Only a short beach walk today, as we left early to explore the wonders of Cayo Costa State Park. Incredible shelling, and lots of live animals including blue crab, sand crab, mole crab, living whelks and Florida fighting conch. We also saw a turtle nest that had been raided by a group of ghost crabs. It’s a rough world out there for baby turtles.

I managed to grab some amazing sunrise photos before my walk ended.

Like a rainbow, a sunrise (or a sunset) is a beautiful example of the deep mystery of color.

Sunrises are orange because white light from the Sun is broken up by our atmosphere. Any sunbeam is actually made up of myriad photons, or pieces of light. Each piece has its own wavelength. Blue and violet photons have tiny wavelengths, while orange and red photons have longer wavelengths. The oxygen and nitrogen in the air are more likely to interact with the shorter wavelength photons, sending them bouncing off in all sorts of crazy directions (that’s why the sky is blue!) At Sunrise, the beam we see has passed through all the air over the Atlantic, so that most of the short wavelength blue and purple photons have been scattered out. What’s left are the longer photons, which we see as orange.

But there’s the real mystery. There’s nothing inherently “orange” about an orange photon. It’s just a wavelength. What makes the photon orange is that it excites one kind, but not another kind, of light-sensitive cell in our eyes. In a certain sense, the sunrise isn’t orange (the experience of orange) until you look at it.

Why, though, do we see in color at all? Why those beautiful blue skies and emerald green water I can see from the beach? Why red flowers, yellow bananas, and, well, orange oranges? Why isn’t the world, like 1939 Kansas, all in black and white?

dorothy and toto

Our ancestors were fruit eaters. Being able to spot the ripe mango or strawberry or blackberry might have given us a selective advantage. But another theory I recently ran across is that we evolved our color vision to help us read emotions.

The idea is that a potential rival (or a potential mate) will show you their feelings in their changing skin tones. A blush, a flash of anger, or a moment of fear can all show up on our faces, and our exquisite color vision seems to be especially tuned to these subtle color variations.

doroth angry

So when you enjoy your next sunrise, consider for a moment that you might be doing so because you’re so good at knowing when that cutie across the room is flirting with you!

 

Advertisements

At least one mother turtle in the waters near Sanibel has a lovely sense of aesthetics. Her nest is in one of the most beautiful spots ever seen.

20170612_061522

Nestled at the top of the beach between the sea grapes and the beach spiderlilies, this nest is the work of a master egg-layer, part of an unbroken chain of nest builders stretching to the time of the great dinosaurs.

20170612_061427

Labeled “nest 21” by the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF), the information on the cart informs the beachgoer that this is a loggerhead nest (almost every nest on Sanibel will be from a loggerhead).

20170612_061454

Baby loggerhead turtles grow under the sand for around 60 days. Under the sand, the turtles develop those traits – powerful flippers, salt excretion glands, even a compass in the nose – that will help them survive for 100 years or more – if they are very, very lucky. The sand temperature itself determines if this nest contains any future nest builders. Particularly warm sand will produce female turtles, future sculptors in sand. Cooler temps will brood male turtles, who may never touch the land again once they leave their birthing beach.

20170612_061510

When those turtles emerge as hatchlings, all 110 or so of the siblings “boil out” of the nest at the same time. This is an adaptation to overwhelm the hatchlings’ many predators, which include ghost crabs, sea birds, and predatory fish. It is estimated that only 1 in 1000 will survive to adulthood, meaning for every baby turtle buried below this very sand, there’s still a chance.

Good luck, baby turtles! I hope some of you are as brilliant as your momma!

PS Here’s the sunrise this morning. Perfection!

20170612_062504

 

The Moon is just past full, which makes the tides particularly extreme. This evening the receding tide exposed the far sand bar, creating a tide pool with crystal clear water that was shallow enough to wade across.

