Customer Reviews

Questioning the Millennium

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I love Gould's essays. I hate Gould's self-indulgence. Gould always has something interesting to say, and this book is no exception. But he needs an editor who isn't overawed.

As in his delightful collections of essays, Gould finds the excitement in interesting tidbits and magnifies them in an interesting way. In Questioning the Millennium ("two n's," Gould reminds us with characteristic pedantry but an unnecessary apostrophe), we learn not only about the never-ending conflict over when the century ends (Gould claims to take no side, although he really does), but also about a wealth of millenarian trivia (only one n here). It's interesting trivia - little pieces of history that, as Gould notes, we always mean to look up but never do. He details apocalyptic visions of the millennium, the change from Julian to Gregorian calendars, and nature's frustrating imprecision - all worthy subjects.

Unfortunately, the inherent interest of these topics is somewhat compromised by Gould's ever-present reminders that he really, truly is an Essayist - which, to him, means someone who likes to advertise his vocabulary and seeks admiration of his ability to turn a neat phrase. Problem is, sometimes he gets a little lost in his own self-wonder. Several times, I had to look back to pick up a thread of thought I figured I must have missed - only to find it absent. I like stylish writing, but I don't like writing that calls attention to itself. Gould's writing does, and it wears thin.

But Gould nevertheless has a truly original mind, and I love how he thinks. It's worth trudging through a book that, like many of his essays, is a little too long and a little too cute to get the benefit of his wonderful thinking.

One other thing. The book ends on a beautiful note, but it's essential to build up to it. Don't skip ahead.

More explanation than you will ever need of calendrics, millennium minutiae, 'day-date' calculating, etc. And a finish to the book that made me say 'Wow!'

Whatever your opinion about the Millennium, this book will give you some facts to fill in the blanks of your knowledge. Gould is expert at this sort of explanation and at backing up his opinion with reason.

It's well written, enjoyable and even surprisingly heart-warming in parts.

Gould's opinion will be disappointing to all those people who feel that if something arbitrary was held true by experts in the past, we must follow it to the letter forevermore. His opinion will be refreshing to those who want to know WHY, WHAT, and WHEN and to those who would celebrate while the red-faced sticklers grumble.

A joy to read. Gould makes a normally dry and tastless topic, humourous, and enjoyable. I loved the book, and everthing else by Gould I've ever read.

Stephen Jay Gould is entertaining. His work Questioning the Millennium is that questioning, but entertaining. I like Gould as an author and his essays are thought provoking.

This work is no different. Complex calendars and the idea of a millennium and how it effects us as a whole. A whole host of ideas brought to us from Gould's questioning mind.

This is a rather short work of essays, but no less provoking. As with all of Gould's essays... either you like them or despise them, idiosyncrasies and all.

Nonetheless this is entertaining.

I like Gould's writing and his thinking, on the occasions he thinks. But he, like too many science essayists, gives into an urge to emote and to put aside that vaunted rationalism. Instead, he irrationally sides with popular opinion on when the new millennium began and then tells a somewhat moving but totally irrelevant story about a mentally handicapped young man who can calculate what day of the week a day came out. He also indulges, less than usual, in his dislike of religion.

As a stylist, Gould is among the best in the world of science. As a thinker, he's someone to reckon with. But as a total writer, he needs a bit of help. Still, this is a good history lesson.

Gould is always an interesting author, whether you agree with him or not. (Not that I found anything to disagree with in this case.) If you love the idiosyncracies of human history, then you'll be intrigued by all the tidbits Gould pulls together regarding how our calendar was created (as well as how other calendars were created). His approach is light-hearted, which keeps the book from becoming a compendium of obtuse facts.

If you're interested in the interplay between humans and millennial changes, also try James Reston's THE LAST APOCALYPSE and END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE (a shameless plug).

Gould does an excellent job of showing how silly and arbritrary it is to attach importance to the year 2000 (2001?). Night will fall and day will break the same as always on the last night and first day of whichever of those years you've chosen to celebrate. (Of course, many computer systems will never be the same again!) Gould supplies many interesting facts and tidbits along the way. Although he gets a bit windy at times, I think everyone should read this short book.

In his lively book Stephen Jay Gould offers a lot of fascinating material as to how the millennium question has been treated with in modern times. But when it comes to the fundamental matter, that is to the establishment of the Chistian numbering of years in the 6th century, Gould commits the all too common mistake to believe he can solve a historical question by common sense. He should have taken his time to look into the sources at hand concerning Dionysius Exiguus and Beda Venerabilis. He would then have detected that the millennium question is of an even more intricate nature than he had imagined, and in particular has something to do with the calculation of the full moon.

I found SJG's little book quite interesting in that he chases rabbits through fields of astronomy, calendrics, history, American Indian lore, mathematics, theology, and other areas including savants.

He fails to include Julian days as a means or reckoning the passage of time in a very orderly fashion. Always entertaining but never conclusive on the subject, since he properly makes a distinction between The Millennium of Apocalypse and the millennium of the calendar, he leaves conclusions to the reader. He points out that the media did get it right, according to one school of thought, in the 1900-1901 century transition and the nineteenth century passed to the twentieth Dec. 31, 1900/Jan. 1, 1901. The mid point, however, was signaled by LIFE magazine publishing its mid century issue in January 1950 rather than 1951.

What we are really concerned with is the consistent ordinary, everyday reckoning of time, days, and years in an orderly and rational manner. It doesn'take a PhD in calculus or differential equations to deduce that the twentieth century is 20th hundred years, that two millennia is two thousand years and until the 2,000 years have been completed at the END of year 2,000 the twenty- first century and the thirdmillennium have not arrived. As they say about opera...it isn't over till the fat lady sings.

Buy a copy if you are a fan or borrow a copy if you like science fiction mixed with lots of unusual facts. You will find the finale a bit poignant, but don't cheat, resist the urge to peek.