7/11/2020

The money governments have committed to supporting economies hit by coronavirus could instead solve climate change, according to architect Rem Koolhaas



Drastic change as a result of coronavirus is "wishful thinking" says Rem Koolhaas

Marcus Fairs

The money governments have committed to supporting economies hit by coronavirus could instead solve climate change, according to architect Rem Koolhaas.
The sums involved are "clearly enough to settle that issue," he said.
However, the Dutch architect said he believes the world will quickly try to revert to how it was before the pandemic, predicting "enormous pressure" for a return to normality.
"I haven't seen a lot of action"
"Somehow politicians were able to act with a degree of coherence, but also mobilise enormous, unbelievable amounts of money," said the architect of the way governments around the world have responded to the pandemic.
"And if you look at our greatest urgency, which is probably global warming, and you know that basically the amount of money that they have now mobilised is clearly enough to settle that issue," added Koolhaas, who heads Dutch architect OMA.
"And I'm wondering what we can contribute in terms of claiming part of that money for that kind of purpose," he said. "And I haven't seen a lot of action either in our profession or in the political domain."
In May, the International Montetary Fund estimated that governments had committed $9 trillion in fiscal measures to fight Covid-19 and its impact on economies.
Last year, the United Nations calculated that keeping global temperature rises below the 1.5° C would cost between $1.6 trillion and 3.8 trillion per year.
"Enormous pressure" to get things back to normal
Koolhaas made the statement during a discussion with OMA managing partner David Gianotten and Studio Mumbai founder Bijoy Jain that was screened as part of Virtual Design Festival.
The discussion was part of a series of conversations that brought together architects who have designed the annual MPavilion commission in Melbourne, Australia.
Koolhaas added that he disagreed with people who think that the pandemic will lead to permanent change.
"I am personally sceptical of all of us saying that things will never be the same and things will be extremely different," he said. "I think there will be enormous pressure on things returning back to normal."
Drastic change "partly wishful thinking"
Koolhaas, regarded as one of the world's most influential architects, contrasted the celebrations of Remembrance Day and Liberation Day in Amsterdam in May with the more recent Black Lives Matter protests in the city.
The first, held every year on 4 and 5 May to mark those who died in wars and the date the Netherlands was liberated from Nazi occupation, were held in empty public spaces during lockdown.
By contrast, the latter saw thousands of people pour into the streets in defiance of coronavirus-imposed restrictions.
"Suddenly, the same square was completely inundated with people," Koolhaas said. "And there was even a scandal that they didn't maintain the one metre 50 distance. So in a very short time, we had two completely opposite events."
"The second one seems to really indicate that the whole idea of things changing drastically through corona is simply partly wishful thinking," he added.
His views contrast with those of Dutch trend forecaster Li Edelkoort, who earlier this year told Dezeen she felt the pandemic would act as a "blank page for a new beginning".
Edelkoort said she was hopeful the virus would lead to "another and better system to be put in place with more respect for human labour and conditions."

 dezeen.com

Why Doesn’t Iceland Have a Museum of Napkins?

Why Doesn’t Iceland Have a Museum of Napkins?

An investigation.

The tiny village of Flateyri has 200 residents and no fewer than five museums.
The tiny village of Flateyri has 200 residents and no fewer than five museums. Shutterstock/Robin Runck
It’s already there in the language: the way safn is both a collection and a museum, and part of the Icelandic word for library, and a term one might use to describe a group of sheep. It’s there, too, in how sets of things in the parlor have a way of moving outside the home—to sloping mountainside yards, to lakeside sheds, to downtown storefronts. It’s the Icelandic predilection for museums, for turning private collections into public displays—evident in places such as Petra’s Stone Collection, Sigurgeir’s Bird Museum, the Icelandic Phallological Museum, and the toy museums in Akureyri, Borgarnes, and Grudafjörđur, or the transportation collections, which can be found in the north and west and south. Iceland is a land of museums. It has a genius for them, in all sorts and forms.
As I researched my book, The Museum of Whales You Will Never See, I sat down with many collectors, curators, and directors to ask about the origins of their museums. I heard the same progression so often that I came to recognize its stages. Someone, almost accidentally, has a collection. The neighbors drop by to see. Then a community group makes an appointment. The newspaper writes something up, maybe the television news, too. And then more people come. Strangers. Tourists. Until you have to do something with all that interest, all those people dropping by. Indeed, the pattern happened often enough—private collections becoming public by degrees—that I began to think that the next one could be predicted.
The Icelandic Phallological Museum in Reykjavík is dedicated to penises and penile parts.
The Icelandic Phallological Museum in Reykjavík is dedicated to penises and penile parts. HALLDOR KOLBEINS/AFP via Getty Images
So I started asking every Icelander I met: Where is there a collection big enough, known enough, visited enough, that it is in one of those stages, maybe getting close, about to tip into being a museum of its own?
To count museums in Iceland, to collect them in a way, is astonishingly complicated. There is a minimum of 45 officially accredited institutions, but the annual Iceland Museum Guide lists 173. Understood broadly enough to include not just the museums, but also what might come into English as public collections, exhibitions, galleries, or centers, the running tally from University of Iceland museum studies professor Sigurjón Baldur Hafsteinsson is more like 300. Nowhere in the world do private collections become public museums with such ease. It is a phenomenon all the more stunning for having happened, almost entirely, in the last 25 years.
The Icelandic town of Flateyri has a population of 201 people and five museums. Six if you count the one on the outskirts. Seven if you count its first museum, founded in 1992, now buried with a third of town by an avalanche in 1995. It is wildly disproportionate, even in a country that has nearly one museum per thousand people. Flateyri, on a northwest fjord just a couple hundred miles from Greenland, has a museum for every 40 residents.
A museum dedicated to dry fish in Flateyri.
A museum dedicated to dry fish in Flateyri. Courtesy A. Kendra Greene
The museums of Flateyri include a tribute to dolls of the world in the middle of a restaurant, a fleet of model ships in a garage, historical displays in a well-worn shed, and a 1915 general store and living quarters (not lived in anymore, but still selling used books, by the kilogram, weighed out on a blue vintage balance). And there is also, in a sprawling second-floor space overlooking the street, the Nonsense Museum.
I had been watching and studying this particularly Icelandic hyper-evolution, the way collections suddenly become museums, when I first came across the listing for the Nonsense Museum in a 2015 Museum Guide. It felt like a thing preordained, like finding the species to fill a gap in the fossil record. It felt like a thing you could have predicted: a museum about collecting itself, a museum about an idea, about its own patent absurdity.
Yet the Nonsense Museum, while spectacularly named, is more random than absurd. It offers whole rooms devoted to the collections of local residents: pens, toy planes, wine bottle labels, tobacco packaging, matchboxes, teaspoons, sugar cubes, playing cards, Pez dispensers, salt and pepper shakers, lighters in novelty shapes, police uniforms on faceless dummies, monkey tchotchkes. Seen together they comprise a museum that is almost fractal: Within this island that collects so many museums, there is a town of so many museums, including a museum of so many collections, collections of so many things.
Tobacco packaging, matchbooks, Pez dispensers, and helmets at the Nonsense Museum in Flateyri.
Tobacco packaging, matchbooks, Pez dispensers, and helmets at the Nonsense Museum in Flateyri. Courtesy A. Kendra Greene
And in the shadow of all this, I was still asking for the moment before, still looking for a collection on the brink of becoming a museum.
There were surprisingly few leads. Almost nothing. Then in Heimaey, an island off an island, after a few calls, I was taking off my shoes to walk into a private home. In the living room: drawers and drawers of paper napkins. On the loveseat and the sofa, piles of binders overflowing with yet more napkins. The collection began in 1955. Napkins with dates printed on them went back at least to 1962. A confirmation in 1979. The end of school in 1993. A wedding in 2001. Among the napkins were a scallop-edged floral from when the collector was five years old, another in a duck pattern that matched her sister-in-law’s tablecloth years ago, others from Lykil Hotel or Pizza Hut or the Military Air Transport Service of the U.S. Air Force. Flowers and fruits and angels and farms and Disney characters and Santa Claus: maybe 14,000 of them in all.
Eygló Ingólfsdottir collects napkins “because when I was growing up there was nothing to do.” No television. No phone. But there were so many girls with the same idea back then, she says, six or seven might show up in a snowstorm after Christmas or Easter to ask if you had any napkins. They collected them in duplicate to have some to trade with their friends. This collection survived the volcanic eruption that evacuated the island when Ingólfsdottir was 24 and kept her family away for three years. The collecting peaked in her mid-30s. Everywhere she went, she asked, “Do you have some napkins?” For a while in her 40s she focused on napkins printed with good landscapes to serve as references for painting. Over the last 10 or 15 years, more come in from friends than she collects herself. She’s swapped a few napkins with collectors she’s met online—one in Germany and two from Norway. With her mother about to turn 100, she says maybe they’ll print some napkins for that.
Eygló Ingólfsdottir with her napkin collection in the town of Heimaey.
Eygló Ingólfsdottir with her napkin collection in the town of Heimaey. Courtesy A. Kendra Greene
I had never seen a napkin collection. Now that I know to look for them, know the thing to ask, I’ve found a few more tucked away in private homes. In this place that excels at the narrow niche museum, or else the kind of local history museum that Icelanders call the “same things from 50 different farms,” the napkin collections still seem a kind of secret.
This is the case even though a generation of children made a point to collect them from every local wedding and baptism, received napkins as souvenirs from family who brought back airline cocktail napkins or paper goods from abroad. There are middle-aged and older women, throughout the island, who still have thousands, sorted into bags and boxes by theme or era, but never enough time to count them all—and no one is thinking there’s a museum just waiting to spring from this personal history, this alternative primer on mass production and graphic design, this artifact of a nation opening up to the world and finally having enough money for disposable things.
Perhaps the napkins have yet to see public display because they’ve been overlooked, lost in the shuffle. Too trivial, too ubiquitous, though that hasn’t prevented collections of toys or birds or rocks or automobiles from becoming museums. Maybe we’re a hair too soon in the process—precocious—and we need to lose more of these collections before Icelanders see fit to save any. Maybe the issue is that we still think this is about napkins and not about the stories they tell. There is a way in which it still seems inevitable to me, though. One of these napkin collections will take.
Ingólfsdottir’s friends still come over to see the napkins. She’s even thought of sending some to a museum, though it would break her heart to give the collection away or break it up. What she likes best is when women her age look through the collection in the living room and it brings back good memories. But then, she says, “It’s a small house. I may have to stop.”

