Alan Lightman Books

I read this book first 20 years ago, and again about 10 year ago, and it still sits on my shelf as a useful reference with its double set of highlights. Despite being somewhat out of date, 'Revealing the Universe' is a useful text, set up in an interesting fashion. Astronomy, like all the sciences, is a tug-of-war between theoretical speculation and observational data. In astronomy, this tension is as old as the written word, if not older; how does one fit the retrograde motion of the planets in to a Ptolemaic system, for example? The tension between Tycho Brahe's observations and Copernicus' theories is a more modern example; even when personalities are not at issue (as was the case here), there is not always harmony between the theoretical and observational spheres.

This book, edited by James Cornell and Alan Lightman, is a collection of essays that put together the theory and the 'facts', the observational data. As Owen Gingerich says in his essay, determining whether disagreements are due to data or theory is one of the most difficult tasks for any scientist. There are five major sections of the book, each with two essays - one from a theoretical scientist, and one from an observational scientist (leaving aside the fact there are no 'pure' theorists or observers). The five sections look at issues that are still of interest and concern in astronomy today: Einstein's space and time construct; solar system evolution; the puzzle of the Sun's corona temperature; quasars and black holes; and the age and structure of the universe. Progress has been made in each of these fields since this book was published in the early 1980s, but these essays still present for the interested layperson some of the latest information in readily accessible form, as well as background material (which largely does not change). It sets out the problems of both theory (how does one think about such things) as well as the observational issues (how does one appropriately observe and measure such things).

The final chapter shows a snapshot of concerns of astronomy in the early 1980s, and shows how far we have progressed since then, with George Field's three unanswered questions: (1) are there more than nine planets in the universe? (2) are theories of stellar evolution correct? and (3) what form does invisible matter take in the universe? While each of these questions has been dealt with, sometimes in dramatic fashion (it seems rare for a week to go by of late when more extra-solar-system planets are not announced around nearby stars, for example), many of the key questions remain - how do we know what we know?

A good book to have, even with its limitations.

Did not enjoy or appreciate this book. Left me feeling antsy and irritated and furious, like its main character. Coulda done that on my own (in fact, it might have been inevitable). I suppose on some level the book connected with me, but it gave me little to work with beyond my own angst. Start again, and make your next book as unlike this one as possible. Please.

The author could claim I didn't get the point but, alas, he didn't guide me to it. The central character, a thirty or forty-something man employed by a modern organization becomes ill with a degenerative disease that confounds diagnosis. His first medical examination detects brain abnormality but subsequent examinations are inconclusive. Records of the first exam are apparently lost to him due to a complex of circumstances and disappear from the story. The description of that examination and events surrounding it are all credible but the examination's role in the story line is left unclear. We are left to think whatever we care to about this. Perhaps, "What a shame" would be the appropriate sympathetic response.

The illness' impact on the protagonist's job, family, person and outlook forms the principal story line. A subordinate story line runs in parallel but it's connection to the main theme is difficult to perceive except at a trivial level. This subordinate line centers on the death of Socrates and events associated with it, as described in an online college level course taken by the protagonist's teenage son. The main theme benefits little from this parallel plot. Actually, I found it distracting.

The protagonist is probably like many of us, somewhat self centered, angry at "who know's what?", somewhat paranoid, sometimes fragile, and sort of bland on the inside. His illness makes him sympathetic. Nothing else does. His wife is no more attractive although she seems to grow into her role as care giver. Their son is a modern teenager in a positive relationship with his father who is greatly threatened by the illness.

As the illness progresses, the protagonist moves from a state of denial through anger to acceptance at the end. The illness progressively robs him of his sense of touch, numbness overtakes his body, and his sight deteriorates badly. He progresses from being independent to complete dependency on others. In parallel, his world shrinks. Despite the wealth of symptoms, no diagnosis emerges. Physicians speculate: maybe psychosomatic, maybe autoimmune, etc. without consensus.

The physicians are as we know them, mostly conservative, sometimes oblique in their communications, each with an opinion centered on their various specialties. The best I could extract from their role in the story is that symptoms may be associated with a variety of causes and that differential diagnosis is a complex task. And that a syndrome may appear that defies diagnosis by existing tests. All of this is true, of course, and I did find in these characters, charateristics that I recognize from my own experience.

Toward the very end, the protagonist wonders whether he could ever have made his wife happy. Is this what it's all about? A not too unhappy marriage from which the breadwinner withdraws so as to ultimately free his wife honorably but only after taxing her caregiving skills to the utmost? Regarding the wife, early in the story she is conducting a romantic liaison via the internet an aspect of the story that gradually disappears as the illness progresses and we are left to wonder what role the author intended the liaison to play other than to let us know that the wife is discontented. He lets us know that in enough other ways that the liaison seems to burden the story rather than to move it along.

