Showing posts with label rats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rats. Show all posts

Friday, August 01, 2008

Rats, Lice, and History



Our book today is Hans Zinsser's Rats, Lice and History, and it completes the little popular-science triptych we've been indulging in here at Stevereads (an arbitrary stopping-point, since we could, otherwise, cover really, really entertaining popular science books literally every day for the next year without running out of wonderful titles). Zinsser, a native New Yorker who spend his life as an increasingly-famous bacteriologist, wrote this, the best-known of his books, in 1935, which makes it a good deal older than our other two titles, but it's the best of the three, a deep and intensely satisfying study with numerous digressions.

Zinsser sets his task right from the start: to write a biography. But he himself faithfully catalogues his obstacles:

There will be no prenatal influences; no Oedipus or mother complexes; no early love affairs or later infidelities; no perversions, urges, or maladjustments ... We shall have no gossip to help us, no personal letters which there was no time to burn. We cannot count upon the reclame of a libel suit barely averted, or of scandals deftly hinted at. We have not even the comfort of preceding biographers and essayists whom we can copy, paraphrase, or refute. Indeed, we are quite stripped of the sauces, spices, and dressings by which biographers can usually make poets and scientists into quite ordinary and often objectionable people; by which they can divert attention from the work of a man to his petty or perhaps vicious habits; by which they can create a hero out of a successful commercial highbinder; by which they can smother public guilt by domestic virtue, or direct interest from the best and lasting accomplishments of their subject to the utterly unimportant private matters of which he was ashamed.

The habitue of biographies will ask himself how, without these indispensable accessories of the biographical tradesman, we can dare to enter this field. The answer is a simple one: the subject of our biography is a disease.

That disease is typhus, whose global path of destruction Zinsser recounts from earliest times (and all of whose vectors - through lice, through the fleas of infected mice and rats, and through infected nightcrawlers - are covered by his narrative reach) to the present, when the West made huge strides against the disease (many of those strides were made by Zinsser himself, or colleagues he inspired and helped). Typhus is a hugely successful family of bacteria, hardy and opportunistic, most widespread in conditions of abysmal sanitation - conditions that, in a world full of the squalor and waste of human cruelty, are not hard to find. The disease has been rampant in times of war, famine, and concentration camps since the dawn of mankind. It's easily treatable with antibiotics, but the most formidable foe it ever faced was likely Hans Zinsser.




He wears it all lightly, as you could tell from the above excerpt (as is also abundantly evident from that excerpt, with Zinsser's book we are dealing with a level of prose many orders of magnitude more advanced than either Stephen Jay Gould or Carl Sagan - as either one of them would have been quick to concede). Rats, Lice and History is immensely learned and informative, but it is also very funny, very clever, and often very playful. These things are not antithetical to the well-stocked mind, nor are they detrimental to a high purpose. Zinsser has fun throughout his book, and he tries his best to share that fun with his readers (and he's had readers! This book has been through countless editions).

In writing his biography, and especially in dealing with something at once as complex and as simple as bacteria (they are hard to understand, although not nearly so hard as viruses), Zinsser tries to start with the broadest possible canvas: what is life itself? How do we define it? And where did it come from:

Did life originate spontaneously by such progressively complex associations of matter through enzymes - unformed, regulated intermediaries, capable of building up and expending energy? Or did it come to our earth from elsewhere - cosmically, - in which case it would have had to possess the capacity of resisting, without destruction, exposure to temperatures ranging from absolute zero to incandescence. We cannot deny these possibilities, but we have no clue to either. We are beginning to know that all the processes which take place in living beings are governed - though with more complexity - by the same physiochemical laws which govern the reactions in dead chemical systems. Yet this purely mechanistic understanding is insufficient for the final answer, and vitalism is reborn again and again to bridge the gap.

(Zinsser's speculation, though gripping, is in this case fanciful: no living organism could possibly survive the trauma of planetary entry - all Earth life is certainly Earth-originated, although the rest of his ruminations on the flickering boundaries between life and non-life are spot-on)

A hardy disease that thrives on squalor - it's easy to see why typhus in all its various forms would have such a successful life among mankind. That it thrived even in comparatively modern times is well-known and deplorable; Zinsser extensively catalogs its domination of more ancient eras as well:

In earlier ages, pestilences were mysterious visitations, expressions of the wrath of higher powers which came out of a dark nowhere, pitiless, dreadful, and inescapable. In their terror and ignorance, men did the very things which increased death rates and aggravated calamity. They fled from towns and villages, but death mysteriously traveled along with them.