Georges Lemaître L'hypothèse de l'atome primitif


L'hypothèse de l'atome primitif

En 1927, Lemaître construit un modèle d'Univers en expansion. Quatre ans plus tard, il propose un commencement à l'Univers, sous la forme d'un atome qui se désintègre en un feu d'artifice.
Dominique Lambert LES GENIES DE LA SCIENCE N° 30

Image


En octobre 1925, Lemaître entame sa première année d'enseignement à l'Université catholique de Louvain, dans le beau cadre du collège des Prémontrés, siège du département de physique. Il enseigne la mécanique analytique, l'histoire des sciences, la méthodologie mathématique et la relativité. Le jeune abbé se réinstalle à Louvain, où les séquelles de la Grande Guerre s'effacent peu à peu. Il loge à deux pas du collège des Prémontrés, au collège du Saint-Esprit, résidence pour les prêtres diocésains travaillant à Louvain. Dès son retour en Belgique, Lemaître reprend contact avec les « Amis de Jésus ». Les réunions de son groupe de réflexion subsisteront jusqu'en 1966, s'adaptant tant bien que mal aux voyages du savant, à ses distractions et au caractère animé des discussions qu'il provoque. Durant les années universitaires 1925-1927, Lemaître lit beaucoup en relativité et dans la toute récente mécanique ondulatoire fondée en 1926 par le physicien autrichien Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), à laquelle il a été initié au m.i.t. Depuis son retour en Belgique, il continue à s'interroger sur les conséquences de son travail concernant l'Univers de de Sitter et sur les données observationnelles relatives à la fuite des galaxies déterminée par le décalage vers le rouge de leur spectre lumineux. Son séjour dans les observatoires américains l'a persuadé de la valeur de ces observations. D'autre part, les discussions avec Silberstein lui ont montré que l'Univers de de Sitter est un cadre mathématique dans lequel on peut établir une loi de décalage vers le rouge. Cependant, nous avons vu que l'espace-temps de l'astronome hollandais ne convient pas, parce qu'il est vide de matière et que sa géométrie est euclidienne (voir page 48). L'espace-temps d'Einstein ne convient pas non plus, puisque, tout en étant rempli de matière, il est incapable de rendre compte d'un mouvement global de fuite des galaxies.
Comment sauvegarder à la fois l'idée d'un Univers massif et celle d'un Univers non statique emportant avec lui les galaxies dans un mouvement d'expansion ? En trouvant un Univers réalisant une interpolation entre « Einstein » et « de Sitter ». L'idée a déjà été suggérée par Eddington dans sa Mathematical Theory of Relativity (voir la citation page 50). La thèse de Lemaître au m.i.t. le persuade que ces solutions intermédiaires entre « Einstein » et « de Sitter » peuvent être construites. Cependant, dans la thèse, ces solutions correspondent à des univers statiques (non homogènes à symétrie sphérique) qui n'apportent rien de nouveau au problème de la fuite des galaxies.
Le coup de génie de Lemaître a été de vaincre l'inhibition qui pesait sur toute la communauté astronomique et qui l'enchaînait à l'idée d'un univers statique. Ceci ne se fit pas sans hésitation et demanda un réel courage, car la réputation d'Einstein faisait beaucoup dans l'attachement à une solution statique des équations de la relativité générale.
Dans son article fondamental de 1927 intitulé Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques, il reprend une géométrie sphérique comme dans l'Univers d'Einstein, mais il suppose que le rayon de l'Univers est variable dans le temps, comme dans sa représentation de l'Univers plat et en expansion exponentielle de de Sitter (voir page 48).
Lemaître écrit alors les équations du champ gravitationnel d'Einstein correspondant à cet Univers sphérique de rayon variable qu'il suppose de masse constante et rempli d'un fluide parfait de densité homogène. Dans les équations d'Einstein, il conserve la célèbre constante cosmologique, introduite par Einstein, puis par de Sitter.
Les solutions des équations de Lemaître sont tous les univers homogènes et isotropes, à courbure constante positive, remplis de fluide parfait. Sans le savoir, Lemaître a trouvé un résultat connu depuis 1922-1924, période au cours de laquelle le mathématicien russe Alexandre Friedmann (1888-1925) a écrit et résolu les équations de champ d'Einstein correspondant à des univers homogènes et isotropes à courbure constante positive et ­négative (voir l'encadré page 55). Néanmoins, le mathématicien ne s'est aucunement intéressé à des applications astronomiques.
Lemaître montre qu'une solution de ses équations correspond à un espace sphérique qui gonfle de manière exponentielle avec le temps (comme dans sa représentation euclidienne de l'espace de de Sitter) et qui s'identifie à l'Univers d'Einstein à l'infini dans le passé. L'Univers de Lemaître n'a donc aucun commencement, ou son commencement se passe à un temps infiniment reculé dans le passé. Pendant un temps infini, l'Univers de Lemaître ressemble à un Univers statique d'Einstein « instable » qui hésite à entrer en expansion !
L'Univers de Lemaître n'a pas non plus de fin temporelle. À l'infini dans le futur, il a un volume infini et une masse finie, et possède donc une densité nulle. Il correspond alors à un Univers de de Sitter. Lemaître a trouvé un univers dynamique qui réalise « l'interpolation » entre « Einstein » et « de Sitter ».
Dans l'Univers de Lemaître, la lumière émise par une source lointaine, une « nébuleuse », subit un décalage vers le rouge lié à l'expansion même de l'espace : les nébuleuses ne changent pas leur position par rapport à l'Univers, c'est l'Univers qui les emporte dans son expansion.
Lemaître dérive une loi qui lie la distance r des sources à leur vitesse de fuite v par rapport à nous. Il trouve une loi linéaire du type v = a × r, où le coefficient a dépend de la variation relative du rayon de l'Univers. Ce coefficient préfigure ce qui sera, en 1929, la « constante de Hubble » qui, dans la loi de Hubble, relie linéairement la vitesse de fuite des galaxies à leur éloignement (voir page 51). À l'aide des mesures de distances des galaxies publiées par Hubble en 1926 et des mesures de vitesse moyenne effectuées par Gustaf Strömberg (1882-1962) en 1925 sur 43 « nébuleuses extragalactiques », Lemaître détermine la valeur du coefficient à environ 625 kilomètres par seconde pour des objets situés à un mégaparsec, c'est-à-dire à 3,26 × 106 années-lumière.

