BookEnds

I’ve been meaning to read Ian McEwan’s new novel “Solar” since it came out on March 30 — a new novel by McEwan is always a large treat for me, and I’ve been savoring the prospect of this new read. Despite its somewhat mixed reviews, the premise of this new – and comic – novel intrigues me.

It centers around an egotistical, middle-aged British physicist tackling the issue of climate change, whose scientific work in harnessing the sun’s power for energy is contrasted by his gluttonous, over-consuming lifestyle.

McEwan was  inspired to write the book after taking a trip to the Arctic in 2005 aboard the Norwegian ship Noorderlicht to view the effects being ravaged on the landscape by climate change (in the book, McEwan’s protagonist apparently takes a similar journey). To successfully address the issue of global warming in fiction isn’t an easy prospect; instead of treating a doom-laden subject with heavy handed morality, McEwan has opted for comedy, a form that he has hinted at in previous works, but never fully explored, as far as I know. His treatment of science in his novels, though, has always been precisely detailed, to the extent that the meticulous descriptions of neurosurgery in “Saturday” could completely absorb even a scientifically-challenged reader like me. As for the issue of climate change, I’m curious to see what light literature can throw upon the dark subject of global warming; if any author can make sense of the issue, I’ll wager McEwan’s the man to do it.

The other book that’s caught my interest lately is “The Imperfectionists”, the debut novel of Tom Rachman; partly because of the stunning first reviews, partly because I like the title, but mostly because of its subject: newspapers.

The book is set amidst an unnamed English-language daily in Rome, which “doesn’t even have a website”, founded by an American businessman who’s grandson is now the owner, though apparently all the grandson cares about is a basset hound called Schopenhauer (just that little touch alone makes me want to read the book). The novel is arranged into short story-like installments featuring a different staff member of the paper: the Paris correspondent struggling for a source, the obits editor dealing with death in his own life, the veteran Cairo stringer overwhelming the ambitious newbie. I’ll admit: I peeked inside the first chapter and found a wonderfully funny scene in which the aforementioned Paris correspondent is trying to convince an editor to take a feature article on ortolans, small birds soaked in Cognac that are a French delicacy and were “Mitterrand’s last meal.” “You don’t want the ortolan?” the correspondent, Lloyd Burko, says as the editor asks for something more timely.

These two darkly comic novels are a delicious prospect; I’ve been drawn to comedy lately, particularly as I’m nearing the end of Stella Gibbons’ hilarious “Cold Comfort Farm” (a book which should be read by anyone with relatives). McEwan’s new novel has been shortlisted for the 2010 Wodehouse comic novel prize, and Rachman’s book has been likened, in parts, to Evelyn Waugh’s “Scoop.” I expect to be laughing well into June.

I finished Superfreakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, last week but, with the president’s visit and increasing election coverage, haven’t had time yet to give you an update.

So here it comes, though I’m not going to review it, per se. As you may know, the book’s stirred some controversy because the scientist quoted in the final chapter on climate change told a climate blogger that he was misrepresented in the book. That’s a really serious charge against the authors, one of whom, Dubner, is a journalist. And many other scientists have come out against the conclusion in the book that geoengineering is the best way to combat climate change.

I don’t think the chapter would have stirred so much controversy had the authors not appeared so certain about topics outside their realm of expertise, which is what the book is doing in the first place. Perhaps it would have worked better had the idea that geoengineering is a better approach to curbing global temperature increases been approached as a question rather than presented as an uncertainty. In general, the authors can seem openly hostile to ideas that don’t fall within the book’s point-of-view. For ex  ample, you don’t get the sense that these guys think much of government at all. The follow excerpt was the kind of aside that was typical:

The Department of Homeland Security recently solicited hurricane-mitigation ideas from various scientists, including Nathan (Myhrvold) and his friends. Although such agencies rarely opt for cheap and simple solutions — it simply isn’t in their DNA — perhaps an exception will be made in this case, for the potential upside is large and the harm in trying seems minimal.

How efficient government agencies are is certainly open for debate, but to assert their anti-efficiency so baldly is a bit heavy-handed.

My bigger problem with the book, as I’ve said before, is how liberally they borrow from other writer’s discoveries. Whether you think Malcolm Gladwell is good or not, he at least presents you with research you might not have encountered before much of the time. But I had read about Myhrvold before in the New Yorker, in a piece by Gladwell. I’ve written on the blog before about how I encountered two of the big ideas — those of Sudhir Venkatesh and Joseph De May — in other venues. They also clearly read Atul Gawande’s Better, because that’s where I first read about Ignatz Semmelweiss, who plays a significant role in Chapter 4. It’s completely fine for authors to learn about something from another writer and  then do their own research and writing on it. It just seemed to me that Dubner and Levitt had been reading the same things I’ve read.

Either way, it’s destined to be a blockbuster.

I’ve been meaning to share this for some time, but Charles Siebert, an author who had an interesting New York Times Magazine piece about whales in July, also wrote a book about a retirement home for former ape movie stars. I thought the book, The Wauchula Woods Accord: Toward a New Understanding of Animals, might have special resonance here in Stamford.

I’ve nearly finished “Frozen Fire,” the new techno-thriller by Greenwich resident Bill Evans, and it’s clear the WABC meteorologist can do more than give the weather report — he also tells an engaging story. Even more importantly, Evans has brought to the surface a little-known, but highly divisive debate over the potential use of methane hydrate as an alternative energy source. For a preview of the book, go here.

Found mostly beneath the ocean floor, methane hydrate is a solid compound that contains a large amount of methane frozen in the crystalline structure of water ice. Since there’s so much of the stuff — the U.S. Geological Survey suggests there is between 100,000 and 300 million trillion cu. ft. on Earth — it has the potential to be an abundant source of energy. Even better, it burns relatively clean.

But Evans, a supporter of research into methane hydrate extraction, admits that there are obstacles to harvesting the substance. For starters, it would take an enormous financial investment to start a drilling operation on the ocean floor (in “Frozen Fire,” it is risk-taking billionaire Dennis Cavendish who does just that). And though it might sound far-fetched, Evans warns that an operation could be sabotaged by radical eco-terrorists (that’s where evil Earth activist Garner Blaylock, Cavendish’s arch-nemsis, comes in).

But from what I’ve gathered, those aren’t the primary concerns of many scientists and environmentalists, who view the idea of methane hydrate extraction as yet another way to exploit and already vulnerable planet. As we have observed in the Niger Delta in recent years, oil drilling operations conducted by gas giant Shell have created an environmental disaster and contributed to political and social upheaval in that region. What then, the environmentalists ask, would happen if companies like Exxon/Mobil, Shell and Texaco were given free reign of the ocean floor?

I’ve really only scratched the surface on this debate, but I encourage anyone interested in the topic to do some research on their own. “Frozen Fire,” an entertaining and easy-to-read novel, might be a good start. And a recent article by Sonia Shah on Salon.com is also very informative on the subject.

We are facing a dire energy crisis and as Evans suggests, methane hydrate could be a viable solution. At the same time, are we willng to risk further environmental destruction to satiate our energy needs?