Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Zero

Word of the Day

Cipher (noun)

Pronunciation: [sI-fê(r)]

Definition: 1) The mathematical symbol "0." (2) A written Arabic numeral, e.g. 1, 2, 3, etc. (3) A cryptographic system that converts letters into a code. (4) A person of no power or significance, a nonentity.

Usage: "Cypher" is still an acceptable spelling in most English-speaking communities though a bit stodgy. Two verbs are derived from "cipher," encipher "to encode, encrypt" and decipher "to decode, decrypt."

Suggested Usage: Using today's word to mean "zero" is no longer common but don't be surprised to read something like this on a questionnaire, "If you are not sure how many children you have, enter a cipher (zero) in the space beside 'Number of Children'." (That is enough to make your children feel like ciphers [nonentities].) If you tend to the paranoiac, you might need this: "Sometimes I think Tom is speaking in cipher (code); he speaks so intensely, yet only half of what he says is comprehensible." It remains a way to distinguish Arabic numbers, "I stopped numbering my chapters with ciphers in favor of Roman numerals."

Etymology: Today's word originated in the Arabic word for "zero," çifr, literally "empty, void" from the verb çafara "to be empty." The Arabs simply translated the Sanskrit word s'unya "zero, empty" when they borrowed the concept of zero from the Hindus. The Hindus developed the concept of zero around 600 A.D, about 500 years after the Mayans. (Today we thank Dr. Martin Benjamin, Editor of the Kamusi Living Swahili Dictionary Project at Yale, and his father, a mathematician who kept him well informed in such matters. For a more religious explanation of zero, read "Steppingstone to the Stars" by The Wordman, found in the YD library.)

–Dr. Language, YourDictionary.com





An Appraisal

A Relentless Updike Mapped America’s Mysteries


Robert Spencer for The New York Times
John Updike at the Boston Public Library in 2006. More Photos >
Published: January 27, 2009
Endowed with an art student’s pictorial imagination, a journalist’s sociological eye and a poet’s gift for metaphor, John Updike — who died on Tuesday at 76 — was arguably this country’s one true all-around man of letters. He moved fluently from fiction to criticism, from light verse to short stories to the long-distance form of the novel: a literary decathlete in our age of electronic distraction and willful specialization, Victorian in his industriousness and almost blogger-like in his determination to turn every scrap of knowledge and experience into words.

It is as a novelist who opened a big picture window on the American middle class in the second half of the 20th century, however, that he will be best remembered. In his most resonant work, Mr. Updike gave “the mundane its beautiful due,” as he once put it, memorializing the everyday mysteries of love and faith and domesticity with extraordinary nuance and precision. In Kodachrome-sharp snapshots, he gave us the 50’s and early 60’s of suburban adultery, big cars and wide lawns, radios and hi-fi sets, and he charted the changing landscape of the 70’s and 80’s, as malls and subdivisions swallowed up small towns and sexual and social mores underwent a bewildering metamorphosis.

Mr. Updike’s four keenly observed Rabbit novels (“Rabbit, Run,” 1960; “Rabbit Redux,” 1971; “Rabbit Is Rich,” 1981; and “Rabbit at Rest,” 1990) chronicled the adventures of one Harry Rabbit Angstrom — high school basketball star turned car salesman, householder and errant husband — and his efforts to cope with the seismic public changes (from feminism to the counterculture to antiwar protests) that rattled his cozy nest. Harry, who self-importantly compared his own fall from grace to this country’s waning power, his business woes to the national deficit, was both a representative American of his generation and a kind of scientific specimen — an index to the human species and its propensity for doubt and narcissism and self immolation.

In fulfilling Stendhal’s classic definition of a novel as “a mirror that strolls along a highway,” reflecting both the “blue of the skies” and “the mud puddles underfoot,” the Rabbit novels captured four decades of middle-class American life. Mr. Updike’s stunning and much underestimated 1996 epic, “In the Beauty of the Lilies,” tackled an even wider swath of history. In charting the fortunes of an American family through some 80 years, the author showed how dreams, habits and predilections are handed down generation to generation, parent to child, even as he created a kaleidoscopic portrait of this country from its nervous entry into the 20th century to its stumbling approach to the millennium.

Producing roughly a book or so a year, Mr. Updike tried throughout his career to stretch his imagination. To the novels starring Rabbit — perhaps the self Mr. Updike might have been had he not become a writer — he added a series of books about Bech, another alter ego described as a “recherché but amiable” Jewish novelist afflicted with acute writer’s block. While Bech boasted a modest oeuvre of seven books and remained a second-string cult author, his creator was blessed, as he once wrote of Nabokov, with an “ebullient creativity,” and his work, too, gave the happy impression of “a continuous task carried forward variously, of a solid personality, of a plentitude of gifts explored, knowingly.”