Un Univers en expansion sans début ni fin

La solution de Lemaître occupe une place singulière dans la classe des solutions de ses équations. Elle constitue un intermédiaire entre des « univers à rebond », d'une part, et des « univers hésitants », d'autre part. Un « univers à rebond » est un univers sphérique sans commencement ni fin temporels (voir la figure page 56). Son rayon décroît avec le temps, atteint un minimum, puis reprend sa croissance monotone. Un « univers hésitant » démarre son histoire avec un rayon nul, puis croît jusqu'au moment où il atteint un certain palier où il semble hésiter, pour un temps, entre la croissance et la décroissance. Ensuite il reprend sa croissance de manière accélérée (voir la figure page 58).
Lemaître a calculé ces deux autres types de solutions. Cependant, il les rejette pour des raisons observationnelles : le commencement de l'expansion de l'Univers remonterait seulement à un milliard d'années, ce qui est beaucoup trop court par rapport à l'échelle de l'évolution stellaire. En effet, l'inverse de la « constante de Hubble » de Lemaître a les dimensions d'un temps (1/a = r/v) et donne une sorte d'estimation de la durée de la phase d'expansion de l'Univers dans laquelle nous nous trouvons. Or si nous effectuons le calcul à partir de la valeur donnée ci-dessus, nous trouvons une durée d'expansion d'environ deux milliards d'années, ce qui est de l'ordre de grandeur de l'âge de la Terre, calculé à partir de la radioactivité résiduelle des roches. L'histoire de l'Univers risque de devenir plus courte que celle de la Terre ! C'est pourquoi Lemaître rejette le début de l'expansion à l'infini dans le passé.
Cette idée d'un Univers sans commencement tangible ne semble pas compatible avec la philosophie implicite de Lemaître, telle qu'elle apparaît dans sa Physique d'Einstein. Pour Lemaître, l'Univers, parce qu'intelligible, est fini dans l'espace et dans le temps (voir page 48). Mais cette incompatibilité n'est que superficielle, car Lemaître, suivant un principe qu'il a hérité d'Eddington, a appris à ne pas attacher trop de réalité physique à des descriptions mathématiques de phénomènes d'instabilité impliquant des processus temporels de durée infinie, tels que les oscillations d'un pendule. Pour Lemaître, donc, cet Univers sans commencement ni fin n'est qu'une approximation.
Plus tard, il montrera que sa solution à croissance exponentielle est physiquement intenable. La raison en est la suivante : l'Univers statique d'Einstein est instable. Si l'on y introduit de petites hétérogénéités de densité, son équilibre est rompu : l'Univers commence à évoluer au cours du temps, et cette évolution se produit d'autant plus tôt que les variations de densité sont importantes. Pour repousser la brisure de l'équilibre à l'infini dans le passé, il faudrait que l'homogénéité de la densité de l'Univers soit atteinte avec une précision infinie partout dans l'Univers d'Einstein. Or Lemaître a suivi les derniers développements de la mécanique ondulatoire. En 1926, le physicien allemand Max Born (1882-1970) a proposé une interprétation probabiliste des ondes que Schrödinger a associées à chaque particule pour expliquer certaines expériences où les particules présentent des propriétés… des ondes : les ondes de Schrödinger seraient des ondes de probabilité de présence des particules. Ainsi, Lemaître sait que la matière est soumise à des fluctuations statistiques, qui ne peuvent assurer une homogénéité de la densité avec une précision infinie.
Résumons. Les univers à rebond donnent une durée d'expansion trop courte par rapport à l'âge du Système solaire et des étoiles et le modèle exponentiel n'est pas physiquement tenable. Lemaître reviendra donc au troisième type de modèle auquel il fait une petite allusion dans son article de 1927 : l'univers hésitant.
Les équations de Lemaître admettent encore d'autres types de solutions : des univers...

  • 7/09/2020

    Hydroxychloroquine versus Remdesivir

    Hydroxychloroquine versus Remdesivir : la guerre du médicament n’est pas terminée

    Les agences européennes et françaises du médicament favorisent le produit de l'industriel pharmaceutique Gilead, sans preuve de son intérêt dans la lutte contre le Covid et à un coût très élevé. Dans le même temps, les études se multiplient en faveur de l'efficacité de l'hydroxychloroquine, molécule hors brevet qui ne coûte presque rien et qui est d'usage courant dans la plupart des pays du monde.