20170611_202442

We found a nine-armed sea star

20170611_200924

dozens of crabs, dozens more onion anemones exposed on the sandbar, and a purple sea urchin.

20170611_202842_001

Also lots of lettered olives, whelks, and scallops, both living specimens as well as empty shells. Pretty amazing, and all thanks to a nearly full Moon and the almost magical ability of gravity to move water. Can’t wait for tomorrow!

The entire Ft. Myers area was immersed in rain as we flew in on Saturday. The result was flood waters all over Sanibel. We were amazed to see catfish slithering along in parking lots and roadsides. In heavy rains, the inland waterways on Sanibel overflow their banks, and out come the catfish.

By Sunday morning the rains had ceased, and the weather was calm and beautiful. A nearly full moon tried to peek through the thick cloud cover as I began my first beach walk of the season. I didn’t have to go far to find the first turtle nest – it lies right at the end of our beach access path.

20170611_065137

Two more nests are marked nearby. I sat between them and watched the sunrise, thinking about these ancient reptiles and their journeys through the sea and up its edge to find the perfect place to build their nests.

Sanibel loggerheads have broken records the past two seasons for number of nests. Biologists speculate that the rules about shrimp trawling, first vigorously enforced 20-30 years ago, are finally showing an effect. Loggerhead turtles that would have drowned in shrimp nets are today alive in the Gulf, and are building nests in record numbers. A success story, and a lesson – sometimes success takes a long time to appear.

20170611_062956Unfortunately, many of the nests the past two seasons have not hatched. It is believed that the greater than normal sand temperatures have baked many of the baby turtles inside their eggs. Will the turtles adjust to these higher temperatures? Will the center of loggerhead nesting move away from Florida, and onto cooler beaches? Of course, if warming continues unabated, Florida itself will disappear beneath the waters of the Gulf and the Atlantic – an unhappy ending for a place as beautiful as this.

20170611_064117

Turtles weren’t the only story on Day 1. While standing in the surf, I saw a dolphin spinning about for breakfast. Marsh rabbits were busy nibbling on the water-softened plants near the beach. I even saw our first lizard of the season. Usually the lizards are thick; the wet and relatively cool weather must have kept them undercover. Maybe today they’ll appear.

20170611_072821

In 2011, Steven Pinker wrote the world-changing book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. In that book, Pinker described the myriad ways in which we humans have become kinder, gentler, smarter, and more accepting of one another. All these trends were clear via many different aspects of our society, from crime statistics to song lyrics, from how states interact to the state of mass entertainment. Pinker discusses much of this change in terms of the Flynn Effect – the puzzling (and surprising, to those who don’t work with brilliant young people every day) fact that average IQ scores are on the rise.

Prophetically, Pinker pointed out there was one area that seemed immune to the trend – in fact, seemed to be moving in the opposite direction. That was the state of national politics. Careful analysis of the words of the candidates showed that the level of discourse in debates was in steady decline.

I quote from page 797:

“In one arena, however, politicians really do seem to be swimming against the Flynn Effect: American presidential debates . . . Ironically, the decrease in sophistication in presidential debates may be the product of an increase in the sophistication of political strategists. Televised debates in the waning weeks of a campaign are aimed at a sliver of undecided voters who are among the least informed and least engaged sectors of the electorate. They are apt to make their choice based on sound bites and one-liners, so the strategists advise the candidates to aim low.”

“Aim low” is an apt description of where we find ourselves today. Yesterday I, like everyone else, read with fascination former FBI Director James Comey’s account of his conversations with our president. Whether Comey’s account shows that the president is guilty of a crime, I’ll leave to more practiced legal minds than my own. More interesting to me was the picture Comey’s descriptions painted of our 45th president.