In other novels, Mr. Updike ventured even farther afield. “The Centaur” (1963) infused Joycean myth into its tender portrait of a well-meaning schoolteacher. “The Coup” (1978) conjured up an imaginary African kingdom called Kush and its imperial leader Colonel Ellelloû. And “The Witches of Eastwick” (1984) and its sequel, “The Widows of Eastwick” (2008), depicted heroines who were supernatural sorceresses with the power to conjure and maim. These experiments did not always work. “S.” (1988) used Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” as a jumping-off point for a crude attack on feminists. “Seek My Face” (2002) devolved into a ham-handed and thoroughly unconvincing improvisation on the life of Jackson Pollock. And “Brazil” (1994), brimming over with undigested research and bad dialogue, stood as an embarrassing effort to translate the Tristan and Iseult legend to South America.

Indeed Mr. Updike’s strongest work remained tethered to the small town and suburban worlds he knew firsthand, just as many of his heroes shared the same sort of existential fears the author acknowledged he had suffered as a young man: Henry Bech’s concern that he was “a fleck of dust condemned to know it is a fleck of dust,” or Colonel Ellelloû’s lament that “we will be forgotten, all of us forgotten.” Their fear of death threatens to make everything they do feel meaningless, and it also sends them running after God — looking for some reassurance that there is something beyond the familiar, everyday world with “its signals and buildings and cars and bricks.”

But if their yearnings after salvation pulled them in one direction, Mr. Updike’s heroes also found themselves tempted by sex and romantic misalliances in the here and now. Caught on the margins of a changing morality, unable to forget the old pieties and taboos and yet unable to resist the 60’s promise of sex without consequences, these men vacillate between duty and self-fulfillment, a craving for roots and a hungering after freedom. As the author himself once put it, his heroes “oscillate in their moods between an enjoyment of the comforts of domesticity and the familial life, and a sense that their essential identity is a solitary one — to be found in flight and loneliness and even adversity. This seems to be my feeling of what being a male human being involves.”

Although Mr. Updike’s earliest stories could sound self consciously writerly and derivative — at their worst, O’Hara without the bite, Cheever without the magic — he soon found his own inimitable voice with “Pigeon Feathers” and “Rabbit, Run.” Over the years, the stories and novels tended to track Mr. Updike’s own life: couples wooed and wed and went their separate ways, and the hormonal urges of youth slowly became the quiescence of middle age.

In a series of overlapping stories about Joan and Richard Maple (collected in “Too Far to Go”), Mr. Updike created an indelible two-decade-long portrait of a marriage, chronicling how one couple created and then dismantled a life together, while tracing the imprint that time and age left on their relationship. Many of his later stories and novels seemed preoccupied with mortality and the ravages of time, featuring characters grappling with the looming prospect of their own demise with a mixture of anger, grace and resignation and looking back upon their youth in an often cloudy rear view mirror.

As for Mr. Updike’s collections of nonfiction (including “Hugging the Shore,” “Odd Jobs” and “Due Considerations”), they not only showcased his copious gifts as a critic — as a celebrant of other artists’ work and a sometimes acerbic literary anthropologist — but they also attested to his compulsion to enclose between the covers of a book every snippet of his work. These volumes featured thoughtful musings on contemporaries like Saul Bellow and Norman Mailer, and erudite essays on masters like Melville and Hawthorne, but they also included such effluvia as picture captions the author wrote for a Playboy spread on Marilyn Monroe and dutiful responses to questions posed by magazines (“What is your favorite spot in and around Harvard?”).

In one of these collections, Mr. Updike summed up his love of his vocation: “From earliest childhood I was charmed by the materials of my craft, by pencils and paper and, later, by the typewriter and the entire apparatus of printing. To condense from one’s memories and fantasies and small discoveries dark marks on paper which become handsomely reproducible many times over still seems to me, after nearly 30 years concerned with the making of books, a magical act, and a delightful technical process. To distribute oneself thus, as a kind of confetti shower falling upon the heads and shoulders of mankind out of bookstores and the pages of magazines is surely a great privilege and a defiance of the usual earthbound laws whereby human beings make themselves known to one another.”
Excerpts

A Sampler of John Updike’s Prose

Published: January 28, 2009

We recently had a carpenter build a few things in our house in the country. It’s an old house, leaning away from the wind a little; its floors sag gently, like an old mattress. The carpenter turned his back on our tilting walls and took his vertical from a plumb line and his horizontal from a bubble level, and then went to work by the light of these absolutes. Fitting his planks into place took a lot of those long, irregular, oblique cuts with a ripsaw that break an amateur’s heart. The bookcase and kitchen counter and cabinet he left behind stand perfectly up-and-down in a cockeyed house. Their rectitude is chastening. For minutes at a stretch, we study them, wondering if perhaps it isn’t, after all, the wall that is true and the bookcase that leans. Eventually, we suppose, everything will settle into the comfortably crooked, but it will take years, barring earthquakes, and in the meantime we are annoyed at being made to live with impossible standards.

From “Assorted Prose.”