    L’industriel pharmaceutique Gilead peut se frotter les mains. La vaste opération commerciale qu’il prépare depuis plusieurs années avec son traitement antiviral – le Remdesivir – est en passe de réussir. Après avoir reçu dès le mois de janvier 2020 le soutien de l’OMS, dès le mois de février celui du National Institute of Allergy et de son célèbre directeur Anthony Fauci aux États-Unis, et dès le mois de mars celui du plus influent membre du Conseil scientifique puis celui du Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique en France, le Remdesivir a obtenu le 25 juin dernier la recommandation de l'Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) puis une commande massive du gouvernement américain. Du coup, l’Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament (ANSM) s’est empressée de faire savoir que « La France s'est assurée de la disponibilité de doses suffisantes » de ce médicament. On crée le besoin, puis on laisse entrevoir un risque de pénurie, et ainsi l’acheteur se précipite pour faire son stock « au cas où ». Le business plan est bien rôdé (et il n'est pas sans rappeler celui qui conduisit au scandale du vaccin contre la grippe H1N1 sous le ministère Bachelot). Dans le même temps on communique à tout va pour déconsidérer toute solution alternative. Au final, malgré les études contestant son efficacité voire soulignant ses effets indésirables, les malades hospitalisés seront orientés vers le Remdevisir.
    Si l’on suit le Wall Street Journal (cité ici par Le Parisien) la dose de médicament est produite pour un coût d’environ 10 $, mais « Gilead a fixé le prix à 390 $ par flacon dans tous les pays développés, soit 2 340 $ pour un traitement normal de six flacons en cinq jours ». Certes, l’industriel doit aussi couvrir en partie (puisqu'il reçoit aussi des financements publics...) le coût de développement du médicament. Mais s’il réussit à faire adopter son médicament comme traitement principal du Covid (en particulier dans les pays riches à qui il le vendra plus cher), ses bénéfices seront colossaux. Il y a actuellement plus de 11 millions de personnes dépistées positives au coronavirus dans le monde. Le bénéfice potentiel se chiffre donc en dizaines de milliards. Et toutes les alertes sur le « redémarrage » de l’épidémie ou sa « deuxième vague » sont plus qu’encouragées : ce sont autant de raisons données aux gouvernements de faire des stocks.
    Le Covid est un drame pour certains, une aubaine pour d’autres. Ainsi va le monde des humains au 21ème siècle. Au-delà des polémiques stériles sur la personnalité du professeur Raoult, au-delà des affrontements dogmatiques sur la méthode (do you randomise or not ?), la guerre de communication menée par Gilead, relayée dans les pays occidentaux par des responsables politiques, des agences gouvernementales, des journalistes et des médecins hospitaliers en conflits d’intérêt depuis des années, a toujours eu pour but ultime l’intérêt financier.
    Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine et/ou azithromycine
    Pendant ce temps-là, les études observationnelles montrant que le protocole promu à Marseille est plus efficace sont passées sous silence. Cela fait partie de la stratégie : valoriser le plus possible les alertes sur l’inefficacité (fussent-elles une fraude comme la fameuse affaire du Lancet), suggérer même autant que possible la pseudo-dangerosité des médicaments concurrents (voir notre étude sur l’hydroxychloroquine), susciter en retour des études quasi frauduleuses vantant les mérites du Remdesivir (deux ont été publiées dans le New England Journal of Medicine, la première que nous avions révélée ici même, la seconde qui vient d’être analysée par un collectif de médecins français), et faire silence sur tout ce qui contredit ce schéma. L’urgence stratégique pour Gilead était que les agences n’imposent pas la chloroquine comme comparateur au Remdesivir avant l’enregistrement. Occulter toute efficacité et faire parler de la toxicité du concurrent étaient essentiels pour asseoir le monopole du Remsedivir sur le marché mondial. Un classique de la stratégie industrielle. Et pourtant, la réalité des connaissances médicales qui s’accumulent jour après jour dans le monde est bien plus complexe. Pour celles et ceux qui s’y intéressent sincèrement, examinons quelques publications récentes.
    Pour commencer, n’en déplaise aux tenants de l’anti-raoultisme primaire, on ne peut pas ne pas examiner sérieusement l’étude finale de l’IHU de Marseille, qui porte sur 3 737 patients. Elle montre que l’HCQ/AZI fait chuter le taux de décès d’au moins 50% (hazard ratio de 0.41 ou 0.49 selon la méthode utilisée), par rapport au groupe témoin qui comprend des patients traités avec l’une seulement ou aucune de ces molécules. Si le témoin ne comprenait que des patients ne recevant ni HCQ ni AZI, l’effet mesuré serait sans doute plus grand car d’autres études ont montré que ces molécules ont un effet bénéfique même utilisées isolement.
    Un autre chiffre important à considérer est le taux de décès de 1.1% sur l’ensemble des 3 737 patients, avec 0 décès parmi les moins de 60 ans et seulement 2 parmi les moins de 70 ans. Ces chiffres reflètent l’efficacité de l’approche thérapeutique appliquée sur l’ensemble des malades, pas de manière normative mais en tenant compte du profil de chacun et également du refus de certains de prendre le traitement proposé. Il faut les comparer avec les données disponibles sur l’ensemble de la population française : 15% des gens testés positifs au COVID en France sont décédés et les moins de 60 ans ne sont pas épargnés. Certes, l’IHU a testé à plus grande échelle, ce qui fait forcement baisser le taux de mortalité. Mais cela suffit-il à expliquer un tel écart ? L’Allemagne, qui a testé à grande échelle, a un taux de décès/positifs de 4.6%. Certes, l’IHU a trié les patients, orientant certains vers d’autres centres, et on peut regretter que les critères de tri ne soient pas clairement indiqués. On peut suspecter que l’IHU a admis les patients les moins graves (9.1% de leurs patients sont asymptomatiques), ce qui est cohérent avec le fait que son traitement a surtout vocation à traiter les patients en début de maladie. Mais encore une fois, cela suffit-il à justifier de tels écarts, et notamment l’absence de mortalité parmi les moins de 60 ans ? En outre, un patient grave est très souvent un patient qui n’a pas été traité immédiatement, ce qui signifie que le taux de mortalité de 1.1% pourrait être extrapolable aux patients graves, s’ils avaient été traités dès les premiers symptômes au lieu de retourner chez eux avec du paracétamol. Enfin, dernier chiffre, si l’on ne considère que les 673 patients hospitalisés parmi les 3 737 de la cohorte IHU, le taux de décès est de 5%, donc très au-dessous du taux de 35% mesuré sur toute la France d’après les données gouvernementales. Il est même très en dessous du taux de décès de 16.9% mesuré sur tous les testés positifs en France (hospitalisés ou non), ce qui permet de conclure que la différence est significative quand bien même l’IHU aurait hospitalisé des patients dans un état moins grave qu’ailleurs.
    Le détour états-unien : New York et Détroit
    On peut ensuite s’intéresser à plusieurs études étasuniennes de grande ampleur.
    Commençons par l’étude du système de santé Henry Ford qui mesure l’effet de l’hydroxychloroquine et l’azithromycine, sur 2 541 malades soignés dans six hôpitaux de la ville de Detroit. Ces centres de santé ont adopté un standard de soin commun dans lequel l’HCQ est administrée aussitôt que possible sur les patients (et non en usage compassionnel tardif). L’étude montre que le traitement réduit le taux de décès de 71%, l’hydroxychloroquine seule se montrant également efficace avec une diminution de 66 ou de 51% selon la méthode statistique utilisée pour analyser les résultats. Aucun effet secondaire cardiaque sérieux n’a été observé. Le traitement était généralement administré moins de 48 heures après admission et les auteurs soulignent (comme à l’IHU) qu’il n’est pas efficace aux stades ultimes de la maladie, lorsque survient l’« orage de cytokines ».
    Une autre étude américaine utilisant une approche similaire, portant sur 6 493 patients (dont 3708 hospitalisés) suivi par un réseau de huit hôpitaux de la ville de New York, donne un résultat comparable, montrant que l’utilisation de l’hydroxychloroquine divise par deux le taux de décès parmi les patients hospitalisés (« hazard ratio » de 0.53). L’article inclut des données relatives au délai entre admission et démarrage du traitement, montrant que ce délai est très court (en général moins de 1 jour) dans le cas de l’HCQ. On peut donc penser là aussi que le traitement n’est pas donné selon une logique compassionnelle.
    Nous disposons ainsi de deux nouvelles études de grande ampleur concluant que le traitement HCQ/AZI réduit très significativement le taux de décès des patients atteints de COVID et hospitalisés. La différence avec les résultats d’études précédentes (revues notamment ici et ) pourrait s’expliquer par une administration du traitement dès l’admission à l’hôpital et selon des critères médicaux clairs, et non pas à des moments variés et selon une logique compassionnelle comme cela a sans doute été le cas pour nombre de patients auparavant.
    Pour terminer, examinons une étude réalisée à New York sur 141 malades suivis en ambulatoire et non à l’hôpital (ce qui la rapproche de celle menée en France sur 88 patients par le collectif « Laissons les médecins prescrire »). Elle montre que les patients traités avec la combinaison hydroxychloroquine/azithromycine/zinc sont hospitalisés dans 2.8% des cas et décèdent dans 0.7% des cas, contre 15.4 et 3.8% dans le groupe témoin. Aucun effet secondaire cardiaque n’a été observé.
    Par rapport aux autres du même type, cette étude présente l’intérêt de ne pas avoir inclus des patients asymptomatiques ou jeunes et non vulnérables parmi les patients traités (contrairement aux études IHU), et de ne considérer que des patients dont le diagnostic COVID est validé par un test (contrairement à une étude Brésilienne déjà discutée ici). Comme pour les autres études observationnelles, on pourrait aussi reprocher l’absence de randomisation et un traitement statistique insuffisant pour détecter tous les biais potentiels. Mais il est probable que le plus gros biais potentiel ne fasse que renforcer les conclusions. En effet, aucun tri en faveur des malades plus sévères n’est mentionné pour le groupe témoin. On peut donc suspecter que les patients du groupe témoin sont en moyenne moins malades et que l’effet mesuré du traitement aurait été plus grand si l’on avait fait la comparaison entre des groupes identiques.
    Corriger la myopie intellectuelle française
    Il faut sortir du prisme franco-français et regarder ce qui se passe ailleurs dans le monde, aussi bien dans la recherche que dans la pratique médicale. Le protocole développé à Marseille a été utilisé et testé dans de nombreux pays, y compris les États-Unis où de nombreux médecins recommandent désormais son utilisation massive en ambulatoire (voir par exemple cet article dans l’American Journal of Epidemiology). La chloroquine et/ou l’hydroxychloroquine sont par ailleurs d’usage courant contre le Covid (et, dans certains cas, recommandés même à l’échelle nationale) en Turquie, en Inde, au Brésil, en Russie, en Iran, en Thaïlande, au Sénégal, au Kenya, au Tchad, au Congo-Brazzaville, au Maroc et en Algérie (pour ne citer que quelques pays très peuplés). C’est également le cas en Europe, avec l’Italie, le Portugal, la Roumanie et la Grèce. Au total, plus de 60% de la population mondiale vit dans un pays où la chloroquine et ses dérivés sont recommandés par les agences sanitaires pour traiter les malades du Covid. Et dans les autres, cela n’empêche pas les médecins de les prescrire en leur âme et conscience. Y compris en France (voir une intéressante compilation ici), et ce malgré des tentatives d’intimidations sous forme de décret gouvernemental ou de menaces de sanction par le Conseil de l’Ordre des Médecins.
    Plusieurs études internationales récentes (ici en Chine, là au Portugal) montrent par ailleurs que les personnes qui souffrent de maladies rhumatismales et sont traitées avec l’hydroxychloroquine depuis de nombreuses années s’avèrent assez fortement protégées contre le risque de contracter la maladie du Covid-19.
    N'en déplaise aux apôtres de la randomisation, pour qui les patients ne sont que des unités statistiques utilisées dans des modèles mathématiques (ce qui facilite grandement les fraudes de type de celle du Lancet), l’observation de patients réels par les médecins de ville et des médecins hospitaliers qui les soignent, confirme dans beaucoup d’études menées à travers le monde que ces vieux médicaments utilisés depuis des décennies face aux épidémies ont des effets bénéfiques bien réels, à condition d’être utilisés à bon escient (les bons dosages aux bons moments). Leurs effets sont de surcroît bien plus significatifs que ceux prêtés à un nouveau médicament non encore commercialisé, sorti du chapeau d’un industriel dont la préoccupation première est moins le sort de l’humanité que l’enrichissement de ses actionnaires.

