Discussion: Professor and the Mad Man by Winchestor Simon (spoilers)
 

This thread is for the discussion of the March 2009 Mobileread eBook Club selection The Professor and the Madman.

All are welcome to join of course.

BOb

I really enjoyed it, something I hadn't expected. I found it both informative and very interesting.

I did't know anyhting about the OED beforehand - apart from the name - and it was really interesting to learn about its history - as well as historical context. I know a bit more about British Victorian times, but this was a new angle.

One thing I did not care so much for, was the mix of facts and fiction. I know hard facts can need a little dressing up to become palatable, but in this case I caught myself early on, thinking the book was fiction, and then wondering why it could get chosen when it was decided the March book club book should be non-fiction. I had a small :smack: moment then.
I generally don't like mixing this much fiction into the facts - the lines are too blurred for my taste. It's like historical programmes on TV - they like to dress things up, but it very often feels a bit 'off' to me.

All in all it was good. I felt caught up in the story and looked forward to getting back to the book, though it didn't excite me to the point where I would stay up late just to read :bookworm:

OK, maybe I totally missed it, but what part was fiction?

BOb

How to explain... I was thinking of the way it's told. It "reads" like fiction. I mean, I know it's based in real events, and it's quite possible to learn about a great many details, but there's description and dialogue that would - at best - have been extra-polated from letters or diary notes. I'm not saying he's making things up, but a lot of it quite close to being historical fiction that is based in real events.

I read this book expecting more... based on the glowing reviews a few others here have given it.

This was, as the author states, and interesting and sad story. I didn't know about the OED and the fact that it contained quotations on usage of each word. How they went about doing this what interesting also. Was this perhaps the first "open source" project ever done? Actually, I also didn't understand why the Oxford press was able to "profit" from so many volunteers works.

I also agree that this was a sad story. But, I have to disagree somewhat with the author about Merritt (was that the name), the guy that Minor killed which caused him to be incarcerated was that important of a figure. Yes, it was a series of events that led to other things, but I'm not sure that really matters. If it weren't him it might have been someone else.

The book did give me a sense of how easy it is to take things for granted. Many of the comforts we have today are only their because of the sacrifice and hard work of one or many. To be able to devote so much time to one project is just unheard of these days. Especially in my current occupation as a software developer. Most people in this industry feel if you have been in a job for a few years you are VERY experienced and senior. To me, having been doing the same thing at the same job for 14 years I find that laughable.

I would rate this 3 of 5 stars I think.

BOb

I agree with 3 out of 5. It was better than middling, but not all that exciting.

Is "sensationalized" what you are going for?

BOb

I would normally connect that word with something more lurid or 'popular', but perhaps it's just me not knowing English well enough :)

The def I have is:

present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy

Which is what it sounds like you are saying. But, it may not be what you mean.

BOb

I didn't like the way the book was based on the myth of how Minor and Murray met.
It gave the impression that the true story was too slight, and the author had to resort to padding and dissembling to make a book out of it.
Also, the focus on the two men's relationship gave a deliberately misleading impression imho.
Murray chose to be buried alongside a colleague (and presumably a dear friend) when he died. Minor was probably a small part of Murray's life; but it didn't suit the author's agenda to portray their relationship as too unequal.
There was also a lot of imaginative interpretation around the scenes in Ceylon, the murder and speculation about the causes of Minor's illness.

Overall, I felt manipulated and slightly cheated by this book. :(
5/10

From Random House Dictionary at dictionary.com:
"To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details"
That was the way I understood "sensationalized" (even before looking it up). So no, that's not what I meant. I meant that the author embellishes fact, and write them down so it reads like fiction. I mean, you don't believe someone actually wrote down a dialogue word for word in their diary? He would have to make it up. Also descriptions of scenes have a lot of detail and uis described in a manner that is usually found in fiction. I don't think I can describe it better than this.

I assume he's doing it this to make it more palatable and easier to read. As I mentioned, I've seen the same trend in historical TV programmes. It's just not my cup of tea. If the facts are interesting enough, they don't need to be presented as if they were fiction. Perhaps it's because I like facts and are able to 'embellish' and imagine on my own - I don't need to have it pre-digested as I feel this trend is doing.