The book is filled with vignettes of modern life. Taken separately, they are quite engaging. The behavior of the medical residents in the hospital emergency room at the time of the first examination is humorous if ironically realistic. The use of e-mail is true to life but is so abundantly present that it simply becomes an overworked plot device. Interactions between colleagues in a partnership organization with too little "room at the top" are described well, if predictably. A church bingo game provides a surreal diversion. The wife's "hands off" cyber-liaison seems tailored to the modern age. Much else could be cited here were there room. But vignettes, however well constructed, do not guarantee a cohesive whole.

From start to finish I kept asking myself why I was continuing with this book and kept telling myself that the author would draw it all together by the end and I would finally understand why I should care or whether the author had a takehome message to convey. I was wrong. This novel accurately describes aspects of contemporary society as experienced by well educated and well motivated people. In that sense, the story is easy to identify with. But, that isn't enough and I conclude that I spent my reading time poorly.

EINSTEIN'S DREAMS so passionately involved me that I have read it over and over just to experience the flawless and beautifully lyrical prose, the wonderful images, the entire literary journey.

THE DIAGNOSIS is a very different matter. I am not certain why the death of Socrates was part of this book. I am not certain what the illness of the main character is supposed to symbolize. I am not certain how the main character and his wife ever managed to have a child together. I am not certain what the wife's sister had to do with anything.

The only thing I am certain of is my confusion. That said, The Lightman man sure does write pretty.Hunger

This is no trifle of a beach read -- it is a book with accessible language and a fairly enjoyable plot. However, though it has been well reviewed by critics, it has also confounded them. The book is about a man who has his nose to the grindstone at work. He faces pressures both from competitive workmates and the fast pace of technology including cell phones, e-mails, texts, etc. While on his way to work on the subway one morning, he forgets who he is and where he is going. After a surrealistic journey of sorts, he regains his memory only to lose his neurological faculties. The medical system is no help either. Rather than give a diagnosis or offer any real help, the doctors follow their own agendas. They show very little regard for his true needs; they make him jump through the hoops of the medical system offering no human connection or plausible help. He becomes paralyzed and eventually finds his only connection with the outside world is tracing the shadow a leaf throws on the floor. His friends and family are unsupportive, with the exception of his son. His son is a computer geek, a champion of his father's quest for a diagnosis, and a child ignored by both his parents.

The reader is also shown the e-mails from an online philosophy course on Sokrates (sic) that his son takes. In this story, Sokrates is betrayed a jealous man who fears Sokrates is blaspheming the democratic ideas of the state by stirring up questioning of accepted principles. This man helps prosecute Sokrates leading to his death sentence. While Sokrates swallows his poison with grace, the betrayor's son tells his father that Sokrates has been drawing all over his prison cell, telling the story of the human soul. This man's son is disgusted by his father's disregard for the great philosopher -- and one gets the idea the man betrays Sokrates in great part out of jealousy (since his son has much more admiration for Sokrates than his own father).

The big question that has been stumping most people is why the Sokrates story line fills up so much of the book. My best guess is that Lightman may be trying to draw a connection about man's lust for power and his love/hate relationship with progress. How can we move forward if it means we might be left behind? Will the process of keeping up destroy us in the end? In the main story line, our protagonist is a weak man who allows himself to be crushed by the fast pace world around him, preferring to miserably try to move up the office food chain than to find peace. In the end, he allows himself to weaken to the point of being paralyzed, blind, and near death. In Sokrates' case, though he is not weak himself, others around him are threatened by his potential power over the masses and make sure he is crushed. The father /son relationships in both story lines are complex. However, the juxtaposition may be Lightman's offering of hope for the futility otherwise demonstrated in this book. The way to address the pains of progress experienced by us or those around us, we would best be served in nurturing our relationship with our parents. Social progression will not come easily and we will easily be crushed unless we understand the handing of the torch from one generation to the next. If either father truly listened to or understood his son in these stories that make up the book, a great philosopher would have lived a lengthier life, and our protagonist may have been able to find enough light in human connection to understand how to maneuver around the suffocating information highway.

There are some interesting allusions to Plato's Myth of the Cave. Both our undiagnosed protagonist and Sokrates are imprisoned, either by a neurologically void body or in a prison cell. They draw shadows of a leaf and shadows of the human soul. Our protagnoist holds on to his last true connection with the outside world -- nature. Sokrates expresses his connection to humanity by telling the story of its soul. I'm not sure if I can flesh out the whole Platonic Idea connection. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I want to work this hard.