    Laurent MUCCHIELLI, directeur de recherche au CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université (France)
    Jacques POLLINI, chercheur associé à l’Université de McGill (Montréal, Canada)

    7/07/2020

    16th-Century Engineer’s Book-Reading Machine

    How Students Built a 16th-Century Engineer’s Book-Reading Machine

    The bookwheel helps readers browse eight texts at once. The only problem? It weighs 600 pounds.

    Ian Kurtz and Reese Salen (pictured) built the bookwheel with fellow RIT engineering students Matt Nygren and Maher Abdelkawi.
    Ian Kurtz and Reese Salen (pictured) built the bookwheel with fellow RIT engineering students Matt Nygren and Maher Abdelkawi. Mireya Salinas
    Agostino Ramelli, the 16th-century Italian military engineer, designed many contraptions for the changing Renaissance landscape, including cranes, grain mills, and water pumps. But his most compelling apparatus was one meant to nurture the mind: a revolving wooden wheel with angled shelves, which allowed users to read multiple books at one time. “This is a beautiful and ingenious machine, very useful and convenient for anyone who takes pleasure in study, especially those who are indisposed and tormented by gout,” Ramelli wrote in Le diverse et artificiose machine, his illustrated magnum opus of mechanical solutions. “Moveover, it has another fine convenience in that it occupies very little space in the place where it is set.”
    Ramelli never ended up building this device, but the bookwheel has long intrigued those who study the history of the book—and in 2018, a group of undergraduate engineering students at the Rochester Institute of Technology set out to build two. They began by diligently studying the Italian engineer’s illustration, then procured historically accurate materials, such as European beech and white oak. With the help of modern power tools and processes, such as computer modeling and CNC routing, they brought it to life. “Cutting the gears by hand would have taken a considerate amount of time,” says RIT graduate Ian Kurtz. “The actual construction may not have been worth the time with 16th-century techniques … I think Agostino was more so showing his understanding of how gear systems worked.”
    An illustration from the Ramelli's 1588 book <em>Le diverse et artificiose machine</em> (left). The finished, 600-pound bookwheel, complete with books (right).
    An illustration from the Ramelli’s 1588 book Le diverse et artificiose machine (left). The finished, 600-pound bookwheel, complete with books (right). Public Domain; Mireya Salinas
    Today, one wheel resides at the Melbert B. Cary Jr. Graphic Arts Collection at RIT’s Wallace Library, and the other at the University of Rochester’s Rossell Hope Robbins Library. Each weighs about 600 pounds and has room for eight books; users can take a seat and spin the wooden cases, which are carefully weighted to avoid unintended movements. It’s also worth getting close to observe the core mechanism: a complex, epicyclic gearing system that consists of outer gears rotating around a central gear, much like planets moving around the sun.
    Ramelli’s design likely inspired similar wheels that were built in the 17th and 18th centuries, several of which still exist, but it was probably more complicated than it needed to be. “There are simpler objects you could build that would accomplish mostly the same goals,” says Matt Nygren, another former student who built the wheels. “This is more extravagant than it is entirely practical.” A more efficient bookwheel, he adds, would be one structured like a Ferris wheel, with hanging, weighted cradles rather than shelves that move along a gear system.
    Simpler bookwheels did precede Ramelli’s rotating lectern. Readers in the late Medieval Period could sit by a book carousel, which rotated open books along a horizontal plane, like a Lazy Susan, and didn’t require side supports. Steven Galbraith, curator of the Cary Collection, suspects that the Italian engineer was trying to improve this design and cater to an increasing need to cross-reference books, which were often large and heavy. “Through the 16th century, books are beginning to talk to each other a lot more—one might reference another—so a bookwheel could have been convenient,” he says. “Some scholars say it’s the beginning of the idea of hypertext, the idea that a reader can sit in one spot and have access to multiple texts at once.” (That concept is all too familiar today, in the age of hyperlinks, search engines, and browser tabs.)
    The RIT bookwheel was a thoroughly modern take on a Renaissance design. Before building it, the students designed a 3-D digital model.
    The RIT bookwheel was a thoroughly modern take on a Renaissance design. Before building it, the students designed a 3-D digital model. Courtesy Matt Nygren and Ian Kurtz
    The Cary Collection’s wheel can be used for individual reading research, but it is also often used as a teaching tool. At RIT, Juilee Decker, an associate professor of museum studies, has had her classes design visitor experiences around the bookwheel. Students have created videos, games, and instructional material about the device, along the way developing skills related to digital content curation and audience engagement. Museums have also expressed interest in the wheel: In Russia, the Museum of Languages of the World built its own version according to the RIT team’s plans, which are published online. The University of the Pacific in California has also expressed interest in acquiring one.
    Bibliophiles, particularly those who can relate to tsundoku—the Japanese term describing the habit of acquiring books without reading them—might want to own Ramelli’s bookwheel, too. But while Kurtz and Nygren acknowledge that the apparatus is historically significant, they both believe it doesn’t serve much of a practical purpose, from an engineering perspective. “I dont think it’s something you should buy and try and keep in your living room—nowadays there are better tools for the job,” Nygren says. “But it’s certainly an eye-catching thing, and one of the fanciest ways I can think of for storing books.”