Centuries later, things have scarcely improved:

The Thirty Years' War was the most gigantic experiment in epidemiology to which mankind has ever been subjected. Europe, as we have seen, was a spot map of constant small outbreaks of every conceivable infectious disease; and through this area, for a little over twenty-nine years, armies marched and countermarched, and disbanded soldiers, fugitives, and deserters vagabonded far and wide. Famines resulted and populations wandered in fugitive hordes toward food and protection. Wherever men traveled, disease followed them.

In a withering footnote, one of many swipes Zinsser takes at the carnage of the First World War, he writes:

Nature sets up her experiments of epidemiology in times of war and famine, and when, as in the wars of the late nineteenth and twentieth century, these dreadful experiments can be observed by a competent medical profession, much of value to mankind may be learned. It can well be said that nobody won the last war except the medical sciences. The profit was not worth the loss, but the increase in sanitary and medical knowledge was the sole determinable gain for mankind in an otherwise utterly disastrous catastrophe.

It's precisely this tone, this perfect balance between the frustration of a scientist and the optimism of a humanist, that gives Rats, Lice and History its perennial appeal, and it's a tone Zinsser maintains all the way to the book's conclusion, which is caustic, cautionary, and celebratory all at the same time:

Typhus is not dead. It will live on for centuries, it it will continue to break into the open whenever human stupidity and brutality give it a chance, as most likely they occasionally will. But its freedom of action is being restricted, and more and more it will be confined, like other savage creatures, in the zoological gardens of controlled diseases.

The happy day Zinsser envisioned, when all strains of typhus would be safely confined in laboratories, is as far off today as it was when he first wrote his book; the diseases abound in the modern world, and several modern countries (most certainly including the United States) have toyed with the possibility of developing 'weapons-grade' typhus for use as a biological weapon (it has a satisfyingly high mortality rate if untreated, but it can't readily be spread human-to-human). Sadly, the stupidity and brutality of humanity noted by Zinsser, also seem incapable of eradication. We can only hope a bell-note wonderful book like Rats, Lice and History survives as well, infecting everybody it touches.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

In the Penny Press! Rats and rapture and HSM!

Hysterical tweens, crackpot rants, and pearls of wisdom from ... Nick Lachey? Why, it must be another wacky fun-filled installment of In the Penny Press!

We begin today's journey with a trip down memory lane, prompted by the latest issue of The Weekly Standard. In it, Peter Savodnik writes about the famous concert Vladimir Horowitz gave in Moscow in 1986, 61 years after he left his homeland. Savodnik astutely comments that Horowitz's concert was overshadowed by nuclear disaster at Chernobyl that happened a week later, but he's also right about the seismic shockwaves this concert sent through the Soviet Union (even though most people in Russia itself had to hear the concert over foreign airwaves, since it wasn't broadcast in Russia).

I'm sure by this point it will not surprise you to learn that yours truly was at that concert. I was in Moscow visiting my old friend Tatiana, and I confess, I was lingering, since we were both wondering if the concert would actually come off. Something like 90 percent of the tickets went to government officials, and to put it mildly, Tatiana was a government official under Gorbachev - so much so that she was able to get me a ticket too. She knew that I was an enormous Horowitz fan - in my opinion, he was the greatest pianist of the 20th century, and I'd seen him perform many times in New York (I took Tatiana to one such concert, and we were sitting there with two imbecile friends of mine - whose loft we were borrowing - when the house manager stepped outside the curtain and announced that there'd been a change in the night's plans. Our hearts sunk, thinking Horowitz had pulled one of his legendary disappearing acts. So imagine our joy when it was announced that after intermission, instead of the rather insipid Mozart piece on the program, Horowitz would be playing the mighty, the magnificent Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto! The crowd applauded heartily, and the performance itself! Oh! It was rapturous. The Tchaikovsky ends with a violently fast ripple on the keys, a thing that's virtually inhuman to pull off and that lasts only a few seconds ... and Horowitz not only did it, he did it with such flair and ease that it was chilling as well as beautiful.

Anyway! Tatiana got me a ticket, and we sat together in a house that was so packed it was comical ... not only were people sitting along every inch of the aisles, but complete strangers were sitting in each other's LAPS in the aisles. And the concert was delightful, and the explosions of applause after every piece were deafening. And I left Russia by train the next day, so I missed out on all the radiation.

A very different subject (or maybe not ... ulp ...) was raised in the latest issue of the New Republic, where Michael Crowley writes about BOREDOM. Naturally this caught my eye, since boredom is the great enemy of my life, stalking me, always at my elbow. I can honestly say I've constructed virtually all of my life around the single-minded goal to avoid boredom, I hate it so much. I never leave the house without a book. I virtually never leave without a book, a magazine, and some blank paper. I never stand blankly in line, and I've received more than a few unkind glares for writing during concerts (alas, not everybody can be Horowitz) or plays. But I've found that the huge majority of life's experiences are like an average episode of 'Lost' - lots of padding and only a few bits to which you actually need to pay attention. Of course, the vapidity of culture isn't anything new, and I'm not saying those few bits aren't WORTH the attention .... but life's unadulterated PURE experiences aren't thick on the ground.