•

A barn, in a day, is a small night. The splinters of light between the dry shingles pierce the high roof like stars, and the rafters and crossbeams and built-in ladders seem, until your eyes adjust, as mysterious as the branches of a haunted forest. David entered silently, the gun in one hand.... The small of old straw scratched his sinuses.... the mouths of empty bins gaped like caves. Rusty oddments of farming — coils of baling wire, some spare tines for a harrow, a handleless shovel — hung on nails driven here and there in the thick wood. He stood stock-still a minute; it took a while to separate the cooing of the pigeons from the rustling in his ears. When he had focused on the cooing, it flooded the vast interior with its throaty, bubbling outpour: there seemed no other sound. They were up behind the beams. What light there was leaked through the shingles and the dirty glass windows at the far end and the small round holes, about as big as basketballs, high on the opposite stone side walls, under the ridge of the roof.

From the story “Pigeon Feathers.”

•

The court, clay, had come through its first winter pitted and windswept bare of redcoat. Years ago the Maples had observed how often, among their friends, divorce followed a dramatic home improvement, as if the marriage were making one last effort to live; their own worst crisis had come amid the plaster dust and exposed plumbing of a kitchen renovation. Yet, a summer ago, as canary-yellow bulldozers gaily churned a grassy, daisy-dotted knoll into a muddy plateau, and a crew of pigtailed young men raked and tamped clay into a plane, this transformation did not strike them as ominous, but festive in its impudence; their marriage could rend the earth for fun. The next spring, waking each day at dawn to a sliding sensation as if the bed were being tipped, Richard found the barren tennis court — its net and tapes still rolled in the barn — an environment congruous with his mood of purposeful desolation, and the crumbling of handfuls of clay into cracks and holes (dogs had frolicked on the court in a thaw; rivulets had eroded trenches) an activity suitably elemental and interminable. In his sealed heart he hoped the day would never come.

From the story “Separating.”

Updike’s Stories: Some Paths Traveled, Some Not Taken

By BRUCE WEBER
“Rabbit, Run” (1960); “Rabbit Redux” (1971); “Rabbit Is Rich” (1981); “Rabbit at Rest” (1990)

This tetralogy, a chronicle of four decades in the life of Harry Rabbit Angstrom, a former high school basketball star who became a salesman, is likely to be Mr. Updike’s most enduring legacy. Rabbit, like Mr. Updike, grew up in a small Pennsylvania town (though, unlike the author, he didn’t leave), and in him Mr. Updike seems to have imagined the man he would have been if he hadn’t become a writer. Its great achievement is in placing Rabbit in a keenly observed American context, portraying a man in various stages of his life and also the nation he lives in.

“Assorted Prose” (1965)

This first collection of Mr. Updike’s incidental pieces — book reviews, parodies, autobiographical ruminations and short essays (including the classic piece about the final game played by Ted Williams at Fenway Park, “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu”) — gave evidence of the remarkable versatility he would exhibit throughout his career and showed off many of the qualities that came to be associated with his non-fiction: a generosity toward other artists; a capacious range of interests; a keen eye; and a joy in cleverness.

“Couples” (1968)

Mr. Updike’s scrutiny of an exurban community was almost sociological in its depiction of the habits, rituals and behavior of its inhabitants, but the book was best known for its frankness about sex, about which Mr. Updike never ceased being curious.

“Bech, a Book”(1970); “Bech Is Back” (1982); “Bech at Bay” (1998)

Like Rabbit, Henry Bech is an alter-ego, a Jewish writer with a long and varied career, someone Mr. Updike might have been had he not been a gentile who avoided the New York scene. The Bech books constitute a wryly caricaturish collective profile of Mr. Updike’s Jewish contemporaries, like Philip Roth, Saul Bellow and Norman Mailer, as well as a reflection on himself: the kind of writer he wasn’t.

“The Coup” (1978); “The Witches of Eastwick” (1983); “Gertrude and Claudius” (2000)

Mr. Updike was hardly a navel-gazer, however, and a distinct strain in his work involved extravagant acts of research and imagination. In novels like “The Coup,” which was set in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1970s; “Witches,” which posited the existence of Salem-esque magic-power-endowed shrews in contemporary New England; and “Gertrude,” an imagined prequel, more or less, to “Hamlet,” he set his prowess at social observation loose in exotic land- and mindscapes.

“In the Beauty of Lilies” (1996)

A saga of one American family over four generations and most of the 20th century, this is perhaps the novel that best tied together Mr. Updike’s close-to-home fictional themes — including the self-conscious American character, the religious strain in American life and the social and sexual patterns in American communities — with the world beyond his neighborhood.

BRUCE WEBER

AT LUNCH WITH/John Updike;On Reading, Writing And Rabbit


HOW clever of Alfred A. Knopf to have put his publishing house not far from the spot where a gastronomic shrine would one day rise. Because of his foresight, John Updike, decades later, had to walk only a few steps to reach Lutece.

The people at Knopf had sent their prized author off to the restaurant, on East 50th Street, not only to make sure that he had a good meal but also to provide a reasonably quiet place for him to hold forth on life, food, writing, religion -- whatever -- and maybe, while he was at it, to chat up his latest novel, "In the Beauty of the Lilies," a sweeping tale of 20th-century America.