What I gleaned from Comey’s account was a portrait of a man (Trump, not Comey) obsessed with himself and his own inner circle. Unconcerned with whether or not a foreign power had gained a foothold in the American election process, President Trump’s interest focused on the denial of a personal relationship with “hookers and Russia.” Unconcerned with whether or not his former National Security Advisor had been compromised by those same Russians, President Trump’s interest centered on letting Flynn go because “he is a good guy.” Unconcerned with whether or not his FBI Director would faithfully execute his sworn duties, President Trump told Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

If this was just a slam piece from a disgruntled former employee, we might dismiss the indictment of President Trump’s character, but it is far from isolated. A Washington Post article in July (quoted here)

reported Trump as saying that he does not read extensively because he is able to come to correct decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

A report on the website Politico indicates the lack of depth in Trump’s decision-making process:

White House aides have figured out that it’s best not to present Trump with too many competing options when it comes to matters of policy or strategy. Instead, the way to win Trump over, they say, is to present him a single preferred course of action and then walk him through what the outcome could be – and especially how it will play in the press.

And then, of course, there’s Trump’s famous line after the Nevada primary, “I love the poorly educated.”

Pinker warned us in 2011 that our presidential politics (unlike, thankfully, most aspects of our lives) were in a race to the bottom. Our only hope is that we’ve found that bottom in Donald J. Trump.

OK, that’s all depressing. Now read this, an interview with Pinker in December in which he gives us reason to hope. I was especially moved by his statement that “(a) modern liberal democracy is a precious achievement.” Indeed. Too bad Pinker is Canadian; he might make a good anti-anti-intellectual candidate.

Later this summer, Actors Summer Theatre is performing The Tempest, and so I re-read it in preparation. I also watched the Julie Taymor/Helen Mirren 2010 movie of the play, as well as Christopher Plummer’s version performed at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival also in 2010. Mirren/Taymor is beautiful and compelling, but I was so emotionally moved by Christopher Plummer’s movie/play that I found myself in tears and applauding along with the audience at its end.

The Tempest’s big problem I wrote about before is still there – how are we to understand Prospero’s relationship with Caliban? But what I want to write about this time is Prospero’s emotional surrender of his power – his magic – at the end of the play. I agree with so many readers that Shakespeare was creating in Prospero’s magic a metaphor for his own magic, his ability to create plays.

None of us are Shakespeare, but we all are, in some sense, magicians, creators in our own lives. My magic, my creation, is teaching. I love to craft a lesson, to practice it, to consider how to use my tools – group discovery, inductive reasoning, storytelling, physical demonstration, discrepant events – to build the edifice of the lesson, to weave the pieces together into a coherent whole. Four years ago, when I left my position at COSI, I lost that outlet for my art, and I realize now that this was a kind of ending for me. Now that I have awoken from that sleep, now that I am teaching again, I realize how important my art is to me.

In Act I, Scene II, Prospero calls his magic cloak “my art.” After creating a magical show for Miranda and her new fiance Ferdinand, Prospero compares his creation to actors on a stage. Later, just before he abandons his magic, he calls it his “so potent art.” And yet he gives up his art, his magic, at the play’s end. Why?

Prospero thinks a great deal about death. He says that when he returns to Naples, “every third thought shall be my grave.” And of course his most famous speech, which I referenced above, “We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.” Shakespeare died soon after writing The Tempest, but I don’t think he was foreshadowing his own death here. Instead, I think surrendering his magic, his art, for Shakespeare seemed like a kind of rest, a “sleep.” The death was not of Shakespeare, but of his drive to create.

For my own part, I know now that I want no such rest. I’m late to the classroom, and don’t have that many years to spend there. But I will never stop teaching. Even now, in writing these blogs, I’m trying, hoping, to teach, maybe to awaken in someone out there a love of Shakespeare, or a love of science, or even a love of teaching. When my classroom days are over, I’ll still be teaching, somehow, somewhere. Teaching isnot what I do; it’s who I am.

I hope Prospero finds happiness – freedom, as he says in the final words of the play – in his retirement in Milan. But Shakespeare, I suspect, could not escape his muse – neither master nor slave, but finally, like a sea turtle’s shell, like the shore of the sea, like (let’s say it) his own soul, a part of himself.