I would recommend this book to those interested in philosophy and those who are interested in books with big themes such as power and the human soul. It is not recommended for those who like clean, resolved endings.

I found this book intriguing; it is probably an important book. It flows well and is fairly entertaining. Read it if you like a true mystery. I am mostly left scratching my head. It sort of reminds me of Cloud Atlas in that way.

I will admit a few things up front. First, I have enjoyed all of Mr. Lightman's fiction. I think he is a master at writing lyrical prose. Secondly, I was prepared to love this book - I was waiting to savor every page. Thirdly, when I did read it the first time, I was disappointed. But, the book wouldn't leave me alone.

Months after reading it, and not truly enjoying it, I found it would slowly surface in my mind, when I was reading, or listening to music, or riding on a train. Characters, and phrases would slip into my mind without any perceivable reason. I decided to read it again. This book needs, and deserves, to be read more than once.

It is funny, and frightening. It is insightful, and sarcastic. I think that there are good reasons I did not enjoy it the first time through - primary among those being that I was too much like Bill Chalmers. I was clueless, and scared, and wanted someone to connect the dots for me.

I could give you some reasons and answers for this book. I could tell you why I think the various stories and characters relate to each other, and what they tell us about ourselves. But I don't want to - it would be cheating.

Bottom line, this book is pretty cheap... But it. Read it now, then put it back on your shelf, and try not to think about it. When it comes back to get you in your thoughts, read it again. I am glad this book wouldn't leave me alone.

When I read this book an internal dialogue began as to why some situations seemed unfinished, why so many situations were random and made no real impact on the story. But I liked David and I felt for him and wondered what he was suffering and what he was going to do with his life. When I finished the book and some of those random things were left unanswered (like where all the poeple went at the college when he opened his eyes, and they were gone- was he imagining the whole thing, was he having an out of body experience?), and the ghost of his supernatural experience played but a tiny role in the entire book. At first I was dissapointed that Alan was not going to share the experience with us. I then felt as though Alan was trying to say something completely different and that compelled me to read on. The many random characters and situations and the town focus on this paranormal act, distracted us so that at the end, we could put the puzzle together. I believe David was the ghost. The character was hard to know. I felt I knew him and cared for him but he was distant and not yet decisive of who he was, a shadow of who he would become- as he was, he was a ghost! I think that the writers experience with physics and the arguments of the paranormal society verses science showed his conclusion that no matter how many tests either side does, ultimately people believe what they want to see-there is no use in arguing- we all hold dear to what makes our life make sense. I think that he purposely inserted random acts and left us with unfinished business and a death we didnt see coming, to point out that life is full of random experiences and chances, and life is not pretty and almost always messy. It expressed how we make mistakes along the way but the people who love us stick up for us when we don't for ourselves (Martins wife) and give us second chances when we don't deserve one (Ellen). The narrative was different then what I was used to, and I would have preferred a clearer dialogue with quotes from each person so I could not lose track of who was talking, only because David was often speaking to many different characters that sometimes it got confusing if I put the book down. There were many 'saidisms' that I also think could be left out when quoting each individual. I would also be less graphic with the romatic scenes where words like 'Swollen Penis' were used and having sex with Ellen while on her period. It distracted from the profundity of what Davids life was telling us. Overall, the book is not about ghosts in particular but our own internal ghosts, about living in a world in between definition because we don't yet know who we are. It is about searching for the answer to life and then realising that the randomness is a wake up call to live our life the way it makes us happy. I slept on it after reading this book not certian immediatley what I felt. Then I was happy at the cleverness of it. That he told us more than what we thought we were reading. It was a very good story.

Sufani Garza
Author

I hated this book. I kept turning pages in the vain hope that something interesting would eventually happen. (Spoiler alert!) Nothing ever does.

Despite the title, the "ghost" receives only a small bit part in this drama. A more descriptive title might have been, "The Total Idiots Guide to Going Nowhere." For me the most implausible part of the story is the "uproar" caused by the sighting--including newspaper coverage, university attention, etc... Ostensibly, the claim is given extra weight because the main character had "graduated from college." In the real world, educated people (even professors) say kooky things all the time and are routinely ignored.

The narrative follows a pathetic man through his experiences of being fired from his bank job to a new career in a mortuary. The pointless journey is punctuated with some encounters with a couple of women with self-images eroded to the point that they actually find themselves in bed with our "hero."