Take Sebastian's play, this coming weekend. It's been his consuming passion for three weeks now, and it'll owe whatever juice it has to his sweat and effort. But it's community theater. THREE HOURS of community theater. So with all due respect to Sebastian and his young cast, I'll certainly be writing during the performance. This probably horrifies you, but try to see it from my perspective! I'll certainly be paying enough attention to spot when I should pay more, but if I sit there and give this thing three hours of my undivided attention, the simple truth is I'm going to come out HATING it and considering the entire evening a waste of time.

It's the same with my evenings here in this room. After 9, I have a) a VHS tape in the player, b) a DVD in the player, c) music playing from my computer, d) the night's writing spread out on my lap, and e) my cellphone fully charged and plugged into my ear. This isn't from fecklessness - I have pretty healthy powers of concentration - it's a) to maximize what I get done from 9 to midnight (I SO wish I could play a tape and a DVD simultaneously, on a split screen, say), and b) to make absolutely, 100 percent sure no BOREDOM creeps in. Boredom drives me crazy, and it makes me do bad, bad things.

Anyway, this Crowley character makes the same mistake so many people do: he conflates being bored with being IDLE:

Of course, you don't need to be in jail to discover the joys of boredom. Lately, I've come to look forward to long rides on the train from Washington to New York - where there's no WiFi and not a television in sight. Turning off the BlackBerry and just looking out the window feels like an act of spiritual emancipation.

Obviously (or maybe not so, since he doesn't seem to see it himself, the boob), Crowley is not bored during those train rides, he's comfortably idle. I obviously have nothing against idling ... how could I, when I learned it from a species that so excels at it (although even I am forced to give first prize in this to cats ... grumblegrumble...)? I guess it's just the writer's sloppy thinking that bugs me ...

Then we hop over to The Spectator just briefly, where James Fleming reviews four new books on animals and gives highest praise to Rat by Jonathan Burt (by curious coincidence, I got a copy of this in the mail on Friday and consumed it this weekend, so I can attest that Fleming's praise is not misplaced). Here's a fascinating bit:

It is arresting to read Burt on the pathology of the Black Death. The disease spread at a rate of five miles a day. But rats (which alone carry the plague flea), are not wanderers: 250 meters and they've had enough. So was it an airborne infection? Was it in fact anthrax, which also produces buboes on its victims?

I'd never before considered that speed-of-infestation argument against the Black Death being bubonic plague, but I wonder if it really holds up to scrutiny. True, the plague spread faster than ONE rat typically likes to move, but what's to stop the FLEAS from travelling that fast via MANY rats? But in any case, Burt is wrong about his choice of alternative: I've seen what anthrax looks like on its victims, and I've seen what bubonic plague looks like, and the two don't look the same. We have many very detailed descriptions of the Black Death - it certainly wasn't anthrax as anthrax currently presents itself. I suppose it's possible that it was an ancestor of the current disease....

And speaking of 'the current disease' - we move over to the latest issue of Rolling Stone, which, against all odds, had quite a bit of fascinating stuff! The cover article of course asks the question of whether or not George W. Bush is, in fact, the worst president the country's ever had. The article is written by Sean Wilentz, the author of the much-lauded The Rise of American Democracy, and he does a fair and balanced job of sorting through past Presidential failures. He seems to have a special axe to grind against Andrew Johnson (for dropping the ball on Reconstruction), Warren Harding (for a spectacularly corrupt administration), and Herbert Hoover (for dropping the ball on the Great Depression).

His case comes down pretty squarely against President Bush, although he doesn't come right out and call him the worst president in history. Wilentz goes through the usual list - the exploding federal deficit, the radical splitting of the country, the quagmire in Iraq, the war on science and the environment, etc.

So what does Steve think, you breathlessly ask?

Well, my first reaction to pieces like this is always to hold my breath hoping none of my favorites gets spanked. In addition to Taft, there's John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and, lately, Gerald Ford (and of course my all-time favorite president, Josiah Bartlett from 'The West Wing'! His favorite movie is 'The Lion in Winter'! But Aaaargh! Remind me to tell you how that fact is BUNGLED when it's mentioned on the show!) ... and none of them gets even so much as a mention.