 

TEMPEST - PLUMMER

And now for something much happier. This is the golden age of exploration. Once, we humans could explore the universe through only one channel – light we could see with our eyes. Telescopes bent that light and let us see more, but it was still only one kind of light. Then Karl Jansky discovered, quite by accident, that we could detect another kind of light – radio waves – from the stars. We could now study the universe in a new way – and the discoveries came fast and amazing: quasars, pulsars, and radio galaxies were all identified, described, and, at least partially, understood.

Next other kinds of light – X-rays, infrared rays, ultraviolet, and gamma rays – were collected and studied by astronomers. Each one revealed new secrets. Microwaves, those bits of light so good at popping corn and warming chocolate – revealed the origin of the universe itself. X-rays showed us black holes in death struggles with other stars and ticking away in the centers of galaxies. Gamma rays revealed the most energetic events in the universe – and we still don’t know what those events are.

Here are some of the ways we use the electromagnetic spectrum to study the universe.

But all of these tools are still light, still electromagnetic waves created by jiggling electric charge. Electromagnetism is only one of the four fundamental forces in the universe (OK, five now that we know of the Higgs field). What of the others?

My favorite particle, the neutrino, is revealing the universe in another way, through the weak nuclear force. Neutrinos fill the universe – they’re incredibly easy to make and practically impossible to destroy. But their indestructibility makes them also almost impossible to detect. Almost. Neutrino telescopes all over the world – in Japan, in Canada, even in the South Pole – are revealing otherwise hidden truths of the universe.

Here’s a description of neutrino astronomy by the scientists at IceCube.

But the most exciting development in non-light astronomy was in the news again today. Scientists at LIGO (the laser interferometer gravitational observatory) announced they’ve detected a third gravitational wave event. Gravitational waves are produced whenever bodies with mass interact – in other words, all the time. But gravity is so weak (think about it, you can overcome the gravity of the entire Earth, if only for a moment, just by jumping; a small magnet can pull harder on a paperclip than the entire planet) that in order to detect these gravitational waves, we need big events.

The first indirect detection of gravitational waves happened at the Arecibo Radio Observatory in Puerto Rico. Imagine two neutron stars, revolving about one another. As they move, they create gravitational waves, carrying away some of their energy. This causes them to draw closer together, and as they do, their radio signals change. It’s much like a coin in a vortex – the kind you’ll see in museums as fund raisers. The coin starts at the top of the vortex, rolling around the edge. The sound you hear as it rolls indicates that it’s losing some energy, and sure enough, that lost energy causes the coin to drop deeper and deeper into the vortex, finally falling into the hole in the center.

In the same way, two neutron stars sending out gravitational waves have to lose energy. And observations showed the energy lost match theory (Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, in this case) precisely.

But that observation, using radio waves, was indirect evidence of gravitational waves. Now we have direct proof that these waves exist, courtesy of LIGO.

LIGO (two identical facilities in Louisiana and Washington) is shaped like a baseball diamond. Down each baseline (first and third) lasers travel precisely the same distance, bounce of mirrors, and return home. When the beams are recombined, they interfere. But if a gravitational wave passes through either baseline, the precisely-measured distance changes; the changing interference pattern is recorded, and wonders are revealed.

What has LIGO seen? Black holes, crashing together. But the surprise is that these black holes are not relatively small, like Cygnus X-1, revealed by x-ray astronomy, maybe a few times the size of the Sun. Nor are they enormous, like the million solar mass black holes we’ve found at the centers of galaxies. Instead, these black holes are of intermediate size, some tens of solar masses. Where did they come from? How did they form? How common are they in the universe? These are all questions that LIGO and other observatories can help us discover.

One last moment of wonder: the latest discovery was of two black holes of mass 19.4 solar masses and 31.2 solar masses. They merged to form a black hole of 48.7 solar masses.

