Customer Reviews

Imagining Atlantis

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Ellis's "Imagining Atlantis" is a decidedly mixed bag. On the one hand, he provides a helpful overview of a great many theories regarding Atlantis, and he makes a fairly strong argument for his opinion that Atlantis was nothing more--and nothing less--than Plato's creation, woven from a number of preexisting strands and Plato's own imagination and purposes. As a former adherent of the Minoan explanation, I was surprised to find myself nodding along with Ellis's conclusions.

Unfortunately, Ellis's valuable content is severely hampered by the surprisingly weak structure of the work. This book could have benefited from a thorough reorganization. The argument ebbs and flows, sometimes flowing back on itself. Transitions are often weak and sometimes virtually nonexistent, with nothing more than a paragraph break to signal the appearance of a new topic. Serious editing might also have caught other errors. (For example, Ellis situates Mount St. Helens 200 hundred miles south of Mount Mazama/Crater Lake; in fact, Mount St. Helens is about 200 miles north of Crater Lake.) As a former book editor, I can say that editing this work would have been a significant task--but it was well within the capabilities of a good editor, and it should have had that treatment.

Let me also add that potential readers must treat some of the reviews here with care. Ellis does not admire Ignatius Donnelly; in fact, he treats him almost scornfully. I think that, if one listens carefully, one will hear the distinct sound of axes being ground in some of these reviews. In particular, this work will not appeal to those interested in the paranormal, UFOs, and the like. But it should appeal to those who are interested in the history of ideas.

The author asserts that the well-known theory that the Atlantis myth was inspired by the explosion of the volcano at Santorini and the demise of Minoan Crete is unjustified and that the whole thing is a moral tale by Plato. He may well be right in that, but his arguments are not more convincing than those he criticizes. Moreover, the book is badly structured, with the same things repeated chapter after chapter, and some of them totally superfluous (Movies about Atlantis?) The author's classical history is also weak: in particular his account of the Peloponnesian War is full of errors. A prescindible book.

I agree with the reader who said that this book is mostly harmless (and dry), but having just finished the book "Lost Continents" by L. Sprague de Camp, and having read this one a month or two before, I am struck by how many ideas this author borrowed from de Camp. Except for the material on Santorini, almost all the examples Ellis uses to dispute Atlantis were used in de Camp's book, which also cites them in more detail, which was published in 1954. Ellis credits de Camp in his bibliography, but, except for Santorini and the chapter on Atlantis in the movies, there is vere little material in here that wasn't in the book "Lost Continents."

"This is, quite simply, the best book on Atlantis ever written", says the Los Angeles Times Book Review (cited on cover page). Unlike the L.A. Times I am not familiar with the entire literature on Atlantis, but I was willing to agree with this judgment. When I actually started reading "Imagining Atalantis", my suspicion grew page after page and soon I was convinced that this is not a good book at all.

It makes un uninspired impression and shows all the signs of being a hasty job. Persons and certain facts are often introduced more than once, perhaps because the book is a collection of independent articles. If so the author didn't bother to remove the sometimes very obvious discontinuities. A whole Chapter (Atlantis in Fiction and Film) appears to be completely misplaced; the same is true for some pieces of text: in the middle of a description of Akrotiri we are suddenly told about Ancient Thera (the Greek settlement on the island, which has nothing to do with Atlantis anyway). After one paragraph Ancient Thera disappears without leaving a trace, never to reappear again.

The real problem with "Imaginig Atlantis", is, however, something else: the author, Richard Ellis, severely criticizes many of the authors of books that propose the identification Atlantis-Thera. He does not realize that his criticism acts like a boomerang. His book is full with sometimes surprisingly basic errors, of which I give just a few examples: Pellegrino (author of the book "Unearthing Atlantis") is judged to be "irresponsible" for getting the initials of K.T. Frost wrong and making him (Frost) live 20 years longer than he actually did. Mr. Ellis no doubt is correct, but the effect of his words is rather weakened by the fact that he himself blunders (page 129 of paperback edition) into making poor Nausicaa (a princess of the mythical Phaeacians) the daughter of Menelaos and have her live at Pylos. This probably means that he has never even read Homer's Odyssey. He also wants us to believe (page 228) that present day Turkey was, in classical times, a part of Greece then called Anatolia (presumably 21th century Greeks refer to it as Asia Minor...).

Richard Ellis complains that it is often hard to trace back the origins of certain statements made in the Atlantis/Thera books reviewed by him, but again his own book is no different. I give just one example: all of a sudden we find that the island of Thera was called Strongyle (p. 153). No further explanation is given even if the name reappears twice at p. 163, now also spelled Stronghyli. (For some comments on this name see below.) The curious reader will search the index in vain. Oh yes, the index. Let's try and search for Nausicaa: you will find neither her nor her "father" Menelaos. Agamemnon is present, but Odysseus not; Theseus yes Ariadne no. At this point the desperate reader will give up and conclude that the index only superficially resembles a real, serious, index.