The old editors at Knopf loved Lutece," Mr. Updike said as the waiter served coffee, for him decaffeinated. "There was sort of a symbiosis between the Knopf editorial board and Lutece." Then he lowered his voice just enough to lend the table, briefly, the air of a confessional. "I've never felt comfortable in here," he allowed. "I feel gourmet food is sort of wasted on me."

A sandwich and a glass of cranberry juice will do for lunch when he is at home, on 11 isolated acres in Beverly Farms, Mass., about 25 miles north of Boston. At this point, Mr. Updike said, he has to watch his waistline almost as much as his language.

"There's no disguising the fact that a writer's life is a sedentary one and prone to incessant snacking if you work at home," he said. "The little break of going down to get another oatmeal cookie is almost irresistible. So I try to make up for the cookies by not eating much at lunch."

Even when he was a boy in Shillington, Pa., outside the working-class town of Reading, literature and food converged. "I was a great peanut-butter lover from childhood on," he recalled. "The way I used to read was, we had an old sofa in the house, and I'd make a sandwich consisting of peanut butter and raisins. You'd eat one of those while you read John Dickson Carr or some other mystery writer, or James Thurber or Robert Benchley. In that way, many a happy afternoon went by."

But that was then. Fast-forwarding, Mr. Updike said: "It's no joke when you're 63 going on 64. What you eat begins to catch up to you."

Let it be noted that he held up fine under the gustatory strain of Lutece, polishing off a serving of grouper after a cup of pumpkin soup and a puff pastry of sweetbreads and spinach. He did draw the line at dessert.

Approaching the doorstep of his winter years, John Updike looks in person as he has for so long in photographs -- tall and lean, with that familiar shock of white hair, thick eyebrows and cheeks that fold back from a dominant nose, making his face resemble a ship's prow. Thanks to regular workouts on a treadmill and persistent attempts, not successful of late, to get his golf handicap below 18, his health is good, he said. On this February afternoon, though, he showed up for lunch with a Band-Aid on the back of his right hand.

A cut?

No, a doctor had just removed a small cancerous lesion.

That sounds worrisome.

Not really, Mr. Updike said, waving off concern with the damaged hand.

"I have a lot of skin cancers," he said. "I happen to have a condition called psoriasis. Wish I didn't, but I've had it since I was quite small. The only way to cure it was to go to the sun. So I moved to a town with a beach, and I used to go to the Caribbean once a winter -- lie there and roast myself. Now it's all showing up in the form of skin cancers.

"But they cut them out with great aplomb, and there's always a little bit of me left."

There is certainly more than enough of Mr. Updike left to keep him a towering figure in American letters, a rich voice heard in an astounding flow -- a torrent, really -- of novels, poetry, short stories, essays and literary criticism. In this young year, he has already appeared repeatedly in The New Yorker, which has published him since shortly after he graduated from Harvard University in 1954. Recent topics were as varied as Lana Turner and paranoid modern packaging that makes it almost impossible to get at the aspirin or the salted peanuts.

And there's the new novel, his 17th, which marches across this American century through the lives of four generations of a middle-class Protestant family -- home territory for Mr. Updike. Its florid title, a stylistic departure from the punchiness favored in his other books, is borrowed from a stanza of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me; As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free! While God is marching on.

"In the Beauty of the Lilies," Michiko Kakutani wrote in a New York Times review, "is not only Mr. Updike's most ambitious novel to date but arguably his finest: a big, generous book, narrated with Godlike omniscience and authority and populated by a wonderfully vivid cast of dreamers, wimps, social climbers, crackpots and lost souls."

Truth be told, not every critic has been so enthralled. Then again, Updike works have taken it on the chin at times almost from the start, with Knopf's publication of "The Poorhouse Fair" in 1959 and then, a year later, "Rabbit, Run," whose hero continued his run for three more novels, until laid to rest in 1990. "Without Rabbit, I would be a very obscure author indeed," Mr. Updike said. "If you look at the literary prizes I've won, they've almost all been given to Rabbit books."

When it comes to less-than-favorable reviews, Mr. Updike shrugs.

"What can you do?" he said. "A lot depends on what the guy had for dinner and all sorts of irrational factors. I became a reviewer in part to assuage my sense of indignation about some of the reviews I've got, so that I would sort of show what a fair review should be."

In the new novel, movies and religion intertwine. It is the celluloid image that holds the modern promise of eternal life. Movie houses and their flickering light shape communal values as powerfully as churches.

"The movie theater and the church often existed side by side in small towns," Mr. Updike said, harking back to his boyhood, in pre-television days, when he distributed fliers for the Shillington movie house in return for free passes. "The old Hollywood movies were very pious in a way. The general sense was of a moral code that was enforced as you watched. Sins were punished almost in exact proportion to their seriousness, and virtue was rewarded with happy endings. In many ways, the movies carried religious weight."

He admits to having long had a crush on -- are you ready? -- Doris Day ("There it is -- out in the open!") and to wishing he had Errol Flynn's "masculine grace" (alas, "no Errol Flynn, I"). So strong were screen influences that, as a teen-ager in the 1940's, he entertained the idea of becoming a Walt Disney animator.

How different that era was from these days of the little screen.

