Atlantic, by Simon Winchester

winchieI finished Simon Winchester’s book Atlantic the other day. I consumed the audiobook version (this is one major positive aspect to my long commute: plenty of listening time), which was pleasantly read by Winchester himself. He’s got a good accent and a nice way of speaking – I recommend that medium.

Atlantic is a book about the Atlantic Ocean. It’s set up to cover the vast sweep of Atlantic history, and how connections can be drawn between the Atlantic and, well, everything. This is the sort of writing that Winchester specializes in, and it’s cut from a similar cloth as Malcolm Gladwell, or the “microhistory” phenomenon of a decade ago (e.g. Cod, Salt, A Perfect Red or Bananas: all excellent books), but I’d have to say that this volume feels a little bit haphazard – it’s a grab bag of random topics, all of which can be induced to yield some sort of connection to the Atlantic. But unlike the ocean it reviews, it’s not an especially deep book – it feels more like a smorgasbord lit by an Atlantic-colored light. There’s some good stuff there, but also a lot of filler. There were several times in ‘reading’ the book that I felt frustrated at the ratio of prose to insight. Winchester is an erudite man and a good writer, and he’s got an excellent vocabulary. But you couldn’t call his work “scholarly.” Oftentimes, his writing feels like it lacks the discipline to explore issues fully. Many times while listening, I sighed, and thought, “so many words employed for so little elucidation…”

In particular this applies to geology: the only reason I got into reading his work in the first place was his geological books (Krakatoa and The Map that Changed the World are both excellent, I thought.) But there’s really not much geology in Atlantic, and what little there is, feels like a tease. It’s not satisfying at all for someone whose appetite is craving some authentic Earth science.

There was a weak chapter (or prologue, really) on formation of Atlantic, from my perspective. It was scant on geological “meat,” and more arm-waving while employing vague but publicly-palatable words like “force” and “immense.” As a geologist, I’m totally biased about this, of course, but it seemed to me that a couple of site visits within the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) would have been great. I’d rather he had visited the Palisades Sill or Gettysburg – and then told the story of the birth of the Atlantic from the deep historical record (the rocks). Similarly, I felt like there was a missed opportunity for geological teaching in the chapter on World War II. Submarine warfare in the Atlantic gets a detailed discussion, but I would have loved it if Winchester had indulged in a tangent on the Navy’s mapping of the deep, and the ensuing development of the idea of seafloor spreading.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed the discussion on L’Anse aux Meadows, the archaeological site in northern Newfoundland where the Vikings not only landed, but lived for years, more than four centuries before that masochistic genocidal zealot, Christopher Columbus, ever reached the Caribbean. I learned that the first European descent born on American soil (the first non-Native “American”) was Snorri Thorfinnsson. I love this fact – that we know the name of this first-of-many person, and I love that his name sounds like a character from Sesame Street. This was a real delight.

The exploration of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was another fascinating section. It’s a wrenching, horrific business, and there are passages in there that made me want to renounce the entirety of the human species. Honestly, Winchester is always an excellent writer, and sometimes his topics are chewy, interesting stuff. And other times, the same excellent writing gets devoted to material that’s not quite worthy of examination. A detailed account in one chapter is devoted to an airplane flight he took over the Atlantic – full of technical details that might be of interest to someone, but that someone wasn’t me. But the slavery section? I wept.

Finally, it is important to note that I was sincerely disappointed in the book’s coverage of climate change. On the one hand, it’s valid and true that climate change should be considered relevant to the history of the Atlantic Ocean, but Winchester strikes a pose that’s decidedly skeptical. He’s not a denialist, but neither does he embrace the scientific consensus. Words like “possibly” and “conceivably” seem to accompany every consensus conclusion. The tone, in other words, is one of doubt.

As with the book’s discussion of the rifting of Pangea, the language is sophisticated and emphatic, but the scientific understanding is plebeian, or presented as such. Rather than elucidating the physical science behind this important issue in any satisfyingly-coherent level of detail, he invokes odd analogies, like the Mayans asking if the gods are mad at them. According to Winchester, the global warming debate is more about hand-wringing and self-recrimination than it is the selective transparency of oxidized carbon. Climate is a physical system, and that gets lost when these quasi-metaphysical musings are placed at the center of the conversation.

However, to his credit, he does lay out the evidence for a human driver to the current episode of warming, and draws attention to the distinction between agreed-upon facts and unagreed-upon interpretations. I present it very similarly to my students:

  1. Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gases,
  2. greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere,
  3. greenhouse gas levels are increasing,
  4. temperature is increasing,
  5. therefore, burning fossil fuels is increasing the temperature of our atmosphere.

Another point of agreement that I have with his approach is that he emphasizes one of the “simplest” ways to solve much of our climate vulnerability is to stop letting people live in geologically-unsustainable settings. Much as I love New Orleans, it seems like folly from the long-term perspective to keep rebuilding that sinking city. We’d save lives if no one were dwelling on those swampy coasts in the first place. As to how realistic that is … well, of course there are all sorts of personal property issues as well as the question of the limits (if any) to individual liberty – that a person can take the risks that he or she chooses to take. And there’s those several centuries of precedent to contend with too…

A major failure of the climate change discussion was to treat the “Climategate” email pseudo-scandal as a proper scandal, falling hook, line, and sinker for the denialist reading of Michael Mann’s “trick” and the Hadley Center’s justifiable upset at being barraged (harassed?) with Freedom of Information Act requests. Part of this doubtless stems from the book’s unfortunate publication between when the news of the hacking broke, and when the multiple independent investigations all found the climate scientists innocent of malfeasance.

There was no significant exploration of ocean acidification, either, one of the ways the Atlantic is likely to most acutely feel the effects of the current perturbation to the carbon cycle. Though Winchester even introduces Emiliania huxleyi, the coccolithophore isn’t invoked as a canary in the Atlantic’s coal mine. Another missed opportunity: startling “mesocosm” experiments have been carried out to see how these phytoplankton react to living in acidic waters, and it’s not especially pretty.

All told, I’d have to say that I liked it less than I wished. In spite of Winchester’s cock-up in the aftermath of the big Japanese earthquake, I really like a lot of his work (read The Professor and the Madman, for instance – it’s a fascinating, well-written tale). As a body of work, I wish it were more scientifically rigorous, but the fact that it’s not is more a failing of my own expectations than it is a failing of the actual written works. So, while I can’t really recommend Atlantic, I have no doubt that I’ll keep reading his stuff.

0 thoughts on “<i>Atlantic</i>, by Simon Winchester”

  1. Good review, Callan. “so many words employed for so little elucidation…” pretty much sums up my attitude to everything of Winchester’s I’ve read: it even sullied my enjoyment of The Map That Changed the World.

    Of course, being critical of someone being more interested in showing off their verbosity that getting to the point may be an instance of seeing my own faults in other people…

    Reply
  2. Good Review, I found Atlantic hard to read, and was dissappointed in the lack of geologic depth. But his other geology books I have really enjoyed. You did not mention “A Crack in the Edge of the World” and I was wondering if you’d gotten to that one?

    Reply
    • Yep, I read that when it came out, learned a few things, but it wasn’t as focused as Krakatoa, or maybe it’s just that I learned more from Krakatoa than I did from Crack in the Edge of the World?

      Reply
  3. Given the date of this book’s publication (November 2010, and probably written at least 6 months before that), I think it foreshadows his post-Tohoku foray into charlatanism. Based in no small part from his public comments, and also an exchange of emails I had with him in 3/2011, Winchester fancies himself as a responsible outsider who is able to provide a fresh viewpoint outside of the “constraints” placed on science by peer-review and the “establishment”. At least that is my appraisal, and there is a vague legitimacy to his point. The community can be fairly insular and doesn’t do enough to popularize the science in the way somebody like Carl Sagan did for planetary science and astronomy. However, he goes awry taking the extra step of oversimplifying/misrepresenting consensus view or at least the accepted limits of scientific understanding as well as injecting his own baseless theories.

    Here’s a sampling of his rationale:
    “I should in fact use my public forum to try to persuade the American and Canadian public to take the kind of precautions that their preferred lifestyles perpetually inhibit them from doing. Overly cautious and narrowly-focussed members of the scientific community do rather little to advance this cause, which I think is both wise and responsible. I say all this with respect; but I think you are quite wrong.”

    “Supporters I have are few, and fewer are those who are willing to say so publicly. One, a professor emeritus of geophysics at a Canadian university, said to me last week: data is actually not everything. Remember Alfred Wegener. And though I am most certainly not going to compare myself in any sense with Wegener – risking what some would call a Lloyd Bentsen moment – I do believe there is still room, even in the cold, hard world of data-driven research, for the occasional moment of out-of-the-box thinking.”

    Ergo, in his mind he’s a noble actor in conveying these topics to the general public, filling a role scientists are either unwilling or unable to occupy. Nevermind, that he hasn’t been a practicing geologist in over 40 years, and that his M.A. in Geology predates the acceptance of Plate Tectonics.

    Reply

Leave a Comment