I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments and share many of your thoughts as well. I enjoyed the book. I’ve always found ancient history & linguistics fascinating, so it definitely held my interest. That said, I’d only give it a 2.5 or 3.
My quibble, and it really did
annoy me, is with the book’s framework that Kober’s work was deeply unappreciated, and that Michael Ventris has been given too much credit. I don’t agree with either point.
I’m glad Fox took the time to go through Kober’s personal papers and has highlighted her accomplishments. They were substantial and she deserves that recognition. And it’s true that like other women in academic positions, Kober wasn’t treated fairly by the university system.
I realize many of you see this differently, but when the author compares her treatment to Rosalind Franklin, I felt she was going too far. Franklin was robbed. No one stole Kober’s work, or claimed it as their own. Her papers were published under her own name. She was invited to give lectures. Her work on Linear B was acknowledged by male colleagues working in the field, who reached out to collaborate with her. She was awarded an important fellowship and granted a year’s leave by the university to focus on her research. And Kober could have had a higher profile. She was encouraged to publish more and lecture more, but was reluctant to do so.
For example Fox criticizes Michael Ventris for not mentioning Kober in the BBC announcement of his discovery. How unfair! It was an overwhelming time. It was only a few days after his discovery. He was pressed to make the public announcement by his BBC friend who wanted the scoop. And he still was hesitant himself, and unsure about how the academics would react.
On page 263, Fox acknowledges that Ventris credited Kober “at some length” in a scholarly lecture. She says that he acknowledged her publications, her systematic analysis, etc., “
But it was too little too late”. Come on! What’s more important? Ventris crediting her work in an academic address, with a published transcript, or mentioning her in a 3 minute public announcement when he was still in shell shock?
And that wasn’t the only time - there are many instances where Ventris recognized Kober’s breakthroughs, and he personally reached out to her on a number of occasions. He wasn’t responsible for the glass ceiling in the university system.
I think I found the framework of women’s rights frustrating because I felt it was insincere and unnecessary. Kober’s work was substantial enough on its own to warrant the book. I thought Fox decided to use an exposé framework, and draw comparisons with Franklin to artificially heighten interest in the book, not because she believes Kober was mistreated in terms of her work on Linear B. That undermines women, including Kober and Franklin, is a disservice to Ventris, and is dishonest with her readers.
End of rant
Would Kober have solved Linear B? Maybe - who can say for sure how Bennett’s publication of the Pylos Tablets in 1951 would have helped her? I don’t know. But she did have the benefit of seeing far more of Evans’ tablets than anyone else; an advantage Ventris didn’t have.
Michael Ventris worked without the educational background and formal advantages that the academics had. Of course Kober’s work assisted him. But the collaborative approach to problem solving that he took, and the intellectual insights he had were uniquely his own. He also took the huge risk of leaving his job, so he could concentrate on the work. I think any credit he got for the discovery was well deserved, and in no way detracts from Kober.