Finally, Mr. Ellis clearly doesn't like the lack of hard evidence in many of the Atlantean speculations. Right, but why does he try to surpass all the others with even wilder (perhaps even silly) speculations about a plague in classical Athens caused by the Ebola virus? There is not the slightest evidence that Plato used this plague (whatever its cause) in his construction of the Atlantis story. So what has this all got to do with Thera/Atlantis? Well, on the Thera wall-paintings we find blue monkeys, notorious carriers of the Ebola virus... (never mind that by convention the Minoans and Egyptians always painted monkeys blue). As Mr. Ellis states in his introduction, this whole chain of association came about by clicking away on the Web. If this is supposed to be the beginning of a new area in research, and an example of how this kind of research will be carried out in the future, then we are going to be in big trouble.

Is "Imagining Atlantis" the worst book ever written on Atlantis? No, but considering the subject, that would be practically impossible. The best book ever? Quite simply, it doesn't even come close.

P.S. At least some other writers tell us what the word Strongyle means ("Round Island"), although their explanations vary from "name given by modern geologists to pre-eruption Thera" (James Mavor, "Voyage to Atlantis") or "very ancient name of Thera according to Herodotus" (R. Castleden, "Atlantis destroyed", implying that a vague memory of the original pre-eruption shape of the island survived). Personally I have not been able to find that name in Herodotus and I suspect that Mavor's explanation is the correct one. Are we witnessing the birth of a mini-myth in the more general context of the Thera/Atalantis connection? Is there anybody out there on the Web who can clarify this mystery?

Ellis presents a very forthright book. It is a good overview, thorough enough to encapsulate the history of Atlantis lore, theories, and studies, yet easy enough to remain readable without being a boring list of facts and references. Ellis does a fine job of refuting most theories and pointing out other reserachers factual and logical errors. I was especially pleased to see a refutation of the current craze, that Atlantis is merely the Minoan Thera. I believe this book presents the most grounded work I have seen on the Atlantis myth. There are no UFOs or aliens, no prophecies or psychics, no Biblical and mythical allusions, and no global catastrophes or conspiracies. This is a good thing, and a breath of fresh air in the Atlantis mythos.

However, the book suffers in two ways. One, it dismisses the Atlantis tale out-of-hand, as a moral myth, without allowing for the factual kernels of Plato's tale to remain standing. There is no potentiality for future possibilities, if it is simply dismissed, and the whole subject is closed. Secondly, Ellis' book suffers from a few structural flaws, such as an odd repetition of certain phrases and thoughts, as if the book received no final editing and remained a rough draft. Three, his research lacked depth in certain areas, such as in history and archaeology, though I am aware and he states that these are not his specialties.

Overall, it is a valuable addition to the study of Atlantis.

This is a history of stories, theories, archaeological expeditions, literature and movies about Atlantis, explained with level-headed curiosity and dry wit. Some highlights include the theories of Immanual Velikovsky and reviews of various films. For example, in George Pal's 1961 movie "Atlantis, the Lost Continent", evil Atlanteans declair, "We must conquer or be conquered. Are we not the master race?" -- while birds and bees desert the doomed continent.

From Greek papyrus scrolls to B-grade television, Ellis serves as a combo historian and art critic on trail of an evolving legend through 2,000+ years.

"Imagining Atlantis" is a well-researched, highly detailed, and fascinating book about how generations following Plato's have conceived of the fabled island.

Although Ellis outlines his book chronologically, starting with what Plato actually said, and continues from there, most of the book covers 18th- to 20th-century dealings with the legend, from Atlantis in fiction, mysticism, archeology/geology, and even films.

Ellis presents each story vivdly and objectively, though of course objectivity may be hard to maintain when future archeologists and "Atlantologists" decide that when Plato says Atlantis existed "nine thousand years ago", he *really* meant nine hundred years.

Ellis' critical wit surfaces most in the Fiction and Film section when describing the cheesy Atlantis movies made in the early 20th century, replete with bad props, unexplained plots, cheap costumes, and poor effects. Yet even here his descriptions lean more towards a humorous look back on, rather than a disdainful criticism of, how human creativity has retold the Atlantis tale.

I give it four stars instead of five mostly because of the style in which it was written. Though the language was lucid and engaging, Ellis *really* loves parentheses. Almost every page contains at least three parenthetical remarks, where simple commas might have sufficed - and sometimes even entire quotes are enclosed in parentheses... right in the middle of a sentence (cf. p. 95, 3rd full paragraph)! Nevertheless, as distracting as the style might be, the message nonetheless was communicated.