"I don't like videos," Mr. Updike said dismissively. "There's something squalid about a video store. The people look furtive, like drug addicts, as they take them out in stacks of four and five. It's like people who drink alone. It's one thing to drink at a party, another thing to drink alone. One thing to go to an assembly hall and watch big illusions, another thing to take them home in a little can. It seems not playing the game."

Playing the game in modern publishing means, even for John Updike, having to take to the road to hawk one's work. As book tours go, this one involved little heavy lifting -- a weeklong venture, spent mostly in the Northeast. Still, it was a far cry from his early years, when he believed that books should sell themselves.

"If I had character, I'm sure I could say no to promotion tours," he said. "Thomas Pynchon says no. The late John Hersey said no. Anonymous says no." But Mr. Updike goes along out of a sense of obligation to Knopf. Occasionally, his journeys take him to college campuses for talks about writing, but that's only "when I'm cornered."

"I'm not really a good teacher because I don't really want to encourage younger writers," he said. "Keep them down and out and silent is my motto. Do they talk about encouraging younger actresses? No. You don't want any younger actress to come along and outshine you."

As Mr. Updike sipped his coffee, other Lutece customers walked by his table and, matter-of-factly, glanced his way. No offense, but here was a literary giant, and the well heeled, and now well fed, showed no obvious signs of recognition.

"That's good," he said. "You don't want to be a celebrity. It cuts your privacy, doesn't it? And a writer needs some sense of blending in and being a witness. The sad truth of it is that the writing game is low on the celebrity totem pole."

Oh yeah? What about the hot publishing figure of the moment, Joan Collins?

Mr. Updike laughed. "The newly famous writer," he said. "Well, I guess she showed Random House a thing or two. In a way, it serves them right. It illustrates the folly of greedy contract-making on both sides."

Postcoffee, the conversation drifted, but it made its way back to his new novel and its theological cast just as the waiter brought the check. It was good timing. Picking up the bill at Lutece is enough to make anyone get religion.

Yes, Mr. Updike is a believing Christian. "I've been lucky, really," he said. "It would be unkind of me not to be somewhat religious. It would be ungrateful."

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Damien Hirst

Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Science blog

Damien Hirst salutes Darwin's 'courage' in On the Origin of Species painting

Darwin's ideas 'questioned the very fabric of existence and belief', writes Damien Hirst, who painted the cover art for the 150th anniversary edition of the naturalist's great work

Damien Hirst image for anniversary edition, On the Origin of Species

"Human skull in space" (oil on canvas) by Damien Hirst, for the 150th anniversary edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Copyright: Damien Hirst 2009

I was given a paperback copy of On the Origin of Species many years ago by a friend and I loved it, especially the contentious aspects of it. Being brought up a Catholic and questioning the nonsensical creation theory, it was exciting.

At the time I was in the habit of visiting the Leeds City Museum, which displayed stuffed animals accompanied by labels explaining their origins. I also used to attend the World Wildlife Fund lectures on a Saturday afternoon.

So it was an honour to be asked to create a cover for this 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species. This particular painting is called "Human skull in space" (oil on canvas), and, as in a lot of my work, there's a nod to the scientific.

The painting sits firmly in the tradition of "still life" and is made up of objects I've come to imbue with my own meanings, some of them Darwinian in origin, and that I guess are seen in other areas of my work. The painting has an X-ray-like quality to it, as if it is revealing something about the structure of the objects painted.

I suppose the work, in a modest way, acknowledges Darwin's analytical mind and his courage to believe in those ideas that questioned the very fabric of existence and belief in his time.

Copyright: Damien Hirst 2009

The anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species is published in hardback by Penguin Classics on 12 February (Darwin's birthday)

Crystallography

Newton
13 Colonies

Prov. 10:1

"The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother."





St.James Angels
The stained glass windows of the St. James Cathedral in Toronto tell the stories of the Christian Church through history.
Chess: "Newton" "13 Colonies" "Optiks" "Budweisser" "Moody Blues"
"Crystallography"