Go ahead and do the math. I’ll wait.

Yes, there are 1.9 solar masses missing! Where did they go? Into gravitational waves! Just like the sound of the rolling coin signaled the loss of energy, the “sound” of the gravitational waves detected by LIGO indicates that almost two Suns worth of matter simply vanished, turned into gravitational wave energy in this astounding collision. Almost two Suns! And we got to detect it!

So, the next time you get down about politics or the state of the world, remember that this is the Golden Age of Discovery. We, right now, today, are learning things that our ancestors never could. We are exploring the universe with technologies they never even dreamed of. And we are finding wonders!

black hole merger

Artist’s impression of two black holes merging (Aurore Simonnet / LIGO)

 

“What if you’re wrong?”

That was the question a young lady asked Richard Dawkins when he spoke at Liberty University over a decade ago. The question, asked many times in many different ways, implies that belief in one world view carries with it great danger, while another is more or less safe.

Dawkins answered with his famous, “What if you’re wrong about the great JuJu at the bottom of the ocean?” quote. That makes a fun sound byte, but I think the question deserves a more serious answer. World views matter. And in reality, no world view is safe. Safety is an illusion.

Somewhere in space, at this very moment, is an enormous asteroid that is destined to strike the Earth. We don’t know where it is; we don’t know when it will hit. But such a strike is inevitable in the course of time. When it hits, that asteroid will cause death and destruction to dwarf 9/11, to dwarf the 2004 tsunami, to dwarf even World War II. That is, if some other catastrophe, such as a supervolcano, a global pandemic, or a coronal mass ejection from the Sun hasn’t wiped us out first.

These threats are real; giggling them off or relegating them to the world of speculative fiction won’t make them go away. If you, like I, believe that humanity is both worth saving and also responsible for its own salvation, then you must recognize an awesome and sobering fact: the only thing standing between us and extinction is the growth of human knowledge.

If your world view does not permit such a reality, if you believe market forces or some unseen deity or the law of averages will protect us, I ask you, what if you’re wrong?

Why do I bring up such gloomy thoughts on a beautiful spring day? Because today a man with no training in science, no apparent respect for the depth of human knowledge, and no articulated vision for our shared future decided to pull the United States from the most comprehensive international cooperative pact in history. The Paris Climate Accord will not protect our planet from the catastrophes I’ve described. And yet climate change, while not a threat to the planet itself, is a threat to our global economy and our building international community. By ignoring it, we doom millions, maybe billions, to futures as environmental refugees.

But more than that, the United States’ departure from the Paris accord signals that we are no longer serious about dealing with global problems on the global stage. “America First” didn’t work after World War I, and it doesn’t work now. The world is getting smaller, and ignoring worldwide problems only makes them worse. The Paris accord should have been the first tentative step toward a global problem-solving body that could have, eventually, tackled issues like ocean acidification, fishery collapse, continent-wide drought, pandemic disease, and even in time the mitigation of natural disasters from the Earth and from space. Maybe the accord still will be that first step – but for now the United States has selfishly and short-sightedly decided to take our resources and go home.

How did we get here? How did the world’s great beacon of knowledge turn itself into a global naysayer? When one looks at who voted for the monstrosity currently in the White House, you see it was predominantly older voters – voters my age. We were supposed to be the grown-ups. Our great teachers – Carl Sagan, Joseph Campbell, Maya Angelou, Steven Pinker, and yes, Barack Obama, showed us that we all are one, a young and promising species on an ancient bit of rock, striving to understand ourselves and our world. Instead of taking on this invitation to know, to grow, to survive, we’ve turned our backs on the future – on our planet, on our selves, on the generations to come who needed us to be wiser than we are.