Another reason I give it four stars instead of five is because the middle part of the book concentrates more on the "Crete-as-possibly-Atlantis/Thera-volcano" saga. Examining Crete, with its supporting archeological evidence, as a possible candidate for Atlantis, as well as the nearby volcano on Thera, as the destroyer of the flourishing civilization on Crete is necessary - actually, I found it quite intriguing, as it reads like a detective story - but I recognize the focus on Atlantis is sacrificed in this part of the book. More attention is given to how cataclysmic the eruption was, how high the tsumanis were; for comparison, more recent accounts of volcanic eruptions and tidal waves are offered, further distancing the reader from the original focus on Atlantis.

Reviewers who have rated this book low, I believe, have very obviously missed the point of the book. It is intended to study how different people have treated the Atlantis story through the centuries, not to actually locate the island.

To the reviewer who said that Ellis "has done next to no actual research on the topic and only expresses his own opinions", Ellis does make his own position clear... in his conclusion! Elsewhere, he is very much objective and criticizes conceivers of Atlantis only when, for example, they completely twist the original account in Plato to suit their own needs; make up faulty maps showing Atlantis quite visible in the middle of the Altantic; jump to conclusions and declare Atlantis has at last been found; make the destruction of Atlantis responsible for everything from the biblical flood to the exodus from Egypt; or are actually proven false (like Cayce and his "prediction" of Atlantis' "re-surfacing" in 1968). And as for not "dealing with [the] actual research [of "past researchers of Atlantis]", what of the detailed findings at Crete, the results of which led several contemporary researchers like Platon and Frost to equate it with Atlantis?

To the reviewer who exalts Plato as a "seeker of truth", who asks us to believe "the Atlantis story is true" just because Plato *said* so - I find it hard for me (or Ellis) to take seriously the word of a man who posited the ridiculous Theory of the Forms, or the Argument from Recollection, to prove the existence of the soul, which he (or Socrates) assumes already exists. In the Phaedo, Plato/Socrates admits to his interlocutors: "I assume the existence of a Beautiful... a Good and a Great and all the rest. If you grant me these and agree that they exist, I hope to show you the cause as a result, and to find the soul to be immortal." (Plato, Five Dialogues, p. 138) Yeah, it's really easy to do that once your audience has already agreed with you on the eternal existence of abstract concepts. Therefore, when Plato says he heard from a friend who heard from an Egyptian priest about an advanced civilization that flourished 9,000 years before *him*, I'm not exactly going to take him at face value.

All in all, this is a fantastic book that describes people's theories about Atlantis throughout history, leaving the author's own, and more probable, theory for the end.

A fascinating account of the Atlantis myth and the hold that it has held and continues to hold on our imaginations. The author explores Plato's version of Atlantis and the ways in which, to this day, Atlantis inspires hypotheses, exploration, off-base notions, and even bad movies.

On the other hand, it reads as though the author had pulled an all-nighter to finish it. Various parts are obviously out of their proper order; for instance, the author may use a term several times as though we all understood it and then get around to introducing it. At one point, he even appears to confuse B.C. with A.D.

Ellis presents a very forthright book. It is a good overview, thorough enough to encapsulate the history of Atlantis lore, theories, and studies, yet easy enough to remain readable without being a boring list of facts and references. Ellis does a fine job of refuting most theories and pointing out other reserachers factual and logical errors. I was especially pleased to see a refutation of the current craze, that Atlantis is merely the Minoan Thera. I believe this book presents the most grounded work I have seen on the Atlantis myth. There are no UFOs or aliens, no prophecies or psychics, no Biblical and mythical allusions, and no global catastrophes or conspiracies. This is a good thing, and a breath of fresh air in the Atlantis mythos.

However, the book suffers in two ways. One, it dismisses the Atlantis tale out-of-hand, as a moral myth, without allowing for the factual kernels of Plato's tale to remain standing. There is no potentiality for future possibilities, if it is simply dismissed, and the whole subject is closed. Secondly, Ellis' book suffers from a few structural flaws, such as an odd repetition of certain phrases and thoughts, as if the book received no final editing and remained a rough draft. Three, his research lacked depth in certain areas, such as in history and archaeology, though I am aware and he states that these are not his specialties.

Overall, it is a valuable addition to the study of Atlantis.

Imagining Atlantis by Richard Ellis is about the Atlantis of ancient history, archeology, mythology, fiction, film, and sciene and pseudoscience. It is an entertaining survey of the topic that will dissappoint any believers in Atlantis but will be of interest to any of those readers with a belief in the idea, if not the reality, of Atlantis. This is not about discovering Atlantis but instead is about how the idea of Atlantis has been used and manipulated over the centuries until our own time. This durability is a testament to the myth of Atlantis, which is destined to be with us a lot longer. An entertaining and well written book on the power of legend.