the professor and the madman

Simon Winchester. Harper Collins. Published in 1998.

The prompt for writing a quick review of this book is that I just started a third title by the same author, Simon Winchester, The Crack at the Edge of the World, and couldn't help but remember with fondness - yes, I used the word 'fondness' in regard to reading a book about how a dictionary was written - when I read The Professor and the Madman. Winchester is to my knowledge the developer and foremost practitioner of an immensely entertaining historical-narrative literary style whereby he lures us into turning page after page (rapidly) of a history book by telling a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction story that reads like pulp fiction, and yes, which is set within a larger historical context and moment. Erik Larson followed the pattern in Devil in the White City , introducing us to the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and how it changed the history of America through the lurid tale of a serial killer who was as big as Jack the Ripper before Jack found his first victim. In some parallel ways, Sebastian Junger employed this model, telling us about seemingly mundane things - the deep sea fishing industry, the physics of waves, the types of North Atlantic storms, and a little of the history of Gloucester, Massachusetts - through the sensational story of the crew of the Andrea Gail in his book The Perfect Storm, even better known for the George Clooney movie.

What is the historical setting and importance of the Professor and the Madman? The writing of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), of course. Now, without making any claims of being an academic, I must admit that topic kind of, sort of interested me anyway. I like the history of words and their definitions. But enough to read a book? I'm not sure. Even if it's less than 300 pages? Still not sure. It may never have reached the top of the stack. But even if you aren't that interested in what made the OED the finest reference work of its day - and perhaps the greatest reference ever created - the story of Dr. Charles Minor, the man who contributed thousands of entries, all painstakingly researched and neatly written from his home in Crowthorne, England, just 50 miles from Oxford, just might hook you.

What tied Minor to the OED and made his role so remarkable? Was it that he was an American creating something so peculiarly British? Nope. There was no snobbery as a sub theme. That he was a veteran of the Civil War, where he was surgeon for the troops of the North? Interesting, but not interesting enough to bring a dictionary to life. Was it that he maintained a long distance relationship with Professor James Murray - strictly by correspondence - for decades, despite numerous invitations from Murray to attend fundraising dinners or just stop by the office to meet due to his prolific 10 thousand entries? Not even close. Was it that he thought Irishmen were ... and that one night he went out and ... and because of that he ended up living in ... ? Yes. Yes. And yes.

I don't want to spoil the book for someone wants to know why it took 70 years to create the OED - Murray worked on it for 40 of those years but died before it was released - which contained almost 2 million quotations that helped define more than 400 thousand words. As an aside to those who love words and where they came from, one of the challenges of completing this monumental masterpiece was the stated goal that the OED would provide literary quotations, from oldest to most recent, to illustrate each word's first usage, evolution, and current definitions. Is it any wonder that the publisher had London book sellers place advertising tracts in the books they sold to solicit research help from the general population?

But back to Minor. I guess since I've already let you know that Murray was the professor, it is safe to reveal that Minor was the madman. When Murray finally insisted that he must meet the good doctor face-to-face out of respect for his unequaled contributions to the OED- and yes, if Minor wouldn't leave his home and travel to Oxford, he would come to him - you can imagine the shock he must have felt to show up at the front door and discover Minor was an insane murderer living at the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

Who knows? Let this book rise to the top of the stack beside your nightstand and you might be shocked to discover yourself enjoying a scintillating read about the history of a dictionary!

anatomy of an apology

In his first apology he really didn't apologize for what he said but rather defended himself and even took shots at the ones he was apologizing to for making a big deal out of a possibly inappropriate joke he told that was the reason he was apologizing in the first place. Make sense? I may have to read that sentence again myself. Slowly. During this first apology, one of the things David Letterman explained was that the criticism he was receiving was based, at least in part, on a simple misunderstanding that could easily be cleared up. When he joked that Todd and Sarah Palin's daughter was getting 'knocked up' by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, he thought people would know he meant the Palin's 18-year-old daughter, not the 14-year-old daughter who was actually at the game and who was therefore erroneously assumed to be the one he was referring to. As a parent, I would have felt a whole lot better, wouldn't you? He also explained he's told other jokes that he's not proud of. Again, just the kind of reasoning to help things simmer down in a hurry.

Surprisingly, this first apology wasn't received well by the Palins and others. Even women's groups not known as staunch Palin supporters expressed dissatisfaction.

So five days later Letterman apologized again, but this time he really meant it. Somber newscasters declared this second apology attempt as "heartfelt" and "sincere." The first apology was an obvious mulligan. In a blame reversal that even Bill Clinton would envy, a number of commentators took the time to criticize Governor Palin for inflammatory words of her own in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show when she said it would be wise to keep Willow away from Dave. Matt didn't like that. Not at all. But as a hard nosed journalist that's his job. And think about it. Palin did have her nerve picking on a helpless 62-year-old television icon, going so far as to make a statement that could be construed to indicate that she thinks he is a dirty old man, when expressing outrage over what was said about her 18-year-old daughter - though not the 14-year-old Willow as was previously mentioned. Robert Schlesinger opined in his U.S. News and World Report blog that in her statement Palin had equaled Letterman for "cheap and classless jokes." I might agree with Schlesinger but it's still not clear she was joking and if it is determined she was, it was only one joke, not jokes.