X-ray crystallography is an extremely precise, but also difficult and expensive means of imaging the exact structure of a given molecule or macromolecule in a crystal lattice. Because a diverse set of materials produce crystals, including salts, metals, minerals, semiconductors, and various inorganic, organic, and biological molecules, x-ray crystallography is essential to many scientific fields. A crystal is any regularly repeating arrangement of unit cells which range in size from less than 100 atoms — small-molecule crystallography — to tens of thousands — macromolecular crystallography).
X-ray crystallography is famous for being the tool first used to discover the structure of DNA, but it was also used to determine the structure of diamond, table salt, penicillin, numerous proteins, and entire viruses. In all, over 400,000 structures have been described using x-ray crystallography. These can be found in the Cambridge Structure Database.
To analyze a sample using x-ray crystallography, first one must obtain a high-purity crystal of the material to be studied with a very regular structure. This is often the hardest part as numerous crystals have nanometer-scale defects which make x-ray crystallography difficult.
Next, the sample is subjected to an intense beam of x-rays of a uniform wavelength. These x-rays produce a diffraction pattern as they reflect off the sample. This diffraction pattern is somewhat similar to what is observed when multiple stones are tossed into a pond – where the waves cross are peaks which make up the diffraction pattern.
By slowly rotating the crystal, pounding it with x-rays, and meticulously recording the diffraction patterns at each orientation, an electron density map may be derived. This electron density map is then used to formulate a hypothesis about the atomic structure it corresponds to. The diffraction patterns are then analyzed in light of the hypothesized structure, and if it looks plausible that the given structure would produce the observed diffraction pattern, a conclusion is drawn. The result is then uploaded to central databases of the type mentioned earlier.
-->
What is X-ray Crystallography ?
X-ray crystallography is an experimental technique that exploits the fact that X-rays are diffracted by crystals. It is not an imaging technique. X-rays have the proper wavelength (in the Ångström range, ~10-8 cm) to be scattered by the electron cloud of an atom of comparable size. Based on the diffraction pattern obtained from X-ray scattering off the periodic assembly of molecules or atoms in the crystal, the electron density can be reconstructed. Additional phase information must be extracted either from the diffraction data or from supplementing diffraction experiments to complete the reconstruction (the phase problem in crystallography). A model is then progressively built into the experimental electron density, refined against the data and the result is a quite accurate molecular structure.
-->
Why Crystallography ?
The knowledge of accurate molecular structures is a prerequisite for rational drug design and for structure based functional studies to aid the development of effective therapeutic agents and drugs. Crystallography can reliably provide the answer to many structure related questions, from global folds to atomic details of bonding. In contrast to NMR, which is an indirect spectroscopic method, no size limitation exists for the molecule or complex to be studied. The price for the high accuracy of crystallographic structures is that a good crystal must be found, and that limited information about the molecule's dynamic behavior in solution is available from one single diffraction experiment. In the core regions of the molecules, X-ray and NMR structures agree very well, and enzymes maintain their activity even in crystals, which often requires the design of non-reactive substrates to study enzyme mechanisms.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Bacardi
Hiel-Miel: Cape Cañaveral
Chrysler

Psalm 84:6
"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."


Great Salt Lake, Utah
Chess: "Bacardi" "Cañaveral" "hiel-miel"

Coppertone

Coppertone 
Reed 
Junco 
Psalm 84:11
"For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he wit
hhold from them that walk uprightly."
Chess: "Coppertone" "29" "copper: At.#29"
Sunrise Namibia Balloon Flight 
The dawning sun sets the Namibian dessert aglow with its golden light.

Friday, January 23, 2009

From
January 21, 2009

Grand Arabian nights

Truly a work of world literature, The Arabian (or 1,001) Nights has been fully translated into English for the first time in over a century

So which Nights are they, the Arabian, or the Thousand and One? Both appear on the title page of this, the first full English translation since Richard Burton published his version well over a century ago. The dual title neatly illustrates the hybrid nature of the work: it is part of Arabic and European literature, it contains stories and motifs that may be traced to Sanskrit, Persian and Greek literature, it hovers between the oral and the written, the popular and the highbrow, the pious and the scabrous, realism and fantasy. “Arabian”, an epithet it acquired in Europe, is a misnomer, for it was neither conceived nor written in Arabia and the great majority of the stories are set in Iraq, Egypt or Persia rather than the Arabian Peninsula. The original Arabic title, Alf layla wa-layla, translates as “A Thousand and One Nights” – but one should be cautious using the term “original”, for the earliest mention in Arabic refers to a Persian book called Hazar afsana, “A Thousand Tales”. An Arabic version, including the frame story about the resourceful and eloquent Shahrazad and the murderous misogynist King Shahriyar (a story that may be of Indian origin, whereas the names are Persian), was around in the tenth century, but the text is not preserved, presumably because it was deemed to be “silly stuff”, in the words of a tenth-century scholar. It was anonymous, its language was not sufficiently polished, and it was too obviously fictional and fantastic in parts, all of which precluded its acceptance in highbrow circles. At the same time it was never as truly popular, in the sense of widespread among and beloved by the illiterate, as the monstrously lengthy and equally anonymous epic tales such as Sirat Antar or Sirat Bani Hilal.

Then, in Europe three centuries ago, the Nights rose to the pinnacle of critical esteem when Antoine Galland produced his French translation, which spawned numerous other European versions. The Nights came to belong to World Literature, loved by children, novelists, poets and the general reading public, in the process contributing much to the formation and malformation of the Middle East in Western eyes. Galland did more than merely translate: he shaped the text into what became a more or less canonical form; as a result the Nights are as much a part of Western literature as of Arabic. To Western readers, the stories of Aladdin, Ali Baba and Sindbad belong to the core of the Nights and are among the best-known tales; but they did not belong to the Arabic text until Galland added them. There is, in fact, no known Arabic text of the Aladdin and Ali Baba stories that predates Galland, and elements in the story of Aladdin suggest that it may have been a European fairy tale rather than an Arabic one. It would be unthinkable, however, to publish the complete Nights without its two most popular tales, which is why in the present work they have been translated, by Ursula Lyons, from Galland’s French, as is an alternative ending of a Sindbad story. It was only in the course of the twentieth century that the Arabs themselves, in the wake of the Westerners, came to consider the Nights as something to be proud of and to study seriously instead of enjoying it in secret as a guilty pleasure. Many reactionary Muslims still consider it an unedifying text that ought to be banned or at least expurgated; but on the alwaraq.com website, where a wealth of Arabic texts may be consulted and searched, the Nights have the highest number of hits (I should add that the Koran is not listed there).

