A satirical book review

June 1, 2020 • 1:30 pm

When I woke up this morning these words from the Beatles song went through my head:

I’ve got nothing to say but it’s okay;
Good morning, good morning.

That’s because I didn’t have anything in my head to write about, which is what I ponder when reading my emails in bed. So you get persiflage this afternoon!

Going through my files, I found an old book review that my friend Andrew Berry and I wrote some years ago. Andrew looked up our exchange, which dates to October of 2000. Berry had been commissioned by Nature to review of a number of children’s books about science. He and I felt that one was missing—the latest offering from the fabled J. K. Prowling. Even in the absence of such a book, we felt compelled to produce a review. For reasons best known to ourselves, the staff at Nature decided not to publish our review (Berry thinks that we actually submitted this—as a joke.)

I just found out, though that there really is a “Billy the Badger”: the mascot of Fulham FC in London:

The review:

Billy the Badger and his Forest Friends

By J K Prowling

ISBN 1008946
38pp, illus.
Harper-Collins Juvenile (Beginner Books No. 769)

Jerry A. Coyne

Andrew Berry

(Suggested title: “Badger Baloney”)

Billy the Badger has a problem.  Hordes of white-coated scientists, under the direction of the evil Dr. Ron Crabs, are engaged in a big experiment that will kill off not only Billy but many others of his kind. Under the delusion that badgers harbor brucellosis (which supposedly kills the farmers’ cows), the scientists try all manner of nefarious ways to kill badgers, including poisoning their favorite food, crumpets.  Knowing that the forest ecosystem will collapse without badgers, all the forest animals turn to Billy, the most sagacious beast among them, for help.  In this readable but ultimately unsatisfying and inaccurate book, Billy overcomes many obstacles to save his animal friends.  We will not reveal the extremely clever way this is done; but the denouement, in which Crabs is dragged into a badger set and ripped to pieces by his intended victims, is clearly not suitable for children under the age of sixteen.

Like a great deal of children’s literature on animal behaviour, this  book paints an inaccurate picture of the natural world.  We learn, for example,  that Billy lives in an oak-panelled set with Louis XV furnishing and a 16th century grandfather clock.  He speaks English, wears spectacles, drinks tea and eats crumpets dripping with melted butter. We are not badger experts, but a brief survey of the technical work on Meles meles reveals this portrait to be utterly misleading.  In fact, badgers, presumably with Billy among them, prefer a gritty Bauhaus look, and invariably speak Danish.  Spectacles are impractical because of their small ears; this results in the popularity of contact lenses throughout the species.  And badgers, as research has shown unequivocally, prefer Heineken when given a choice of beverages.  The crumpet issue remains controversial, and the author would have been well advised to steer clear of it.  Badgers are well known for liking bratwurst.  It’s a matter of great disappointment to us that books written for impressionable youngsters should be replete with errors and half truths.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this book from a biologist’s point of view is the complete absence of information about badger reproduction.  Billy has three young friends, Bertie, Benno and Bovril, but they appear magically, as if no interesting biology were involved in their genesis.  Yet painstaking observation by generations of dedicated scientists has given us an impressively complete picture of just what goes on in badger sets after the lights have been dimmed and the curtains drawn – after the sun has set on the set.  Why is this scenario not depicted in the book?  Billy is portrayed as a bachelor inhabiting an entirely male world. The dearth of badger females in Prowling’s worldview suggests a naïve view of badger biology – that it’s all about crumpets, armchairs, pipe tobacco, and dog-eared copies of The Pickwick Papers.  In fact, research has shown that the badger singles scene is vibrant and modern – more brushed aluminum than flock wall paper.  Prowling should have taken his readers into this exciting world of badger encounter and casual sex; for example, he could have set part of the story in a  hopping badger bar like “Jet Set” (turn right at the third oak after the big sycamore tree).  In missing these opportunities, Prowling wants us to assume that the numerous young badgers that populate the story appear from nowhere.  In these days of RU-480 and condom distribution in schools, surely our young people have a right to know how baby badgers are made.

Finally, the depiction of scientists as monsters bent on destroying anything furry is an unwarranted slur on our profession.  Neither of us has ever hurt a badger, and we know at least four other scientists who are humane and agreeable.  Mr. Prowling misleads an impressionable segment of the general public on every topic he addresses.  His portrayal of science and scientists is as error-strewn as his frankly whimsical and often fictional account of badger biology.  This is NOT a book  that should be on every graduate student’s shelf.  In fact, should you find a copy of it on a student’s shelf, you might want to think about pointing that student towards career alternative, like interior design.

This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is either the original intended recipient or a large striped carnivore.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform Billy the Badger and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism.  Coyne and Berry cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not expressly made on behalf of John Brockmann, Norton Publishing, or one of their agents.