Yet I am an optimist. I believe the human future to be unlimited. I believe we can – if we choose to – survive this time, survive all times, stretch out our arms and reach the stars, the galaxies, and all that might lie beyond. There is nothing stopping us but our own lack of knowledge. If we choose to, we can obtain that knowledge, we can learn to solve our problems, we can avoid the many disasters that might strike – including those that we’ve not yet even imagined. But it will not happen by accident. We need to decide on this future, we need to make it happen. Hiding behind slogans, ignoring the knowledge we’ve already gained, pretending it’s all a game with winners and losers tallied by electoral counts, will not get us there.

So if you say we don’t need these international treaties, we don’t need to work with the rest of the world, we only need America First, I ask you, what if you’re wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C. Clarke

“What does God need with a starship?” – James T. Kirk

“I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you. The universe is not so badly designed.” – Jean Luc Picard (speaking to the omnipotent alien Q)

I’d intended to write about Othello and Paradise Lost together, but after the stunning character of Iago, quite frankly Satan was a disappointment. I read the two works together based on Harold Bloom’s claim that Milton borrowed much from Shakespeare’s Iago in creating his own anti-hero. While I see some general resemblance, in all honesty Satan stands out only because every other character in the poem (God, Christ, Eve, Adam, the various angels) is so ponderous.

Perhaps Milton would have done better if he’d had better material with which to work.

Harold Bloom and others have called Paradise Lost an early work of science fiction. True or not, let’s examine it from just such a standpoint. I started this post with three quotes which I think will help frame the discussion about the subject matter of Paradise Lost.

First, let’s do away with the notion of the supernatural. Why? Because I don’t understand it. I don’t know the rules; I don’t know how to make moral judgments about things which don’t obey the laws of our universe. As Clarke points out, though, if the technology is advanced enough, it looks just like magic.

So let’s consider God, Christ, Satan, and all the other angels (fallen or not) as incredibly advanced aliens living in the universe. These aliens are not quite immortal, but might as well be, as their technology gives them the power to heal, regenerate, even back up their own personalities and reboot in case of trauma. God isn’t quite omniscient, but has a huge supply of information with which to predict future events. Worlds are created, not through magic, but through the application of enormously powerful technology, including the ability to create artificial intelligences (angels and, finally, humans)

Given this framework the story of Paradise Lost becomes this: A powerful leader named God rules over other powerful entities – the angels. Satan/Lucifer is one of these entities. One day God decides he needs a right-hand man, so raises up another entity, Christ, to rule at his side. Lucifer is disappointed that Christ has been given this promotion and not him, so he gathers his followers and rebels against God.

Unfortunately for Lucifer, Christ proves to be far more powerful than he, and Lucifer (now Satan) and his minions are cast out of heaven. Satan rallies his troops and convinces them that all is not lost.

Around this same time, God creates a new world containing two adorable little morons known as Adam and Eve, living in a paradise known as Eden. Feeling the sting of the angels’ rebellion, God needs something new to occupy himself with. He wants Adam and Eve to adore and worship him, but he knows that such adoration would be meaningless without an alternative. So he proposes a little test. Into Eden God places a tree, which he cleverly names the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He puts only one proscription on Adam and Eve. They may not eat the fruit of that tree, or else they will die.

This is where things start to get weird (!). God, with his enormous information supply, deduces that of course Adam and Eve will fail his test. He seems rather melancholy about this, so Christ steps in and offers himself as a sacrifice to atone for Adam and Eve’s misbehavior.

This of course makes no sense at all, but more on the morality of it later.

Poor Satan, lacking apparently God’s near-omniscient knowledge, tempts Eve quite easily and causes her to do the one thing forbidden her. God, feigning anger (since, of course, he knew this was coming), reveals that when he said Adam and Eve would die from eating the fruit, what he actually meant was he would kill them by removing them from Eden and preventing them from eating of the Tree of Life – apparently the only thing protecting the two fragile humans from the cold, cold world.