My second reaction was to test Wilentz' choices for the OTHER worst presidents. With Johnson I agree completely - he was a racist and a scoundrel. But honestly, what could Hoover have done about the Depression? He oversaw interest-free government loans to businesses, he started public works projects that were unprecedented in American history, and his much-maligned catch phrase, 'prosperity is just around the corner,' was intended to give HOPE to the country (also, Wilentz seems to forget the Great Depression was a world-wide phenomenon, created and sustained by a bewilderingly complicated interplay of factors). ANYBODY in the Oval Office at the time would have been stymied.

And then there's Wilentz' other object lesson, James Buchanan, whom he condemns for allowing the American Civil War to explode into being. But again, I don't see this - Buchanan insisted that the federal government didn't have the power to STOP states from succeeding from the Union. And he was right. He was right, no matter how much I hate the states who tried it, no matter how much I detest the rank disloyalty of it. The Union was VOLUNTARY. We entered into it together, eyes wide open, in rebellion AGAINST a greater commonwealth that forbade our leaving. No matter how unpopular it is to say it today (and no matter how much I personally appreciate the outcome), Lincoln had no constitutional right to go to war with the Confederacy. Buchanan wasn't wrong for saying it, altough maybe the right and wrong of it don't enter in as much as I think they should.

Ultimately, I think the worst offense President Bush has committed is also the one whose very existence might end up making questions like this moot. Worse than the deficit, worse than open-ended foreign wars, he's made HUGE headway into transforming the office of the president into ... well, into something it wasn't meant to be. Into the very thing it was meant NOT to be. Criticizing the president is now a crime punishable by summary arrest and indefinite imprisonment without lawyer or trial. Whenever I point that out to people, they scoff and say 'come on! be realistic! that's not gonna happen' ... but my point is, there's nothing PREVENTING it from happening but that very attitude. By that amorphous, hazy attitude that goes something like 'that wouldn't ever happen' or 'WE know who those laws are meant for' ... responses like that.

I always want to GRAB these people (but I won't ... lawsuits, lawsuits...) and say, "Hey! You've let a wolf inside your house! What kind of impact is it going to have on him if you go around saying 'oh, he's not going to eat the baby! That's not going to happen HERE!'? How long do you think that's going to restrain him once he gets hungry?' The Patriot Acts are law - how can ANYBODY be comfortable RELYING on Dick Cheney's kindness?

I guess what I'm trying to say, in response to this article, is that I think it's entirely likely that George W. Bush is the first of a new KIND of president, and so not comparable to those who've gone before. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but if there's one thing I've learned from human history, it's this: power, once created, STAYS until it's DESTROYED. It never, never just meekly goes back to NOT being power. A presidency accountable to the people and answerable to their elected representatives in Congress ... you tell me: doesn't that ALREADY sound a little quaint, like something from a bygone era we probably won't see again?

Well, at least we'll always have Nick and Jessica! (I know, I know ... from the sublime to the ridiculous ... but really, what other response CAN there be, to contemplating the possibility that we as Americans are no longer free?) The same issue of Rolling Stone had a long interview with Nick Lachey about life after the most famous divorce in American history - the new life, the new album, etc. That album features thinly-veiled songs ABOUT his breakup with Jessica, and like everybody else, I just reflexively thought he was using the media limelight to move his product.

So imagine my surprise when the interviewer actually raised that question and got this reply:

I read somewhere somebody was saying, 'oh, he's capitalizing on his failed marriage to sell records.' That really pisses me off. Like I wouldn't rather be singing about how great love is? About my newborn son? Give me a fucking break. I don't get to choose where my life goes.


Which stopped me right in my tracks, especially that bit about his newborn son. That has the real ring of a guy whose dreams were crushed, and it made me feel a squirt of sympathy for him. For what that's worth.

But so as not to end things on a sad note, let's move on to the last item of interest in that same issue of Rolling Stone. And that item concerns ...

HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL!!!

Yes, I know ... you're still stubbornly refusing to watch this greatest of all human inventions (including antibiotics and the plays of Shakespeare), but nevertheless, the REST of the world is singing along to the same soundtrack. But don't take my word for it, just listen to Rolling Stone:

As Bryan Adams once warned, the kids wanna rock. That's why 'High School Musical' has become the year's biggest pop sensation, without meaning jack to anybody born before Tupac died [not true, says Steve! Not true, SINGS Steve!]. When the Disney Channel movie debuted in January, it became a kiddie smash, aimed at the six-to-thirteen age group who love 'Hollaback Girl' but aren't allowed to use that kind of language at home. Yet nobody expected the soundtrack to blow up into 2006's biggest hit, selling twice as much as James Blunt in half the time. They're already buzzing about a film sequel, a stage tour, a TV series, and, no doubt, High School Musical on Ice!


Hee.