The author does a good job of painting a picture of how pointless this man's life is and how nothing is likely to ever come from his peek into the potentially mysterious. The result is an aimless malaise that would make a Guantanamo detainee optimistic about his prospects.

If you are curious about what goes on inside the head of a boring underachiever this is definitely the book for you. For the rest of us, you have been warned.

Other reviewers have given good plot summaries, so there is no point in duplicating what has already been done. In Ghost, Lightman explores part of the theme he began in Einstein's Dreams: the line between what is real and what is not. It reminds me in some ways of a line from an old Bob Dylan song: "and the princess and the prince discuss what's real and what is not..." Did Lightman's character see a ghost or a soul? If he didn't, what did he see? The question is never answered as the characters discuss what is real and what is not. The writing is of high quality and we get to know this lost and bewildered, Everyman. The problem is, we don't think very much of him and his humdrum existence.

He cooks up a smorgasbord of interesting characters, nicely presented with all their foibles and pokes a lot of fun at modern media who converge on this poor lost soul. The predictable was foreshadowed. All in all, it's not a bad read, but for those who have interest in Alan Lightman, I suggest you read Einstein's Dreams which is bold, original and tough to put down.

I think the ghost is the main character, David. He wasn't living life, he was just existing, waiting and searching for something. He didn't know what he was searching for (as it says in the book.)
The style of writing took me a few chapters to get used to and I got frustrated by the many teases of the "something" that David saw in the funeral home. David seems to let things happen around him and this is one of the reasons his wife left him. He wasn't passionate. She on the other hand was never happy. (as is explained later by a friend which makes David angry) But why does it make him angry? Because it's the truth and he didn't want to admit to the truth? And his girlfriend was frustrated with him when he wouldn't speak out when things were being published about him in the paper. She asked him, where's your integrity?
All of the characters are flawed, even the educated characters, but they seem to be living life in their own way. Even Martin, the fourth generation funeral home owner/director, has a hobby and is married. His wife loves him and helps him deal with his panic attacks. Would you say he's agoraphobic?
Then of course there's the debate between the society and the educated professors as to whether David actually did see "something."
When the something is finally revealed it's a bit of a disappointment. But the way David describes it is interesting.
The story does move slowly and the feel of the story seems to be the feeling of David's life. It's sad in a way. There's no vivaciousness.

Review of: Ghost

By: Alan P Lightman

Published: 2007

The story is aptly named "Ghost" because it gives the reader a lot to think about while showing only a glimpse of its mystery.

Like all good ghosts this apparition gives us just a peek. The "Ghost" gives David (the protagonist and the witness) only one certainty, it exists. The "Ghost" is real. David is allowed only a few seconds to witness, but the apparition leaves no room for doubt. David saw a "Ghost"

Ironically, the protagonist says that the only science he remembers from school is the Pythagorean Theorem. He says:

"The Pythagorean Theorem I still know: The square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of something or other. It has to do with the sides of triangles. Would a crazy person at age forty-two be able to remember anything about the Pythagorean Theorem?"

as proof that he has not gone crazy. Pythagoras was the founder of a religion as well as a mathematician. All that David recollects is the Pythagorean Theorem, not Pythagoreanism. Pythagoreanism (the Pythagorean religion) held the human soul is as real as the human body. David has accepted the concrete mechanical concept of Pythagoras, but is not even aware of Pythagorean concept of the soul.

David is reading Edward Gibbon's "The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" while searching for a job. David mentions this, to himself, and shows that he has time on his hands and that he is using it well (the penguin press edition is published in three volumes and is a total of 3,616 pages). By selecting "The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" he shows indifference to a spiritual view (see The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume 1 (Penguin Classics), The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume 2 (Penguin Classics) and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume 3 (Penguin Classics) or the single volume abridgement The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics)). Before his encounter with the "Ghost" David shows no interest in religion or the divine. He seems like the perfect skeptic.

David is not psychologically equipped to handle the consequence of his encounter with the "Ghost." What follows is a story of loneliness, quiet desperation, social ostracism and ultimately emancipation. David's emancipation comes from his ultimate acceptance of the truth that he saw with his own eyes. He saw the "Ghost" and it doesn't matter what anyone else wants to make of his vision.

I thoroughly enjoyed this thoughtful book. It has a "home town" appeal and a simple message of optimism that applies even to the least significant members of our society. The characters in "Ghost" are all very believable and they become like old friends.

See also:

Einstein's Dreams

Dance for Two: Essays

The Diagnosis: A Novel

A Sense of the Mysterious: Science and the Human Spirit

Reunion : A Novel

Good Benito



Read this upbeat book for its simple message of hope.