Three English translations from the Arabic appeared in the course of the nineteenth century. Edward William Lane, a good Arabist, produced a version in 1839 that was acceptable to a Victorian readership, which meant that he had to omit a fair number of stories, passages and poems. More complete was the version by John Payne (1882–4), which was soon overshadowed, and to some extent plagiarized, by that of Richard Burton (1885–8), a translation as eccentric as Burton himself. His obsession with matters of sex and eroticism (he also put his name to a translation of the Kama Sutra – not “Karmasutra”, as in Robert Irwin’s introduction to Malcolm C. Lyons’s new translation) is obvious not only from his copious notes, but also from the translation itself; Burton’s wife Isobel saw to it that an expurgated version was published for a general readership. Burton’s language, too, is eccentric and pretty unreadable, such that a not unlikely title might be “The Shroff who Futtered his Cadette with the Two Coyntes” (I am making this up, but the words are Burton’s). Such words may be useful for players of Scrabble; modern readers deserve something better.

They had to wait a long time, in the meantime having to make do, for instance, with an English version of the perfumed travesty of J. C. Mardrus’s more French than Arabian Nights. Some partial translations from the Arabic were made in the intervening period. One of these, by N. J. Dawood, published in Penguin Classics more than half a century ago, is unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. What to think of a translator who decides to “ignore the divisions of the tales into nights” (to quote from the introduction), thereby casually ditching an essential structural device of the collection; who leaves out all the poems because “they tend to obstruct the natural flow of the narrative” and because “they are devoid of literary merit”; and who includes a couple of tales that do not even belong to the Nights, merely because “they are typical of the amusing short folk-tales still current in the Middle East”? The information given in Dawood’s introduction on the history and nature of the text is inadequate, and contrasts with the high standards set by the average Penguin Classics introduction. Much better are the more recent two volumes with translations by Husain Haddawy (1990, 1995), which are more readable and reliable.

By the time Haddawy produced his first volume, Muhsin Mahdi had published the first scholarly edition of an Arabic text, based on the oldest extant manuscript of the Nights available, which dates from the fifteenth century (Mahdi himself believed it was a century older). This text, also used by Galland as it happens, is fascinating because it is written in a lively Arabic that is much closer to the spoken language than the more polished versions offered by the uncritical editions produced in Cairo and Calcutta in the nineteenth century, which formed the basis for Lane, Burton and many other early translations. Unfortunately, the text of this manuscript is not complete, for it stops at night 282. Haddawy chose to translate this version, and so did various recent translators in other European languages, reverting to the Cairo or Calcutta texts for the remaining parts. The choice of Mahdi’s text has been justified on two grounds: it is lively and readable, and it offers a more “original”, more authentic and popular version, unmarred by the interference of meddling Arab or Arabist scholars and correctors who polished the language and the style of the texts for the nineteenth-century editions. The former argument is valid; the latter, advocated by Mahdi and followed by many others, is not, for it takes for granted, first, that there is something that can be called an “original” text of the Nights, and, second, that this pure original was “popular” until it fell into the defiling hands of highbrow pedants. Both assumptions are erroneous, for one cannot speak of an original text, and the polishing process was present from the earliest times. Many of the stories found in the Nights have a “highbrow” origin, and several of them are indeed found in Arabic polite literature, such as the extremely readable tenth-century collection al-Faraj ba’d al-shiddah (“Relief after Distress, or Happy Endings”) by al-Tanukhi – a work that deserves full translation into English, being rather more representative of classical Arabic literature than the two works best known to Western readers, the Nights and the Koran.

The choice between Mahdi’s text and a more traditional one was decided in favour of the latter by Malcolm Lyons in his new translation, with which Penguin Classics has made up in magnificent fashion for its former neglect of the Nights. Lyons, Emeritus Professor of Arabic at the University of Cambridge, is uniquely qualified, for he is equally at home in the popular and high-status traditions, having published a magisterial survey of the popular epics as well as important studies on poetry. His decision not to opt for the Mahdi text must therefore be taken seriously, and I believe it was the right one, especially since we already have an English version of Haddawy’s volume. Lyons used the text known as “Calcutta II”, which was published between 1839 and 1842, supervised by W. H. Macnaghten; one’s confidence in the latter’s competence as an Arabist is undermined by his inability, apparent from the title page, to distinguish between alif (the letter A) and alf (one thousand). Lyons’s translation does not contain the many additional stories that are found in yet other versions of the Nights, such as the “Breslau edition” or the Wortley-Montagu manuscript.

