when looking at hot new scientific fields. Big change is happening where open source knowledge prevails, and we the interface between traditional specialties (fields of biophysics, biochemistry, materials science (chemistry + physics), medical physics, etc.) all revealing ground breaking discoveries.

The book is a super fast read, and a great combination of scientific biography and meta-scientific sociology.

Read

Every Day

David Levithan

'A' (our protagonist) is a teenager who wakes up in a different body each day. He "borrows" that body, pushing the host consciousness aside while he is there, able to access memories as needed to interact as the host would. He only needs to know enough to survive, and not screw up the host life, until midnight, when he jumps to a new body. He has never known anything different, and has resigned himself to be as unobtrusive as possible in each host. Until he meets the girl. And falls in love. And then what? This is the ultimate in forbidden love stories. I enjoyed Levithan's initial exploration of identity with 'A', making me think about how you know who you are (see Middlesex). But it was left short, and I was largely unfulfilled in being led down this path of identity exploration. As readers we were not pushed into depth or provided a compass for inquiry. I am tempted to say you can only do so much with the YA genre, but that is a cop out. Some of the best social commentary/criticism in the past decade has come out of YA for those willing to listen (see Divergent and Unwind series). The only alternative is to say this is highly creative, yet ultimately mediocre as an instigator of thought.

Wait

The Underdogs: A Novel of the Mexican Revolution

Mariano Azuela

A translation of the novel from Spanish, which was first published as a newspaper serial in around 1915. A good scholarly introduction to this edition tells us that first, the title is not right. The underdogs suggests disadvantaged sports team overcoming all odds to win something. And while this is one possible reading, the translation is probably better as "the people beneath". In fact, it is a story of survival, of poverty fighting against political power and then not knowing how to "win" or to stop fighting, how war is an intoxicating/addictive drug. Demetrio is a guerrilla revolutionary who has some military success based on his fearlessness, leadership, and ferocity. This is  his story, about the transition from a two ox farmer to a general, his own recognition of his changing identity, and his inability (disinterest?) in stopping the change. And somehow, even in victory, the people beneath are still beneath...
Read

Station Eleven

Emily St. John Mandel

Imagine a world 20 years after a global pandemic flu that kills billions. In this world, in central Michigan, a traveling troupe of performers (Shakespeare and an orchestra) moves from town to town in an effort to live their motto "Survival is not sufficient". In addition, we are treated to backstory for several characters from either before the flu some intermediate years, slowly developing connections between them. I found myself constantly evaluating the "reality" of the story. Is this how it would really happen? Is this how life would be after a catastrophic global event? I was surprised by the lack of technology (I mean, we didn't forget how to wind coils to generate electricity) but, in this version at least, it took longer than I would expect to return. I suppose compare to A Canticle for Leibowitz, where it took generations and Mandel's version is much more likely. I also found myself observing the portrayal of violence and how it affected individuals. Really one of the best post-apocalyptic, near term worlds I have read.
Read

Middlesex

Jeffrey Eugenides

I didn't have any expectations for this book, didn't even read the dust cover for a synopsis. My only expectation was from the initial chapters, that it would be the story of struggle and development of gender identity of a hermaphrodite. And it was... sort of. But Eugenides takes a broad view of this identity discussion, utilizing 2/3 of the book to tell the history of protagonist Cal back 3 generations to his Greek ancestors and their life and emigration from Turkey to the suburbs of Detroit. Cal isn't even born for most of the book and tells this history from an omniscient 3rd person version of his 1st person memoir. In hindsight, I find this historical identity formation to be fascinating, telling the story of immigration and assimilation, highlighting life in Detroit during the depression, prohibition, and civil rights. In process of reading, I found this frustrating since I was waiting for "the real story" to begin, to the point that my enjoyment of the history was diminished in my impatience. Aside from this, it really is a fascinating collection of cultural Americana descriptions that Eugenides captures. For example, the diagnosis sequence where Cal is spending time with Dr. Luce and the sociological/scientific debates of Nature v Nurture are front and center. It is so matter of fact, and yet such a pivotal national discussion as genetic research begins to enter the collective consciousness of the general public. I think I will like this book more with time as its themes continue to crop up.
Read

Boy's Life

Robert McCammon

The story of one year of life in a small, southern town told in first person from the perspective of 11 year old Cory. From the beginning, Cory admits to the magic of youth. That is, kids have access to magic that adults don't, and as you give up that magic (with maturity perhaps) you can never get it back. With this postulate, McCammon is able to enter into a story telling from the perspective of kids who have access to this magic (or from the adult perspective, vivid imagination). As a result, as a reader you are witness to scenes of reality, scenes of clear magic, and some of those in between that you are just not sure about the perspective. Running the length of the story is a murder mystery that drives the plot. Cory and his father witness a car driving over an embankment into the lake. But since the lake is so deep, no body is recovered, and no missing persons are reported anywhere local. So maybe there was no murder. But for Cory, there is definitely a mystery. This driving narrative force is always in the back of Cory's mind and it holds together the meandering life of an 11 year old and his friends, through lazy summer, winter storms, school, family strife, new friends, vacation and all the important markers of childhood. And it is this that the book is really about. Growing up, holding on to magic, and letting magic go.
Read