So during the same week that protestors have taken to the streets in Tehran what does this compelling news episode teach us about apologizing? Just maybe, we ought to be straightforward, heartfelt, and sincere the first time out of the chute as opposed to a face-saving, self-serving, self-righteous, and sarcastic approach. Most of us know that's easier said than done. So if we can't pull off the contrite and clear method it seems that blaming the person we've wronged for putting us in a position to botch our apology is a good backup plan!

Big Government: Pendulum or Runaway Train?

Ever since FDR saved the economy - either through his welfare and public works programs if you like his fiscal model or by entering World War II if you believe the country was going to turn around on the basis of a business cycle anyway - the size and role of the federal government in the business life of America has continued to grow. Truman was too busy fighting wars and dealing with new international realities with our Soviet allies to leave a huge mark on America Inc., but conservative president, DDE, built the interstate highway system with a heavy dose of liberal spending, a symbolic and tangible symbol of a more federally driven America economy. JFK we hardly knew you. We'll never know his spending agenda based on his short tenure though his activism in other areas might lead us to believe he would have been big government in all ways. Inspired by political activists like author John Steinbeck, LBJ attempted to build a 'Great Society' - a phrase he borrowed from Steinbeck - to further expand the government's role and responsibility as the provider and protector of the people's welfare.

Let's break from this historical free for all for just a second. Everyone, including politicians of all stripes, is concerned with the welfare of 'the people' and individual persons. Whether one cares is not what is being debated, though in the political world it is posited by big government proponents that if you don't want government to take responsibility for people's welfare you don't care about people's welfare. The fiscal conservative or political libertarian will argue that he or she cares just as much about the welfare of individuals, he or she just does not think government does a very good job of supplying it. They want an old school model that limits the role of government to good laws and national defense - and leaves individual welfare up to individual effort, which will be much more productive and efficacious in a free enterprise system the thinking goes. But what happens when that doesn't work, big government proponents ask? Some free enterprise advocates agree with having clearly defined and limited temporary aid measures in place - others argue for the 'family and friends' program. But based on what we've seen so far in our historical foray, there really haven't been too may free enterprisers in control, no matter what we might assume from party affiliation.

RMN actually toyed with price controls, which would made him a hero among Marxist ideologs and an enigma to his independent, puritanical forebears, but ultimately, he pored his attention on foreign policy and then shifted his focus to another set of problems that were a little more personal in nature. JC. We hardly knew you. Stagnation and malaise were the order of the day. The result of bad business or too much government intervention? Carter wasn't sure there was a possible solution from the government or private sector and suspected we might be headed for leaner days. That helped RWR, who was sure it was the latter, too much government intervention, get elected. He cut capital gains taxes, eliminated and simplified regulations to doing business, and cut income taxes for the middle and upper middle classes. (He would have done the same for the lower and wealthiest classes but it is impossible to cut anything from nothing.) It can be argued that he restored America's business star, setting the stage for the largest capital growth campaign in history and the rise of Bill Gates. What he didn't do, however, was cut government spending. And it wasn't just because he built up the military. Liberals and columnists - I would have said Liberal columnists but why be redundant? - bemoaned all the benefits he cut from the poor. Not true. He did occasionally cut government program increases but never spending. GHB (W's dad). We hardly knew you, either. I do recall H was kinder and gentler than Reagan and raised taxes to prove it despite the protests of lip readers to the contrary. WJC got his butt kicked on socialized medicine early in his first term. His solution? Keep Hillary away from Congressional hearings and enjoy Reagan's promised 'peace dividend.' Then he started experiencing the joy of balancing the budget and reducing the federal deficit so much he went out and tweaked some welfare policies so that they became workfare policies. For the first time in 60 years people were involuntarily cut from welfare rolls. Bill might be the last and the only fiscal conservative of the past 100 years. Deep down, I suspect that still bothers him. GWB. Or just W. A man of principle, faith, and profligate spending habits. He and the man who followed him, BHO, are architects and builders of an expanded role for government through TARP(s) that might have made FDR's head spin. Even the German socialists are confused. When they throw money at economic problems it is at least to save unnecessary jobs. In America's iteration of corporate welfare, it is to eliminate jobs and save companies. The latest Obama move has been to appoint a 'Special Master for Compensation' to oversee executive and employee pay at companies that accepted government bailout money. Any wonder so many are fighting like crazy to give this 'free' money back? Any wonder Hugo Chavez, left-wing socialist president of Venezuela, claims he is more right wing than Obama?

So is the size and scope of the federal government cyclical - a pendulum that is simply on a high note of growth? Or is it a runaway train navigating hair-pin turns as adroitly as possible?

If these economic days are tough on your personal welfare and you see a bright shining light ahead, it might mean there is hope at the end of the tunnel for you. Or it might mean you better jump off the track in a hurry if you don't want to get hit!