Robert Irwin, the author of The Arabian Nights: A companion, has provided three useful introductions to the three volumes, on the nature of the work, the history of the text, and the extraordinary impact of the Nights on world literature, art and film. He is also responsible for the annotation in footnotes, which is minimal but aided by a glossary printed at the end of each volume, as are maps of the Abbasid Caliphate and of the two major cities figuring in the stories: Baghdad and Cairo. The Nights must be among the most frequently illustrated works; but the images in the present translation are all of the textual kind and the reader will not be distracted by Oriental or Orientalist pictures.

The translation reads well. It is faithful to the original, preserving the formula that punctuates the text and marks the division into 1,001 nights: “Morning now dawned and Shahrazad broke off from what she had been allowed to say. Then, when it was the . . . th night, she continued: I have heard, O auspicious king . . .”. Incidentally, if the ploy of nightly tales with cliff-hanging breaks is taken literally, the storytelling sessions must have been short, since the average night spans only a few pages and sometimes barely more than one: either Shahrazad’s words were substantially curtailed, or she and her husband did other things in between. The rhymed prose used in the Arabic in this formula and on numerous other occasions, especially in flowery descriptions, has not been imitated, nor has rhyme been used for the many poems, unlike the practice of, for instance, Burton, Haddawy or Enno Littmann in his German translation. The Arabic monorhyme (only one rhyme, maintained throughout a poem) is difficult to imitate in English for obvious reasons, and even an easier rhyme scheme will often compel the translator to resort to padding or distortion. Blank verse, or at least verse in iambic or some other metre, is less difficult to produce, but Lyons has employed this only intermittently; consequently the poetry looks rather pedestrian at times. The translation does not suffer from the archaisms and highfalutin expressions that abound in many earlier translations, and to excess in Burton. Lyons’s English is relatively straightforward, just like the original Arabic.

Classical Arabic writers are generally not prudish, which posed a problem to Victorian and other translators. Lane’s solution was to omit bawdy tales altogether, while Burton revived old words or coined new ones for his purposes. Lyons occasionally resorts to another kind of prudishness, for instance when, shrinking from the correct, demotic English translation of hir, he uses the Latinate “vagina” in the tale of the Porter and the Three Ladies. This tale contains a passage on the naming of parts; the ladies are said to refer to the porter’s zubb or air: Lyons resorts to transliteration instead of translation. Some readers will be delighted to learn some naughty Arabic, but surely English has a profusion of equally vulgar words for the sexual organs. It should be stressed, however, that obscenities, Arabic equivalents of English four-letter words, are few and far between in the original, where sexual intercourse is often simply expressed as “lying with” or more elaborately by means of metaphors martial (“storming the fortress”) or religious (“circumambulating the Kaaba”, “putting the imam into the prayer niche”), with the mildly shocking profanity that was common in pre-modern Arabic.

One thing I missed was a paragraph with hints on pronunciation. A full scholarly transliteration of Arabic names and terms would have been out of place, but at least the correct stress could have been indicated. This would have been more useful than the pointless retention of the apostrophe indicating the pharyngeal sound called ’ayn, as in ’Abd, which few non-specialists or non-Arabs would know what to do with. Already I imagine, with horror, how the name of the beautiful Badi’ al-Jamal will be pronounced by future readers as if she had something to do with a camel (jamal, different from jamâl, “beauty”), or how the name of the slave girl Hubub would sound like “hubbub”: it should be stressed on the second syllable and rhyme with “boob”, and I believe the correct reading would actually be Habub. The general reading public is supposedly averse to diacritical signs, but I have personally never met a “general reader” who abhorred macrons or circumflexes, and “Habûb” cannot look too off-putting. On the subject of names, one wonders why Nur al-Din’s sash-making girlfriend has been given the Hebrew name Miriam. Mary would be more appropriate, since she turns out to be the daughter of the Frankish King; but the conventional Arabic form Maryam is surely best.

Robert Irwin justifies the minimalism of his annotation in the introduction to the third volume, by pointing out that the present translation has no “ethnographic agenda”, unlike those of Galland, Lane and Burton. Thus it is suggested that annotation is slightly suspect and may lead to accusations of “orientalism” in the Saidian sense. This is surely wrong. When, for instance, someone walks in one of the streets of al-Hira, the reader may want to know where that place is, but neither the maps nor the glossary will help. A reference to the “Abjad-Hawwaz alphabet” may suggest a secret or cryptic script; a note could have explained that it is the ordinary Arabic alphabet in the old “Semitic” order, as still used in Hebrew.

That I should resort to such minor quibbles is proof of the high quality of the translation, which ought to become the standard one for the present century. It is fitting that it appears in time for the 1,200th anniversary of the death of Harun al-Rashid (or Hârûn al-Rashîd, d.809), whose fictional persona appears in so many stories in the Nights.



THE ARABIAN NIGHTS
Tales of 1001 nights
Translated by Malcolm C. Lyons, with Ursula Lyons; introduced and annotated by Robert Irwin
Three volumes, 2,778pp. Penguin. £125.
978 1 84614 117 1



Geert Jan van Gelder is Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of St John’s College. His latest monograph is Close Relationships: Incest and inbreeding in classical Arabic Literature, 2005.