When seen as a science fiction story, there’s so much wrong with this. First, why did God not create Adam and Eve with knowledge of Good and Evil? It can’t be because such knowledge would make them imperfect; apparently God himself, and Christ, too, possess such knowledge. If Adam and Eve had possessed such knowledge, maybe they could have resisted Satan’s tricks. Second, why, once Adam and Eve had obtained such knowledge, did God withdraw the Tree of Life? Third, what’s this crazy Christ story? Why would Christ’s death somehow nullify Adam and Eve’s misbehavior? It makes no sense, but hearkens back to the idea of scapegoating, literally blaming a goat or some other animal for your troubles and killing it. Again, what’s the mechanism? It makes no sense.

And what does it mean for Christ to die and then come back to life? Didn’t we establish that these entities are essentially immortal? If he’s got a regeneration card in his deck, then what did the death even mean?

But the biggest problem isn’t with the plot. The gaping chasm in the whole story is the morality of it. So God created Adam and Eve. Big deal. That doesn’t give God the right to rule them, any more than parents have the right to rule their children (and make no mistake, created artificial intelligences, which is what we have to consider Adam and Eve in the story, are exactly like created children). A parent who wants forever to shield his children from knowedge of the world, knowledge that the parent apparently already possesses, is abusive. In this view, Satan did us a favor by helping us to break free of this eternal prison.

Of course the story (both the original in Genesis and Milton’s poem) is metaphor. Let’s instead look at what really happened in the history of humanity. Slowly evolving from forest apes, our early ancestors experienced a life of constant fear, pain, and death. Natural selection had equipped us only poorly for a harsh environment, giving us few natural assets. But we did have a brain.

Using our brains, we slowly gathered information, and learned to pass it on to our children. Soon humans were living outside of our genes; unlike animals that could survive only in those environments for which they’d been adapted, humans could take their environment with them. We learned to make clothes to keep us warm. We learned to build tools to act as the sharp teeth and claws our bodies lacked. We learned to tame fire. Far from causing our fall, knowledge of the world is the only thing that saved us.

Many cultures have believed in a fall from grace and have longed to return us to that nearly-forgotten golden age. In fact, there was no Eden, there was no perfect, trouble-free time. We are our only hope, and it is only through gathering knowledge, via every tree we can find, that we have any hope of surviving.

Now that would be a poem worth reading.

Why would John Milton, a supposedly devout Christian writing at a time that to be otherwise risked not just outrage but in fact the bonfire, make of Satan such a spirited and, in fact, sympathetic character? C.S. Lewis had this answer in his own preface to the poem:

To make a character worse than oneself it is only necessary to release imaginatively from control some of the bad passions which, in real life, are always straining at the leash; the Satan, the Iago, the Becky Sharp, within each of us, is always there and only too ready, the moment the leash is slipped, to come out and have in our books that holiday we try to deny them in our lives.

which only convinces me that Lewis was not a careful reader of Shakespeare.

Following the lead of Harold Bloom in his book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human I decided to read Othello along with Paradise Lost to appreciate just how much Milton’s Satan owed to Shakespeare’s Iago.

It’s not even close.

Iago is far more articulate, cunning, intelligent – far more evil, in fact, than Satan. In addition, Iago faces a more formidable foe in Othello than Satan faces in the vanilla pudding Eve. Eve’s single substantive contribution to the poem is to commit the slasher movie blunder – after hearing of a demon on the loose in the garden, she convinces the equally milquetoast Adam that they should split up for the day. Good move, Eve!

I’ll have more to say about Satan and Paradise Lost in another entry, but here I want to focus on the exquisitely painful play by Shakespeare.

Othello is Iago’s play, and the character of Iago gives lie to the Lewis quote I began with. To imagine that Iago is simply any one of us with our conscience cut away is to fundamentally misunderstand Iago’s evil genius. In the way Iago twists Othello’s mind, at first gently urging Othello away from jealousy, next exploiting Othello’s own feelings of other-ness, and finally preying upon Othello’s confused notion of proof, (and this synopsis – in fact any synopsis – is a wholly inadequate recounting of Iago’s genius). Iago displays an understanding of human nature that is astonishing in its revelation.