Edit: Sparrow's "imaginitive interpretation" is another way of saying it.

I too really enjoyed it. I didn't know any of the history of the OED and was amazed that the project could run so long without getting terminated along the way for lack of progress.

The author does go off on a lot of tangents and provides trivia about people surrounding the project but I found it all interesting. I had already read his book on Krakatoa so I was expecting this.

On my own tangent... I absolutely cringed during the self mutilation in Chapter 11. I really have to self examine why I'm so desensitized about the murder scene (which didn't get any reaction) but curled up in the fetal position when he pulled out the pen knife.

I'm jumping into this group. Hope its okay.

I haven't quite finished it yet - just hit the self-mutilation chapter but my initial thoughts are as follows... I didn't mind the story-telling style applied to history. I have experienced it before with authors like Alison Weir and find that it makes it easier for non-hardcores like me to wade through historical events. I will say, however, that the author might be trying a little too hard to imitate a certain style of Victorian writing that I actually found a little off-putting. The way that I often have a hard time accepting a gender reversal in an author's main character, I guess I also find it distracting when a modern author imitates the voice of another era although I can understand why this particular author made this choice. I also found that the author repeated himself in the book and I can't tell if that was for effect or if he just forgot that he had explained that point previously. On the whole, however, I think the 3 out of 5 is fair. The topic is interesting and it hasn't been hard going. Plus it totally makes me want to go out and get a dictionary...unfortunately not the OED. Did anyone else think that Samuel Johnson's dictionary would make a great read or is it just me?

Mel

:blink: I'm not quite sure I can follow you - do you often read books where the main character changes gender?

Have to say, it was an interesting book, though one I would probably not have picked up for my self.

What I found Myself wishing for, as I read the book was that the author had gone into a little more detail on the making of the OED, as I found those parts, the technical details the most fascinating.

Another though lesser point of interest for me was the portrayal of how people lived during that period and their altitude towards different parts of society. What i really liked was that while the portrayal was more or less true to that time period, it wasn't very heavy handed or too dry so you could enjoy the flavor without being overwhelmed by it.

Its got me interested in finding a few more books on similar subjects, and I'm currently looking for a ebook version of

A Bawdy Language: How a Second-Rate Language Slept Its Way to the Top by Denis Whitaker, Shelagh Whitaker

A fascinating insight into how the various strata of the lower classes lived is given in Henry Mayhew's 'London Labour and the London Poor'.

No, although I guess I did read Middlesex. No what I meant was where the author was of a different gender than his/her protagonist. Eg. "Water for Elephants" or "She's Come Undone".

I have now managed to finish the book and had a few more thoughts...

Loved the reference to the "undertow of words". I really wish he had focussed more on this, the incredible task undertaken and completed in the (from current perspectives) face of a lack of appropriate tools and resources.

Was, like others, a little put off by his memorializing of Merrett. First, because while he uses all these over the top words he has completely failed to make us as readers care about him as a victim. And second because he, somewhat offensively in my opinion, seems to be saying that Merrett should be honoured as a hero because his death made Minor's contributions to the dictionary possible. A little too much moral relativism for my taste.

I am now very enamoured of the word "poodlefaker" and must try to find a way to use it in everyday language.

Finally, when he uses the word "humorist" as a central definition and comments on how it ties into his own life - (i) it's on the OED bookplate he owns, (ii) it was the name of the horse that won on his mother's birth date he seems to be not so subtlely implying that he, himself, is a "humorist" but is too modest to say so. My only response is that if he is a "humorist" he has not demonstrated it by this book unfortunately as it could have done with some humour. I envisage how Stephen Fry or P.G. Wodehouse would have tackled the story...

Mel

Aha! It's not something I've noticed much, that it should be an issue, I mean.

Maybe I'm the only one but to me it creates a bit of a dissonance. The characters don't act/react entirely as expected because the perspective of the author is different - outside looking in. It just doesn't always ring true. However, not to say that these books weren't interesting anyway and worthwhile reads, it just grates a little bit. And, it is pretty rare for an author to do this. Most authors stick to their gender.

