
Helluva twist
CHARLES DICKENS and his writings are still being “interrogated” (that’s the word in use) by scholars, at least one of whom is almost electrified by what might be there.
Jeremy Parrott, an antiquarian bookseller and a stalwart of the Dickens Society, says he has identified a supply of electricity that flows, in a literary way, through the people in Dickens’s novel David Copperfield. Parrott announced his discovery in the March issue of the Society’s Dickens Quarterly, with a jolting 27 pages of facts – and perhaps some conjectures – all wired together with the title .
Advertisement
The Dickens Society encourages research into almost anything to do with Dickens. Founded in 1970, its list of past presidents flaunts many names that are Dickensian or near-Dickensian, among them Graham Storey, George Worth, Susan Shatto and Sally Ledger. Parrott, though neither a past nor a present president, is of equally Dickensian nominative distinction.
His paper “interrogates two key names” – David Copperfield and Uriah Heep – “and discloses some previously unsuspected motivations behind their creation”. Copperfield is the book’s youthful hero, Heep his nemesis. Parrott says that the name Copperfield is “not merely metallic but electrical” and deduces that the name David was inspired by Humphry Davy, the scientist widely credited as inventing the field of electrochemistry. In the novel, the first time the hero is given a name, that name is “Master Davy”. That is Parrott’s big clue.
Parrott gives his own readers – us – a detective thrill ride. He says the name Uriah Heep links to then-contemporary science “in previously unsuspected ways”. What’s more (and here is the thrill part), Parrott explains that other characters use the words “cadaverous” and “monster” to describe Heep, which links Heep to the “electrically-sparked monster” in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
In his conclusion, Parrott hurls at us, his readers, a literary lightning bolt: “Coupling David Copperfield with that ‘monster in the garb of man’ Uriah Heep, some 30 years after the first appearance in print of Frankenstein’s electrically-sparked monster, empowered Dickens to create, through his alter ego DC, a character who can plausibly be viewed as the first android in literature”.
Catatonia from Catalonia
Inspiration about medical knowledge can come from almost anywhere. Musical inspiration about the aetiology of pneumonia comes, for some people, from the song by Hal David and Burt Bacharach. Some people call it . David died in 2012, Bacharach in February this year, neither from pneumonia:
“What do you get when you kiss a guy?
You get enough germs to catch pneumonia.
After you do, he’ll never phone ya.
I’ll never fall in love again.”
But what of other medical conditions? What about, say, catatonia? Inspiration about the clinical aspects of catatonia comes, for Feedback, from a recent primer in the journal Medicina Clínica, called . Jorge Cuevas-Esteban, David Sanagustin and María Iglesias-González, who wrote it, are based in the Catalonia region of Spain. The following lyrics, Feedback’s tribute to their writings, can be sung to the same tune:
“Where are the folks who write the facts –
The medical facts of catatonia?
All of them work in Catalonia,
In Barcelona, north-east Spain.”
Unmasked advice
Imagine a restaurant host saying: “Welcome, diners! Tonight’s 78-course roast beef dinner includes generous portions of rotten meat, cardboard and solids that we are unable to identify. We are commendable for including (rather than excluding!) these ingredients and for telling you that we include them. We did a vast amount of careful work.”
As you digest that, consider the Cochrane Report that led to misleading public outcries, such as this one in The : “the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust”. The report appraises the major precautions against covid-19 infection. – that is, it gathers lots of numbers crunched by lots of earlier studies.
When the planet seeks the answer to an urgent, yes-or-no question about saving lives, a meticulously researched study from a respected source gets attention. But when researchers don’t yet have much of an answer, they can mask that void by amassing copious tangential details.
Good scientists spell out the limitations of what they know. This Cochrane meta-analysis is painstakingly honest to the point of near self-destruction. It mentions that most of the reports it analysed are from long before the arrival of covid-19. And it says: “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.” It confides that “the low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect”.
The report ends with a veiled plea for someone, anyone, to do “large, well-designed” studies “addressing the effectiveness” of advice about wearing masks.
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.