 

Ricky Gervais chats with Richard Dawkins

May 18, 2020 • 2:00 pm

This video was posted a week ago, but shows a conversation that took place last fall. On 3 September 2019, Ricky Gervais was given the 2019 Richard Dawkins Award. The award recognizes individuals who proclaim “the values of secularism and rationalism, upholding scientific truths wherever it may lead.” Gervais received the award during a Center for Inquiry-sponsored ceremony at London’s Troxy Theatre. Dawkins praised Gervais for being a “witty hero of atheism and reason.” And I have to add, in a mixture of both solipsism and humility, that I received that award in 2015, and now, what with other awardees like Gervais, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Stephen Pinker, and Stephen Fry, I feel like I don’t deserve to be in this club. But I’m not giving my cat back (see below)!

Here are the YouTube notes:

Multi-award-winning stand-up comedian, screenwriter, and actor Ricky Gervais was presented with this year’s Richard Dawkins Award, from the Center for Inquiry. CFI campaigns to remove the influence of religion in science education and public policy, and to eliminate the stigma that surrounds atheism and non-belief.

The Richard Dawkins Award has been presented annually since 2003. Past winners have included philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, activist and feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and actor and writer Stephen Fry.

This event was an unscripted conversation between Gervais and Dawkins, in which everything is on the table and nothing is sacred. They were joined by host, best-selling author and professor of psychology, Richard Wiseman.

It’s worth listening to the conversation, but the best part is the last half. (Wiseman’s presence seems to detract a bit from the flow of conversation.) Robyn Blumner, CEO of CFI, introduces the event and Richard until 7:45, and then at 8:38 in Richard speaks, laying out the reasons why Gervais got the award. The award this year seems to be a glass double helix; mine was a small replica of a skull of a saber-tooth tiger (honoring my love of cats).

At 18:50 Gervais comes onstage for the conversation, and in fact has a gulp of beer as he begins.

I found the most enlightening part of the conversation to be Gervais’s defense of his in-your-face “offensive” comedy style, which starts at 48:00. Richard names his favorite book (you might be surprised), they discuss why comedians tend to be atheists rather than believers, and then Gervais talks about his new Netflix show After Life, which I am still very keen to see.

h/t: BJ

Two pandemic videos

April 27, 2020 • 1:20 pm

We have two new and humorous videos dealing with politics (i.e., Trump) and the bracing messages delivered to the rest of us by celebrities.

Here’s the new “We stand with Trump” video, showing some pretty good double-takes as the “President” blathers on in his moronic and narcissistic way. It also includes Deborah Birx’s reaction when Trump mentioned injecting disinfectant or sticking UV lights up people’s nether parts.

 

This sarcastic thank-you to celebrities who are quarantined in their mansions will appeal mainly to Brits and those in the Commonwealth, as the “celebrities” are largely unknown to Americans. But the point is clear. Why should we be heartened by the privileged and rich telling us that “we’re all in this together”?

UPDATE: A perfect example, just put up on HuffPost (of course). Click on screenshot if you must:

Excerpt:

Meryl Streep got back to her theatrical roots ― virtually, anyway ― alongside pals Christine Baranski and Audra McDonald to perform “The Ladies Who Lunch” as it has never been performed before.

The trio gathered via Zoom on Sunday night to croon the classic ballad, which was introduced in the 1970 Broadway musical “Company.” The number was part of “Take Me to the World: A Sondheim 90th Birthday Celebration,” a livestreamed tribute to composer Stephen Sondheim.

To many viewers, however, it also perfectly captured life in self-isolation. Not only did Baranski, McDonald and Streep sip wine and cocktails with humorous abandon, they did so in their bathrobes and in the comfort of their own homes ― on a Sunday night, no less.

Streep, meanwhile, delivered the performance’s most iconic moment when she prepared to refill her martini glass with scotch, but opted instead to chug straight from the bottle.

For many fans, it was “the ultimate mood.”

Note the use of the odious word “mood”, which I’ve ranted about before. In the new, with-it sense, it means (ugh) “relatable”. Do you relate to chugging cocktails on Zoom with your friends? I don’t.

Should we open up America now? A cat and a dog debate the issue.

April 18, 2020 • 12:15 pm

I’m going to follow this quickly with another post, as you might not be able to read it if it’s at the top.

Reader Simon sent me this, and it’s about the funniest thing yet to come out of the shutdown. Below you see a screenshot from an article in The Wall Street Journal.

I hate to say this, but, just for the time being, I’m on the side of the d*g.

Jonathan Pie: A mockumentary

February 5, 2020 • 11:45 am

Here’s a long episode of Jonathan Pie (the alter ego of comedian Tom Walker), playing, as he often does, a reporter. But this time the story is about him, a “documentary” of Pie covering pro- and anti-Brexit marchers. (For Americans: “UKIP” is the UK Independence Party, a prime mover of the Brexit initiative that has, says Matthew, “mutated into a far-right home for Nazis.”)

The conceit is although Pie is a liberal, he’s taken down by social media, who decides to take his words and actions out of context and portray him as both a “Leave-r” and an “alt-righter”. And this is after he extols social media for being a boon to journalism (“journalism for toddlers”), enabling reporters to find just the right quote they want instead of having to interview a bunch of wankers.

In the end, Pie comes a cropper, and the coppers come for him—for perpetrating “hate crimes.” It’s all, I think, a cynical but liberal take on how the news is done.

h/t: Michael