User Profile

This feels like a book that needs two distinct reviews.



First, Emily Wilson's translation, which is wonderful. Just as Heaney moved Beowulf from "worthy work" to a fun read, Wilson's made The Odyssey eminently readable, while keeping it a formally structured long poem and apparently sticking scrupulously to the pacing of the original Greek. I had started reading other translations of this work but never actually finished them, so I'm delighted that this one now exists. And the maps, introduction, footnotes and dramatis personae all helped me follow a work that's heavy on reference and allusion.



But I have to say I didn't get on very well with the content. Some of it is delightful, from learning that Greeks have appreciated wine, olive oil and the sea for longer than much of the world's had written records, to all the descriptions that weren't about Odysseus himself. But there's a degree of repetitiveness to the language that grated--Wilson's introduction explains why it was so in a work written to be performed but it still took away from my experience of reading this as written text--a few too many passages that consist of just listing characters from other Greek myths to the point that they felt like the Torah's "begats", and by the end I found the character of Odysseus dislikable enough to not care about his fortunes.



I'm still glad to have read this. I didn't get anywhere near the exposure to Greek mythology that US schools seem to give, so much of the story was either new to me or connected dots that I'd picked up scattershot from English literature referencing them. And I have to say that I'm re-reading the Torah this year, which seems to be of approximately the same age, and found The Odyssey so much more sophisticated and compelling as a work of literature. But I can't exactly say that I like this story.

Not all popular science books are created equally. The best of them are written by scientists describing the body of knowledge to which they themselves have contributed. Hawkins’s A Brief History of Time helped define the genre (though of course there were important antecedents); my favorite book from 2021, David Graeber & David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, is an example from the humanistic side of the social sciences.

Leidy Klotz’s Subtract (“the Untapped Science of Less”) begins by describing a fascinating series of psychology experiments that systematically tested a hypothesis that Klotz had articulated: people tend to solve problems by adding things (Lego bricks in the first experiment, but also other things, including ingredients in recipes and words in text) when subtracting things would work as well or better. Klotz argues that “subtraction neglect” is a form of cognitive bias that influences much of our thinking, to our detriment.

After describing this research, the book becomes less empirically grounded, but remains interesting. The book offers examples of designers who created striking works and activists who effected important change by employing subtraction. Naturally, the book eventually addresses climate change.

Here’s where things get interesting, and why I’m excited about this book. Without naming “degrowth”, or even directly invoking its key concepts (e.g., we must actively shrink the economy to bring greenhouse gasses down to a level that will allow the planet to sustain a human population close to the current one), Klotz asks the question: “can we stop climate change by subtracting instead of adding”? By the time the book reaches this point, I expect that most of the audience — presumably consisting primarily of educated liberal-but-not-leftists — will think so. This is terrific news, because as it happens, we must indeed actively shrink the economy to bring greenhouse gasses down to a level that will allow the planet to sustain a human population close to the current one.

Anyone who has tried using this messaging during a conversation with the average liberal knows that this it goes nowhere. But now? Well, we have a well-documented phenomenon — “subtraction neglect” — and a fascinating, easy to understand set of experiments that conclusively show that “people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations” even when subtractive transformations work better. If people can accept this, well, now we’ve established an excellent starting point to talk about what “shrinking the economy” could look like.

So I look forward to using this book to as a way to start talking about degrowth with people who might otherwise be skeptical of the concept. I invite you to do the same. If you don’t have time to read the book, check out the article Klotz published with his colleagues in Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y). But if you’re simply in the mood to read a popular science book, or give one as a gift, I can endorse Subtract.