nonfiction macroblog #1

Alright, let's try something different this time. I haven't been painting at all lately and I'm not going to break my record now. Haha. God.

As I mentioned in my previous microblog, I'd like to possibly do some literary criticism for this book. I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'd like to focus on one of my favorite passages of the book, which is as follows:

"The reason this book is being written by a hairy biped, rather than a scaly one, has more to do with dinosaurian misfortune than with any particular mammalian virtue. 'There's nothing ammonites were doing wrong,' Landman told me as we packed up the last fossils from the creek and prepared to head back to New York. 'Their hatchlings would have been like plankton, which for all of their existence would have been terrific. What better way to get around and distribute the species? Yet here, in the end, it may well have been their undoing.'"

Here's some context to that. You see, The Sixth Extinction deals with, well extinction. In this chapter, Kolbert specifically discusses the extinction of ammonites during the late Cretaceous period.

So that brings us to the fun part. Why did ammonites die off during this specific extinction, and not nautiluses, another cephalopod that's closely related to the ammonite. There are theories regarding habitat or egg size, but overall the fates of each creature roughly lies in the fact that the ammonites were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nautiluses didn't have any special apocalypse-deterring traits- they just happened to live in parts of the ocean where the extinction atmosphere was much less toxic than it was where the ammonites dwelled. 

(This video doesn't really help anything, just look at how freaky a nautilus is. Imagine swimming in the ocean, living your best life, and seeing this giant piece of cappelletti pasta coming at you. It really keeps me up at night. I miss the ammonites.)

See, when dealing with mass extinction, Kolbert says that Darwinism basically goes out the window- how could any species evolve to adapt to such an extreme, once-in-a-million-years event like extinction? When an extinction happens, it basically turns evolutionary history on its head. It abruptly changes the "rules" of the survival game. And as Kolbert writes, "There's nothing ammonites were doing wrong." But look where we are now. 

Basically, everything has a good chance of being screwed and there's nothing evolution can do to help. Nice!

If you read my first microblog for this book, you would know that I am what some people call a massive wimp. I don't want to read about the fact that our world is dying, global warming exists, ocean acidity is rapidly increasing, and the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Naturally, I wasn't pumped to read that we're pretty helpless to the forces of nature. 

This passage, though, was the one that got me- especially the first sentence. We're mammals, on Earth, right now, because some other guys just couldn't survive a mass extinction. The butterfly effect and "everything happens for a reason" are two fairly similar things that contribute to one common goal- messing me up. 

me, in another timeline

So I guess the main thing about this passage, and why it's my favorite, is that it truly made me think the most out of every other passage in the book. The first sentence that Kolbert uses is an incredibly effective way of putting the reader into a new perspective, which is a massive strength in her writing. 

It's difficult to imagine the effects of mass extinctions. It's terrifying to understand that we're basically at the mercy of the universe. At the same time, though, I like facing that fear. The idea of Darwinism being the basis of life except for these few mass extinctions is absolutely insane- it just makes you think what we're doing here and why we're doing it. I'm not sure how existential this book is supposed to make you feel, but it's really making me feel a lot. 

In this passage, though, Kolbert and the quote from her colleague (Landman) truly highlights this mysterious helplessness. Ammonites were more well-equipped for survival, and yet succumbed to the late-Cretaceous extinction. 

And what an ending sentence! "Yet here, in the end, it may well have been their undoing." That's such a powerful, "make-you-think" moment.

Kolbert's purpose, as I have gathered from what I have read so far, is to address the future impacts of mass extinction. In the part I am currently reading, she is focusing on ocean acidity and how by the year 2100 our oceans will have a severely decreased biodiversity- most creatures would have gone extinct, just like the ammonites, if they're unfortunate enough to be incapable of dealing with the acidity. That's terrifying. But the thing is that it didn't happen yet, and I'd say that some of us just have this feeling that it's a problem for the next few generations, and it's a problem that we shouldn't have to worry about. 

say goodbye to these guys

And I bet, had we been alive during the late-Cretaceous, we would have thought the same thing. But look at us now. Ammonites are gone and we're mammals. Does that make sense? Does that have anything to do with anything? I don't know.

I guess a good feeling for this passage is... hopelessness. Ammonites were more than well equipped for surviving! They had small, plankton-like eggs for survival and distribution. But it didn't matter. What's the point of anything, then? We built shelters that provide us with warmth and comfort and we're doing pretty well in these ecosystems but what's the point if a giant catastrophe could just happen. Where am I? A strong suit in Kolbert's writing truly is her ability to make feelings felt. It's a nonfiction book, which I would argue is usually synonymous with boring or lame, but I truly am experiencing a wide range of joy and tragedy from this story. It's enjoyable. 

This passage demonstrates a technique that proves to be popular in Kolbert's writing- ending specific sections and chapters with an open ended, "blunt" ending. Take, for example, the passage I am citing here- Kolbert ends with a sentence that provides none of her personal insight. This method of providing a simple, powerful sentence is repeated in (basically) every chapter, which is incredibly effective in giving the reader a chance to fully process what Kolbert is attempting to say. 

The threat of a mass extinction is something that people have yet to fully realize and acknowledge- I know I had no idea we were in such a doomed state of existence. Kolbert's writing is powerful. I may not know how exactly Pulitzer books are determined (see microblog 2), but I know for a fact that she deserves it for this eye-opening, amazing story. 

Thanks, guys.