    7/06/2020

    W.G. Sebald: A Profile



    W.G. Sebald: A Profile

    James Atlas

    Issue 151, Summer 1999

    “It was an escape route, something entirely private,” Max Sebald mutters as he rummages through a thick folder of old photographs. A boy in a white gown and caftan; a graveyard with tilted headstones; a turn-of-the-century spa: they’re the kind of photographs you’d come across in a junk shop, leafing idly through a box of postcards. Which is more or less where Sebald found them. He had been collecting photographs for years before he began to write, he explains, scouring the shops in the seaside towns of East Anglia, where he’s lived since emigrating from Germany in 1970, for images to put in his books—or rather, to serve as their catalysts. “Not even people in the house knew what I was up to; I’d just retire to my workshop and potter about. I think it was these photographs that eventually got the better of me.”
    They had got the better of me, too. In fact they were a large part of the reason I was sitting over a coffee in Sebald’s comfortable, book-lined study in Norwich. I had come on a literary pilgrimage. The Emigrants, his English debut, published three years ago by New Directions, in an elegant translation by Michael Hulse, was like no other book I’d ever read.
    Interspersed with the text—a sequence of biographical narratives about Germans exiled by the Holocaust—were captionJess photographs that, out of context, made no sense.
    Why a grass tennis court with leafless winter trees in the background? Why a Jewish cemetery overgrown with vines? Why the spire of the Chrysler Building and the Brooklyn Bridge? And who were the people in these photographs, who seemed to have no connection to one another? A family around a dinner cable; children in a classroom; a quartet of goggled passengers in a roadster: they have the musty air of snapshots in a family album, where long-forgotten faces, anonymous and indistinct, gaze up from the yellowing page—“what one imagines lost souls look like in Sebald’s haunting description.
    His new book, The Rings of Saturn, supposedly a compilation of random notes begun when the author was in a mental hospital, is a continuation of this peculiar hybrid form. The elusive narrator. a meticulous amateur historian of East Anglia, wanders the countryside with a rucksack on his back, recounting in the digressive but hypnotic prose that is Sebald’s trademark the lore he’s gathered about the area’s medieval past, the long-vanished inhabitants of its derelict manor houses, the archaeology of its quaint seaside villages. Like The Emigrants, The Rings of Saturn is illustrated with mysterious photographs that play off and clarify the equally mysterious text.
    And like its predecessor, it’s told in the voice of a nameless I whose identity is indeterminate, his odd soliloquy on the ravages of history counterpointed by passages from the works of Swinburne, Chateaubriand, Borges ("I asked Bioy Casares for the source of this memorable remark, the author writes ... “) and Joseph Conrad, who once sailed the North Sea coast in the days when he was still the sailor Jozef Korzeniowski.
    From a detailed summary of Conrad’s early life, Sebald segues to the novelist’s traumatic journey into the deepest recesses of the Belgian Congo, which would inspire his masterpiece Heart of Darkness—then abruptly returns to an account of his own travels, his forward narrative progress interrupted by associations with Belgium:
    At all events, I well recall that on my first visit to Brussels in December 1964 I encountered more hunchbacks and lunatics than normally in a whole year. One evening in a bar in Rhode Sr Genèse I even watched a deformed billiard player who was racked with spastic contortions but who was able. when it was his turn and he had taken a moment to steady himself, to play the most difficult cannons with unerring precision . The hotel by the Bois de la Cambre where I was then lodging for a few days ...

    And so on, proceeding from a brisk inventory of the hotel ’s ponderous furniture to a consideration of the ugly monument the Belgians erected to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo.
    For Sebald, the discontinuities of the unconscious are the mainstay of his art.
    Sebald, who is fifty-four, speaks with a pronounced German accent, but his English. after nearly three decades, is sophisticated and precise. (How many native English speakers know how to use the word apodictic in a casually tossed-off sentence?) With his thinning mane of white hair, rimless glasses and bushy mustache, he resembles the Frankfurt theorist Walter Benjamin. On this lace winter day he’s dressed in nondescript corduroys and a bulky sweater; only the mustache and the cigarette he’s smoking in a holder give off a hint of his Continental origins. He introduces himself by his nickname- Max.
    Sebald’s books elude easy classification. Are they fiction or nonfiction? History or a Borgesian fabrication built upon fact? His publisher, hedging, has resorted to the dual category of fiction-literature. “It’s hard on publishers,” he concedes.
    “You have to make sure it doesn’t get in the travel section.”
    When I try to pin him down, he becomes slyly evasive. “Facts are troublesome. The idea is to make it seem factual, though some of it might be invented.” In the end, truth as a historian or biographer understands the term is irrelevant to him. “I just want to write decent prose. Whatever it is—biographical, autobiographical, topographical—doesn’t matter. I have an aversion to the standard novel: ‘She said, and walked across the room’—there’s something trite about it. You can feel the wheels turning.”

    Sebald’s books are resolutely plotless. Their narrative line follows the contours of the unconscious. His method is to build up a collage of apparently random details—stray bits of personal history, historical events, anecdotes, passages from other books-and fuse them into a story; Sebald, borrowing the term from Claude Levi-Strauss, calls it bricolage. The effect is a kind of organized free association, as if one were reading a sequence of dreams instead of a linear narrative.
    The Emigrants begins: “At the end of September 1970, shortly before I took up my position in Norwich, I drove out to Hingham with Clara in search of somewhere to live.” But Clara will soon be left behind, and the narrator—I—will never be more than a shadowy pronoun, like the narrator of The Rings of Saturn, who opens his story: in August 1992, when the dog days were drawing to an end, I set off to walk the county of Suffolk, with the hope of dispelling the emptiness that takes hold of me whenever I have completed a long stint of work.”
    Who was this authorial presence, this enigmatic I? The biographical note appended to The Emigrants was fuller than most. It revealed that Sebald was born in Wertach im Allgaü, Germany, in 1944; that in 1966 he became an assistant lecturer at the University of Manchester; that he’d taught at the University of Ease Anglia since 1970; that he’d served as Director of the British Centre for Literary Translation from 1989 to 1994. But it still left a great deal unsaid; even the author’s full name-Winfried Georg-could only be teased out by consulting the copyright page. What fascinated me was the inconcrovenible fact yielded up by his birthdate: Sebald wasn’t Jewish. How many Jews born in Germany in 1944 survived Hitler’s ovens? The Emigrants wasn’t the work of a survivor, then; it was something far more rare: the work of a disinterested moral witness. Or was he? “Such a life is somehow still touched with a smudge, or taint, of the old shameful history,” Cynthia Ozick observed in a review of The Emigrants; and “the smudge, or taint—or call it, rather, the little tic of self-consciousness—is there all the same, whether it is regretted or repudiated, examined or ignored, forgotten or relegated to a principled indifference.”
    The Emigrants is an anomaly in so-called Holocaust literature.
    a book that goes to the heart of that catastrophic event by hovering on its periphery. Like Aharon Appelfeld, whose novels tend either to prefigure the Holocaust or to dwell on its lingering aftermath, Sebald chronicles the ripple effect of recent German history on four indirect victims: a retired English doctor who fled the pogroms in Eastern Europe and, never having felt at home in his adopted land, eventually commits suicide; a German primary-school teacher in the 1950s who also ends a suicide; a cluster of the author’s relatives who emigrated to America in the 1920s; and aJewish refugee painter whose parents were murdered by the Nazis. Each of these stories is tangential to the Holocaust, yet each of the protagonists is fatally implicated in it, caught up, however obliquely, in the eradication of the Jews. Visiting an abandoned Jewish cemetery in Kissingen, the anonymous narrator encounters “a wilderness of graves, neglected for years, crumbling and gradually sinking into the ground amidst call grass and wild flowers under the shade of trees, which trembled in the slight movement of the air.” Soon the graves themselves will vanish.
    The great theme of The Emigrants is the hidden consequences of the Holocaust-not only the trauma of the survivors, the allocation of guilt, the Germans’ struggle with their Nazi past, or even the new insights about human nature that it forced upon us, but its eerie aftereffects, the veneer of normality that encourages us to forget. “I felt increasingly that the mental impoverishment and lack of memory that marked the Germans, and the efficiency with which they had cleaned everything up, were beginning to affect my head and nerves,” Sebald writes in the last chapter, recounting his visit to the abandoned graveyard at Kissingen: “It was not possible to decipher all the chiselled inscriptions, but the names I could still read-Hamburger, Kissinger, Wertheimer, Friedlander, Arnsberg, Auerbach, Grunwald, Leuthold, Seeligmann, Frank, Hertz, Goldstaub, Baumblatt and Blumenthal-made me think that perhaps there was nothing the Germans begrudged the Jews so much as their beautiful names, so intimately bound up with the country they lived in and with its language.” Like Daniel Gold hagen, the controversial author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Sebald believes the Holocaust was uniquely German; it was no accident that it happened there. “There is something about Germans, which for lack of a better word we’ll call cowardice,” he says, groping for an explanation of the collective blindness that enabled the Nazis to flourish. “They have a habit of avoidance. People don’t want to know. It’s as if it never happened. In England, the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are still visible; in London, there are tangible layers of history. In Germany, partly because of the destruction of the cities and partly because of the way in which Germany deals with its own past, their history is much less present. It has been, as it were, neutralized. The cities all look like each other-pedestrian zones, wretched malls with trees growing out of concrete pots, the same shops ... ”
    Yet for all his moral outrage, Sebald isn’t a polemicist; his intent is less to build a prosecutorial case against Germany, as Goldhagen does, than to puzzle over the transience of human life. However murderous the Nazis’ intent, they were only accelerating the inevitable. “From the earliest times, human civilization has been no more than a strange luminescence growing more intense by the hour, of which no one can say when it will begin to wane and when it will fade away,” he writes in his new book. All things pass; nothing endures. This is the lesson so powerfully brought home in The Rings of Saturn. Where The Emigrants showed how widely the Holocaust emanated from its epicenter, how efficient was the destruction it unleashed, The Rings of Saturn forces us to loosen our grip on the illusion that anything is permanent. As he sifts through history, cataloging one historical catastrophe after another, Sebald conjures up the image of a globe engulfed in serial chaos: low-lying pons are swallowed up by storms; rainforests are leveled by fire; entire populations are massacred in obscure distant wars. East Anglia itself, Sebald’s quaint and docile corner of England, was only half a century ago the staging ground for the war against Hitler:

    Time and again, as one walks across the wide plains, one passes barracks, gateways and fenced-off areas where, behind thin plantations of Scots pines, weapons are concealed in camouflaged hangars and grass-covered bunkers, the weapons with which. if an emergency should arise. whole countries and continents can be transformed into smoking heaps of stone and ash in no time.

    Saturn, formally speaking, is like The Emigrants: the signature photographs of people and landscapes described in the text; the rambling, nearly free-associative meditations and long incantatory sentences unwinding with slow serpentine grace; the ruminative first-person voice. But the narrator is a more visible figure, more bodied forth as a literary character on the order of Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man or Kafka’s Gregor Samsa, to whom he compares himself. As 1 made my way through its densely allusive pages, I was put in mind of Mallarme’s dictum that everything in the world exists to be put in a book. The depredations of Dutch elm disease, the lifespan of the silkworm and the social transformation wrought by the silk industry in the eighteenth century, even a five-page discourse on the physiology and migratory habits of herring, all find their way into Sebald’s weave. The leitmotiv that binds his digressive excursions into the past in The Rings of Saturn is the same one that dominated The Emigrants- “scenes of destruction, mutilation, desecration, starvation, conflagration.” It’s not a pretty picture .


    Sebald’s self-exile makes him exotic-"How many German writers live in East Anglia?” he notes—but it also makes him a representative case. From Eliot in England to Joyce in Paris and Nabokov in the United States, the writers who dominate the contemporary canon have been essentially stateless, citizens of a domain that requires no cultural passport; George Steiner has named this condition “unhousedness.” Or, as Sebald himself put it to me in his occasionally clumsy but invariably accurate English: “Paradigmatically postmodern writers are often operating on linguistic borderlines.” To this experience he has brought a prose so lapidary, so particular, so loaded with concrete detail that it has the impact of a photograph. “I heard the woodwork of the old half-timber building, which had expanded in the heat of the day and was now contracting fraction by fraction, creaking and groaning,” he writes in The Rings of Saturn, recounting a night spent in a country inn. He goes on:

    In the gloom of the unfamiliar room, my eyes involuntarily turned in the direction from which the sounds came, looking for the crack that might run along the low ceiling. the spot where the plaster was flaking from the wall or the mortar crumbling behind the panelling. And if I closed my eyes for a while it felt as if I were in a cabin aboard a ship on the high seas, as if the whole building were rising on the swell of a wave, shuddering a little on the crest, and then, with a sigh, subsiding into the depths.

    Like his great stateless predecessor in the famous preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus, he wants, “above all, to make you see.”


    Others before me had fallen under the spell of Sebald’s work. The paperback edition of The Emigrants carried effusive blurbs from Susan Sontag and A.S. Byan, and it had showed up on several writers’ Best Books of 1997 lists in England.
    But hardly anyone I canvased in America had heard of him; the book seemed to be circulating samizdadike from hand to hand. (I’d heard about it from a friend.) Like Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader, a small gemlike novel about a love affair in Nazi Germany and its eerie postwar reverberations, Sebald’ s masterpiece had acquired a readership in the old way, without publicity or drumbeating on the part of its publisher, a venerable literary house that tends to concentrate on poetry. No one seemed to know much about the author.
    When I asked his London agent, Victoria Edwards, what he was like, she said she’d never met him. Like his peripatetic narrator, he liked to go for walks in all weather; twice when I called, his wife told me he was “out with the dogs.” The notion of a literary profile bewildered him. “I am glad you liked The Emigrants and quite astounded that you propose to come all the way to talk to me,” he’d written in reply to my request for an interview.
    He had turned out to be less forbidding than I’d anticipated.
    When I arrived in Norwich that morning on the train from London, Max had been waiting at the gate. I recognized him from the photograph on the back of The Emigrants. He was shy at first as we drove through the streets of Norwich in his rattletrap Peugeot, but he soon grew talkative, pointing out the eleventh-century Norman cathedral that towers immensely over the town and going on about his dealings with publishers , agentS, advances-a writer’s shoptalk. “My publishers would say to me that they had sold foreign rights to France or Italy—‘We got you five hundred pounds’—and then I’d never hear another thing about it again,” he complained, grousing like a journalist at Elaine’s. He struck me as worldly. in a quiet, unobtrusive way, possessed of a steely ego and not afraid to engage in public debate on highly charged issues. When he gave a series of lectures on the history of the Allies’ air war against the Reich in Zurich last year, he told me, it provoked intense coverage in the German media. “I felt that I’d touched on a raw nerve,” he said without apparent regret.
    Sebald’s house, The Rectory, is a redbrick Victorian manor with tall windows and a manicured lawn in a suburban cul-de- sac on the outskirts of Norwich. He renovated it himself, by hand, over half a dozen years. Trim and tidy, it seemed the very antithesis of his dark, broodingly apocalyptic prose.
    While we settled down in the study to talk, his wife, Uta, a handsome fiftyish blond—they met as students at the University of Freiburg-was visible through the windows, mowing the lawn with a tractor mower. Morris, their big black dog , dozed on a cushion. The pristinity of the room-volumes of German literature neatly arranged on the shelves; a blindingly white rug; a leather club chair and couch; a wood-burning stove painted fire-engine red-unnerved me for some reason.
    The only eccentric touch was the row of hats hanging on the wall: they reminded me of one of those somber, depopulated museum installations of Joseph Beuys, where the once-living form is represented by an old coat or a scrap of fur. Otherwise he could have been a bourgeois shopkeeper in his suburban domicile. “I like to try to lead a normal life,” he told me-and for all intents and purposes he does. Uta, who brings us tea and cookies, is engaging and friendly; the Sebalds’ daughter, Anna, twenty-six, is a schoolteacher living nearby. б’She’s not all that interested in my work,” Sebald maintained.
    I asked him about a sentence from The Emigrants that had stayed with me: “When I think of Germany, it feels as if there were some kind of insanity lodged in my head.” In the fifties and early sixties, he explained, when he was growing up, the Nazi era was regarded as an almost normal episode in German history. “In 1939, my father was unemployed. He had the good fortune, as he saw it, to be admitted to the Weimar One Hundred Thousand Man Army. Once you got in there, you had prospects, a job.” His father fought in the Polish campaign, and was briefly interned in a French POW camp toward the end of the war, but rarely talked about his experiences. Sebald’s childhood was, by his own account, ordinary. “I never thought much about anything at all. I had a penchant for reading.” he says, giving the word a French pronunciation, ’"but otherwise I was the same as everybody else-skiing and all the rest of it.” He painted a rather withering portrait of his parents as bourgeois burghers. “My father was a clerk in an office until the fifties, and then joined up in the army again. He retired early, as one does in that profession, and has done nothing for the last forty years but read the newspaper and comment on the headlines. He has a critical bent of mind, and very pronounced opinions about the issues of the day.” What does he think of his son’s work? “He took a certain interest when there was public attention; then he seemed to be jolly pleased about it."’ It wasn’t until Sebald entered the University of Freiburg that he became aware of the war’s unspoken legacy. ббconditions for students were very poor,” he recalls. “German colleges in those days were unreformed, completely overrun, undersourced. You would sit in lectures with 1,200 other people and never talk to your teachers. Libraries were practically nonexistent.” But what troubled him more than the overcrowded conditions was the conspiracy of silence surrounding the Nazi era. “All my teachers had gotten their jobs during the Brownshirt years and were therefore compromised, either because they had actively supported the regime or been fellow travelers or otherwise been silent. But the strictures of academic discourse prevented me from saying what I wanted to say or even investigating the kinds of things that caught my eye. Everyone avoided all the kinds of issues that ought to have been talked about. Things were kept under wraps in the classroom as much as they had been at home. I found that insufficient.”
    He transferred to a university in Switzerland, and then applied for a teaching job in Manchester. “I knew nothing about Manchester. I hardly knew English. and had no intention of staying. I thought I would just be there for a year.”
    In The Emigrants, Sebald provides a vivid account of his arrival in that sooty industrial metropolis aboard a night flight from Kloten:

    Once we had crossed France and the Channel, sunk in darkness below, I gazed down lost in wonder at the network of lights that stretched from the southerly outskirts of London to the Midlands, their orange sodium glare the first sign that from now on I would be living in a different world . . .. By now, we should have been able to make out the sprawling mass of Manchester, yet one could see nothing but a faint glimmer, as if from a fire almost suffocated in ash. A blanket of fog that had risen out of the marshy plains that reached as far as the Irish Sea had covered the city. a city spread across a thousand square kilometres, built of countless bricks and inhabited by millions of souls, dead and alive.

    Sebald was forty-five when he began to write. “I had quite a demanding job. There was never rime to write.” I asked him if he had ever been in therapy: his work is so apparently random in the way it leaps from subject to subject that it mimes the process of free association. “I never got round to it,” he answers. “My therapy consists of reading other case histories.” But in the seventies and eighties he spent summers at a mental clinic near Vienna, a sort of therapeutic vacation from the rigors of teaching that would also serve as research; the director, Leo Navratil, encouraged his patients to draw or paint, and had published a book of poems by one of his inmates, Ernst Herbeck, that Sebald found “mind-boggling.”
    He continued: “I thought it would help me understand some of the basic conditions in creativity to go there.” He hadn’t gone as a patient? “Oh, no, no. Writing itself is an insane occupation: hard, compulsive, most of the time not pleasurable.
    There is always the desire to find out how one is made up, to get to those layers chat are out of sight; but I would find it hard to write anything confessional. I prefer to look at the trajectories of other lives that cross one’s own trajectory— do it by proxy rather than expose oneself in public …

    I was startled to encounter in The Rings of Saturn a description of someone I actually knew, the poet and translator Michael Hamburger, who retired from London some years ago to a rural cottage in Middleton, a hamlet about twenty miles from Sebald’s house. I had met him in the early seventies, when I was a student at Oxford; but 1 hadn’t seen him in more than twenty years, and proposed to Sebald that we go for a visit.
    On the way, we stopped off in Southwold for lunch at the Crown Hotel. It was a snug establishment, with rough-hewn wooden cables and small-paned bay windows that looked out on the main street of the town. On this wintry February day, it was full of elderly people in cardigans; Southwold is a popular retirement community for BBC executives, Sebald explained. He seemed at ease in the comfortable dining room.
    He said that the Crown was one of his regular haunts, and that he often stopped in for a night or two “to get away from the routine.” It was a curious thing: his work is so relentlessly grim chat it verges on the comic, but Sebald himself appeared wryly cheerful, even when he was discussing the work of Primo Levi or describing a book on euthanasia in Nazi Germany that he’d just read. ("An asylum in Kaufbeuren was still dispatching victims three weeks after the Americans arrived.") Like most writers I know, he showed a lively interest in real estate; as we strolled around the town after lunch, he lamented that he should have bought one of the grand old houses on the village square when he first arrived in the area; now they’re too expensive. ’бIn his writing, he comes across as a melancholy man,” Michael Hulse told me, “but he’s really a very funny man:’ When I commented on this apparent contradiction between his somber world view and his equable disposition, he shrugged. ’"One is born with a certain psychological constitution,” he said, referring to himself in the third person as if to deflect any insinuation of egotism, “and then one discovers that life is partly dispiriting and partly exhilarating in its oddness.” He invoked Flaubert’s famous advice to be a bourgeois in life and a madman in art. “I want to hold on to my job, so I’m not condemned to this activity. If left to my own instincts I might well have become a recluse.”
    He wanted to show me the Sailors’ Reading Room on the promenade. I instantly recognized the navigational instruments and barometers on the walls, the bartered leather armchairs and ships’ models, from Sebald’s description in The Rings of Saturn. Two old men were playing pool in the backroom.
    It felt odd to be touring the very locales so vividly conjured up in The Rings of Saturn—it was almost as if I myself had stepped into the pages of his book. A writer in exile, Sebald had acquired as deep a sense of place as any writer I know. Tramping the lanes and meadows of East Anglia, he had steeped himself in its lore. “The intriguing thing for me about Suffolk is that it is untouched by history, as the whole country is in a sense,” he remarked ... There hasn’t been a war on English soil since the seventeenth century.” I asked if he ever felt homesick for Germany. He answered: “Yes, until I go there. When I first came here I had no intention of staying in Manchester. I still go over several times a year. and have made repeated attempts to return to Germany, but I always end up coming back here.” At one point in the late 1980s he worked for a German cultural institute, and last year he was offered a position in creative writing at the University of Hamburg. “I did not want to be drawn into the German culture industry. I do feel uncomfortable in Germany. It feels like a cold country.”
    It was growing dark as we left town and pulled into a muddy driveway beside an ancient farmhouse . Michael, in a worn corduroy jacket, opened the heavy wooden door. He ’s in his mid-seventies now, but he looked nearly the same as he did when I last saw him, frail and wrenlike; even his hair is still dark. His beautiful wife, the poet Anne Beresford, had also aged well. He welcomed us into a cold, dank room with a low heavy-beamed ceiling, leaded windows, and a charred stone fireplace—a room out of a Brontë novel. There were books everywhere—in a closet, on floor-to-ceiling shelves, piled up by the stairs that lead to the study. The house is “part Stuart, part Tudor,” he said. “It’s falling down around us, but it will probably see us out.”
    It was dark now. The wind rattled the windows. Suddenly I felt far away from home, the way I used to feel when I lived in England twenty-five years ago, before there were phones everywhere and central heating and people flew back and forth across the Atlantic for a weekend. But a few minutes later, it was time to go; the spell was broken. Back in the car, we headed for the Norwich train station. Sebald was talking about the family tragedies that had lately befallen so many of his friends. “For years I didn’t know anyone who was ill,” he said. “Now it’s all around me.”
    That night, back in my room in London, I looked up the pages about Michael in The Rings of Saturn. I had read the book in galleys, and hadn’t seen the photographs before .
    There were two of Michael’s study—one showed his book—crowded writing desk and the ancient small-paned bow window behind it; the other showed a mass of books piled up beside a door. It was strangely moving to find images so recently imprinted on my own consciousness staring up at me from the page. Suddenly I thought of a book I’d read as a child: C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in which a gang of children climb through a closet door and find themselves transported to some other world. That’s what being with Max was like.