I’m interested in the question, “would I (or anyone else but Othello) have been trapped by Iago as Othello was?” Then I realize it’s the wrong question. Iago’s genius lay not in his particular actions, but in the way he reads his victims, first the ridiculous Roderigo, then the hapless Cassio, and on to the proud Moor. Even Desdemona herself Iago understands will champion Cassio to Othello in just the right way to heat Othello’s growing suspicions. If the characters had been different, so would have Iago. What poison, I wonder, might Iago have poured into my ear?

Lawrence Fishburne as Othello and Kenneth Branaugh as Iago

Laurence Fishburne as Othello and Kenneth Branagh as Iago

The only characters Iago doesn’t understand are his own wife Emilia and, ultimately, himself. It is his failure to appreciate Emilia’s sense of justice and loyalty that leads to Iago’s final undoing, but more interesting, I think, is Iago’s failure to understand his own motivation for evil. Iago’s utter clarity of understanding regarding others’ consciousness combined with this self-blindness are perhaps the most interesting parts of his character.

Was Shakespeare merely letting himself be evil through Iago? No. Iago is not Hamlet. His lack of self-knowledge, combined with his utter clarity regarding the minds of others, make Iago something frighteningly unique. C.S. Lewis is wrong.

Before leaving this play, I want to mention its relation not to Paradise Lost, but to the book I finished just prior to opening Othello, Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles. There are striking similarities regarding the attitudes toward women that the two works explore. Tess, as I wrote earlier, was condemned by an immoral society. Desdemona, too, was judged and found guilty of that which only an immoral society could find criminal. But while Hardy shone quite a negative light on Tess’s tormentor husband Angel, Shakespeare shows Othello as villainous only because he is wrong.

What if Desdemona had been guilty of adultery? Shakespeare’s audience would, presumably, not in that case have seen so much tragedy in her murder. What about us? Would we be prepared. if not to exonerate Desdemona entirely, at least to spare her life?

Even Othello admits that adultery, if not discovered, is essentially a victimless crime:

What sense had I of her stol’n hours of lust?
I saw’t not, thought it not, it harm’d not me:
I slept the next night well, was free and merry;
I found not Cassio’s kisses on her lips:
He that is robb’d, not wanting what is stol’n,
Let him not know’t, and he’s not robb’d at all.

In our modern enlightened world, while adultery may hurt you in divorce proceedings, it won’t land you jail time, much less execution. And yet it’s Desdemona’s very innocence of the deed that makes her death such a tragedy. Isn’t it? Would we be nearly so horrified had Othello killed a guilty wife?

Irene Jacob's Desdemona with Iago

Irene Jacob’s Desdemona with Iago

Here I think we run into the very thing that makes Shakespeare both dated and timely. We find antiquated ideas in Shakespeare all the time, such as the gender-based double standards in Measure for Measure and the fear of “the other” in The Merchant of Venice. Yet somehow Shakespeare remains relevant, because we recognize his characters as human, very much like us.

We can’t escape human nature. Yet to act on the impulses of our nature – impulses for sex, for power, for revenge – results in chaos, as we see again and again in Shakespeare’s best works.

It remains true today. Our rules have changed, but the fundamental question remains. How do we reconcile a society of individuals with a biology and a psychology that pushes us to sometimes view fellow humans as means to an end? We still don’t have an answer. I suspect we never will. And that’s why Shakespeare still matters.

My first book, called The Turtle and the Universe, was published by Prometheus Books in July 2008. You can read about it by clicking on the link above.
My second book, Atoms and Eve, is available as an e-book at Barnes and Noble. Click the link above. You can download the free nook e-reader by clicking the link below.
October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
A blog by Stephen Whitt

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 88 other followers