Obviously off topic somewhat for this book, however. I was just trying to give another example of how sometimes an author can create minor disruptions in the otherwise harmonic flow of the text or story by adopting elements (in this case language style from another period) that can be hard to sustain seamlessly and believably.

Mel

When I'm reading a Non-fiction book, my main focus is to learn something from it, which I did. I managed to learn something on two main fronts, one being the creation of the OED an lexicography in general and the other the treatment od mental illness in that time frame. I'd goce the book four stars out of five.

I enjoyed it. But then I have a fascination with early asylums and the theories from which they were run as well as for languages and words. Come to think of it, the history of military medicine is something I'm interested in, as well. So, I felt that the whole narrative was well paced and told the story of the people behind the history quite well.

My only down thought is that at one point, the author hinted that the real description of events in The Wilderness Campaign were going to be told by Dr Minor at some point, but they were not.

This book felt like I was reading two seperate books intertwined. I did enjoy the parts about the OED. Some of the parts about Minor were interesting and other parts felt out of place.

I'll have to agree with those of you who commented on the story being slightly schizophrenic... I did enjoy parts of the book, but to me it felt like the author tried to cover too many aspects as once.

I would have enjoyed it more if he'd settle for a thorough description of the making of the dictionary - the problems, considerations, disagreements, etc...

The author made an interesting point about dictionaries - they are a record of how language is used; not an arbiter of 'correct' usage.

Unless, of course, it is a French dictionary. In that case, it is -- represents, actually -- an aribter of correct usage. They have an "Academie Francais..." that is responsible for maintaining the 'purity' of the French language. So French dictionaries are proscriptive, not descriptive!

Xenophon

You might like another of Winchester's books, The Meaning of Everything:
http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Everyt...tt_at_ep_dpi_7

Meant to post here after I'd finished it! :o

I enjoyed most of it, although the end, where he really starts eulogising Merrett, jarred a bit, for some reason especially the part where he bemoaned the state of his grave (the cemetary it's in is somewhat larger than the impression I felt the author gave of it, too). We have no way of knowing whether or not Minor would have been such a useful contributor if he hadn't murdered Merrett - although of course this particular story wouldn't have the same interest if he had just been an American bibliophile in the UK... there is more human interest in this tale of the creation of the OED than there possibly would have been had he not been committed to Broadmoor. And the tragedy and redemption elements that Simon Winchester played up would have missing too...

There are two types of dictionaries: "descriptive" dictionaries, which are a record of how a language actually is used, and "prescriptive" dictionaries, which are a guide to the way that it should be used. The OED is descriptive, the German "Duden" dictionary is an example of a prescriptive dictionary (although there are, of course, descriptive dictionaries of German, too!).

That particular French dictionary is prescriptive (not "proscriptive", by the way - that means something entirely different!). There are others which are descriptive.

HarryT -- you're quite right. I should have restricted my statement to that particular dictionary, not all dictionaries. As for pro vs. pre... That was a simple typo.

Xenophon

I enjoyed The Professor and the Madman, though I don't think it was Winchester's best work. I was fascinated at how long the OED project took (and, like a previous poster said, that it wasn't halted at some point along the way for any number of reasons.)

Many of Winchester's books have several story lines that intersect his main focus, and he spends quite a bit of time on each of them. Personally I like the way that type of non-fiction humanizes events and puts them into a broader perspective - era, consequences, etc. With Madman, I got the feeling it made what might have been an otherwise dry story more interesting. YMMV.

I thought both Krakatoa and Crack in the Edge of the World were fantastic.

Sorta offtopic, but maybe this will be of interest to some.
Tom Gally, a lexicographer and Japanese translator, has a semi-blog about translation and dictionaries (heavily Japanese oriented). Some of the more interesting entries:
Japanese dictionary "officially pirated" by U.S. in 1942
Typos in a book criticizing dictionary mistakes
Dictionary advertisements

Complete index