Pollan M. The botany
of desire. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.; 2001. xiii-xxvp.
In the introduction of The
botany of desire, pg. xiii-xxv, Michael Pollan introduces the book as a
means of investigating, and exploring, our (mankind’s) view on nature from an
upside-down perspective. In other words, he aims to tell a story in an
unconventional fashion from the plants perspective. As Pollan puts it, on pg.
xxiii, the book delves into “four of the worlds success stories”, the apple,
tulip, cannabis, and potato. These are exceptional stories to tell as they
represent the successes of a fruit, flower, drug, and a staple food,
respectively. Through the perspectives of these plants, which are so carefully
woven into the history and future of our own species, Pollan hopes to achieve a
change in our own perspectives, to see plants as a little less alien.
Let’s get to where I give you my opinion. Not having heard
of Pollan, or his novel, my expectations were low. By no means am I trying to
indirectly say that I am the guru of all books worthwhile or that I think Lyn
has poor taste, I just made an assumption, based on the 3 at the beginning of
the course number, that I would be reading something no more stimulating than a
dictionary – was I ever wrong. I should have known that, being in science,
making an assumption was a poor judgment call. In testing my assumption, or
hypothesis in this case, I read a little. By the time I reached the end of the
second paragraph, I knew I was in for something a little more stimulating than
what science generally has to offer, something of substance, something lacking
mass compilations of “facts”.
I enjoyed that Pollan didn’t just shove his opinion up into
my face from the get go. Or maybe better said, I enjoyed that Pollan was able
to convince me he was on my side before he gave me his opinion – this made me
want to listen to him. I don’t think the world will ever be ready for another arrogant
man trying to turn the world in his favor before any thought is invested in the
possible repercussions of the actions needed to do so. Anyway, I don’t think
this is the case with this author. After having established a baseline for how
many people perceive the world around them, Pollan caught my attention when
describing the role of consciousness between animal and plant saying, on pg.
xiv, “consciousness needn’t enter into it on either side, and the traditional
distinction between subject and object is meaningless”. I particularly like
when Pollan sums up a human emotion by saying, on pg. xxi, that “our desires
are simply more grist for evolutions mill, no different from a change in
weather: a peril for some species, an opportunity for others”. Through
statements as such in the introduction, I feel as if old perspectives begin to
be up-rooted as the seeds for a new perspective, regarding our (animal)
relationship with plants, begins to be planted.
Overall, Pollan introduces many new ideas regarding
evolution (including co-evolution) and our role in nature that stimulate the
imagination – he is no stranger to proper use of imagery. For this reason, I
had no real dislikes and nothing nasty to say. I very much agree with his
seeming want for reform of the many narrow-minded perspectives the people of
this world currently hold. With many continually pressing environmental issues,
of which we are causation and continue to ignore, I can’t say with certainty
that a new approach to thinking is something we don’t need.
On a lighter and final note, I must say that I think there
is way too much irony in the fact that the author of a book, revolving around
vectors and the interaction of “subjects and objects”, has a name like Pollan –
holy jeez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human
Societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.; 1999. 114-130p.
In chapter seven, of Guns,
germs, and steel, Jared Diamond writes of the integrated history between
plants and people. Diamond explains the traits early farmers might have been
looking for, whether consciously or unconsciously, that may have been involved in
the elementary stages of agriculture. He discusses the origin of many fruits
and why some eluded to be domesticated. The chapter concludes with a subtle
transition to artificial selection, and Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Honestly, I felt as if Diamond never seemed to get to the
point. Things got boring fast. He seemed to be beating around the bush during
his passes to make a point. His walking in circles nearly put me to sleep.
Maybe he could have defined words like “agronomist”? Not that, after breaking
the word down, I couldn’t get an idea of the words meaning in the context provided,
but it just felt like an unnecessary term to use. I mean, even the built in
dictionary in iMacs version of Microsoft Word couldn’t give me a definition. I
think that says something about the author’s choice of diction. In my opinion,
Diamond seemed to make more than a few poor choices in his writing.
I did not think that Diamonds analogy of spittoons, garbage
dumps, and latrines being the research laboratories for primitive man was
fitting, especially without the addition of any factual information. This trend
of making statements without addition of factual information is carried
throughout the chapter. For example, on pg. 120, Diamond says with seeming confidence
“…once humans began to bring wild peas home to eat, there was immediate
selection for that single-gene mutant”. I understand the logic, and am willing
to agree with it, but need a more concrete explanation to be fully convinced. In
his final paragraph of the chapter, the one pertaining to Darwin, you seem to
get a better idea of where things were supposed to be going but I simply felt I
had lost interest by this time.
However, Diamond was able to provide some kind of useful
information in the chapter. I enjoyed the addition of, the sparse, more factual
information such as, on pg. 118, where he says “… flax is one of our oldest
crops (domesticated by around 7000 B.C.)”. I prefer to hear a sense of
uncertainty in writing when referring to an era we know very little about. On a
similar note, I also enjoyed his explanation as to why apples, pears, plums,
and cherries were not domesticated until more recent times; it is well
established that some plants have a need for cross-pollination and others do
not.
Overall, after reading a single chapter, I am in no rush to
read more. However, I don’t feel as if a dislike for one chapter warrants not
reading more, especially when required in a course I am currently enjoying. I do not think having a history should prevent us from questioning uncertainty. But Diamonds book was the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, so I will try to remain
optimistic for the chapters to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment