2.4
I was hoping for more direct comparisons of these two men. Maybe there were more, but they were so buried in words that I missed it. The book begins with two chapters, one about Lincoln and one about Darwin, with both chapters focusing on the mens' communication styles; interesting, but somewhat repetitious. By the end of the book, Gopnik seemed to have more to say about Darwin than about Lincoln. Maybe not, but that's my impression.
Here are some concise comparative statements that I'll want to reread sometime:
If one word could sum up Lincoln's character, it would be 'shrewd,' if one word, Darwin's, it would be 'sensitive.' Lincoln grasped instantly people's capacities, their intentions, their weak points and their strengths. Darwin was a tentative judge of people, but he was acutely aware of their moods and emotions, and things that other people just passed right over hit him hard.
True?
Now here's an example of why I'm not enjoying this read.
p 134 A true fault line in modern consciousness exists in those years, and can be found beneath Lincoln's deathbed, as it can be found beneath so many other beds.
Not exactly clear writing. If people want their books to be read, they should write to invite readers, not stump them.
Then, one page later, there's this pithy idea:
At Gettysburg, the self-sacrificing soldiers are [viewed as] martyrs not to religion but to a new birth of freedom. For the first time, fewer people found comfort in the promise of eternal life; more found it in the idea of a new world worth making.
And on page 153: In a letter, Lincoln admitted, "Some of Shakespeare's plays I have never read; while others I have gone over perhaps as frequently as any unprofessional reader. Among the latter are 'Lear,' 'Richard III,' 'Henry VIII,' 'Hamlet,' and especially 'Macbeth.' I think nothing equals Macbeth."
Darwin apparently new Kingsley fairly well!
p 167: One copy of 'The Origin' that Darwin inscribed and signed before publication was for Charles Kingsley, ... Kingsley, a very odd man ... wrote his somewhat Joycean children’s classic, 'The Water-Babies', in the light of both Darwinian theory and the Bible. ... Darwin himself appears in 'The Water-Babies', a humble and unworldly figure, head in the clouds, pockets filled with fish and fossils the sort who couldn’t harm a fly, or a fair-minded theologian.
And here's one of the most readable summarizing statements:
p. 206 Lincoln and Darwin were not otherwise great figures who happened to be great writers; we pick them out among their contemporaries because they wrote so well, and they wrote so well because they saw so clearly, and they saw so clearly because they cleared their minds of the cant of their day and used the craft of legal and scientific reasoning to let themselves start fresh. Just as Lincoln used the narrow language of the law to arrive at a voice of liberalism still resonant and convincing today, Darwin used the still more narrow language of natural observation—of close amateur looking to change our ideas of life and time and history.
p. 209: Darwin and Lincoln were makers and witness of the great change that, for good or ill, marks modern times: the slow emergence from a culture of faith and fear to one of observation and argument, and from a belief in the judgment of a divinity to a belief in the verdicts of history and time.
And maybe my biggest insight from this book:
p. 224: Science lets us think big, but we still feel small. No cosmologist has ever felt more serenely about his tenure case by contemplating the vastness of the universe. We get the big picture, but it’s not where we live.
And I'll add this example: We know the world is round, but from our personal, daily experiences, it’s flat.