Review: The New Men

Cover image of "The New Men" by C.P. Snow

The New Men (Strangers and Brothers, 6) C. P. Snow. Open Road Integrated Media (ISBN: 9781504097000) 2024 (First published in 1954).

Summary: The tension between two brothers involved in nuclear weapons research during and after World War 2 in England.

Between 1940 and 1970, C. P. Snow wrote eleven “Strangers and Brothers” novels narrated by Lewis Eliot, who rises from an attorney to a Cambridge don, and finally a senior civil servant in government. The novels explore power in the political context and the challenge of maintaining personal integrity. Recently, Open Road has reissued the series in e-book format. In this case, their efforts brought to my attention a book as old as I am. Yet the questions it explores have been those many of us have wrestle with through all our lives. Can nuclear weapons and the arms race be morally justified?

Lewis assists his brother Martin, a physicist, in obtaining a position in a highly secret research program at Barford, the fictional site of England’s atomic research program during World War 2. He will work under Walter Luke in building an atomic pile. This is the first step in creating fissionable material for a bomb.

The novel works at several levels. One is a fictional narrative that captures the rivalry as well as cooperation of the British and Americans to build a bomb before Germany did. Snow narrates setbacks such as failures in activating the nuclear pile, and later, a near fatal accident involving Luke and Sawbridge. In part, because of these failures, the Americans build and use the bomb. But, in an effort to preserve Britain’s place in the world, they win continued support to build Britain’s own nuclear arsenal.

The second level is an exploration of the moral issues. Like some of the scientists at Los Alamos, the scientific challenge to build the bomb was separate from the idea that it might actually be used. The effects of radiation exposure on Luke and Sawbridge underscore the particular horror of radioactive fallout. Snow portrays ineffectual efforts to prevent the American use of the bomb. Also, the advantage of the West grates on Sawbridge and others, who provide information to the Soviets. In fact, it did not make an appreciable difference.

Finally the novel develops a tension between the two brothers. Lewis wants his brother’s success, which becomes a burden to Martin, who must struggle with his own ambitions and his brother’s expectations, whether in marriage or career. Then moral issues arise between the more pragmatic Lewis and idealistic Martin. First, they arise over going public in opposition to the bomb. Later, Lewis disagrees with Martin’s aggressive role in the prosecution of Sawbridge.

All this occurs against a backdrop of relational networks of Cambridge dons and Whitehall officials. These offer a glimpse of the alliance between academy and government, like the pipeline from Harvard into Washington during the “Best and the Brightest” years. Yet despite power and influence we see human flaws that undermine ambitions and aspirations, even between brothers.

The Weekly Wrap: August 10-16

person holding brown paper bag
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

The Weekly Wrap: August 10-16

Reading Like Terry Gross

I’m a very different reader than Terry Gross, who has interviewed hundreds of authors on her Fresh Air program. She recently dropped a video on Facebook describing her process. Our biggest difference is that she destroys her books and I don’t. The video shows a shelf of her books with probably a third of the pages dog-eared. She dog-ears a page with quotes or ideas she wants to remember, which she circles. Gross dog-ears the bottom of pages she wants to use in her introduction. She notes key themes of the book on the frontispiece. I sell many books after she reviews them. She obviously doesn’t.

We do have some things in common. We both read the books we are reviewing or discussing in interviews. I don’t have the luxury of a staff to do this for me, but Gross reads the books herself. I read any book I review beginning to end. And I also pay attention to acknowledgements and prologues. They often set out what the author is trying to do. I’m always thinking as I read–“are they succeeding in their aim?”.

Where we differ is that I may bookmark or use a post-it note for quotes. I keep up a mental dialogue with the plot or argument. Because I re-sell many books, I don’t mark them up. And because I do daily blog posts rather than longer interviews, I try to keep my reviews between 500 and 1000 words. I’d be tempted, I think, to go much longer with Gross’s method.

However, Gross is a master at the craft and it never hurts to learn from a master!

Five Articles Worth Reading

Most of us think of MIT as a center of technology. However, this week’s Atlantic includes an article from a professor, Joshua Bennett, on “Why So Many MIT Students Are Writing Poetry.” And it’s not even for a class!

C.S. Lewis was no fan of existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, whose writing he described as  “walking in sawdust.” Nevertheless, James Como argues that there is a congruency between the two of them in “On His Existential Way.” 

Most of us have lived our whole lives under the shadow of the atom bomb. For example, I was born on the somber anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Thus, on the recent eightieth anniversary of that bombing, Peter Hitchens article, “The Empire of the Atom” seems appropriate.

When you think of road trip books, does Jack Kerouac’s On the Road come to mind? I’ll be honest and say I’m not a fan. Thankfully, there are some other road trip books that are better. Here are “18 Great Road Trip Books That Aren’t ‘On the Road’“.

We bibliophiles are lovers of words. The only thing that could be better is a list of words about bibliophiles. And that’s what we have in “22 Perfect Words About Books and Reading.”

Quote of the Week

I loved this “pungent” insight from poet Robert Southey, born August 12, 1774.

“If you would be pungent, be brief; for it is with words as with sunbeams – the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn.”

Miscellaneous Musings

This week, I reviewed a theological memoir by Gerhard Lohfink, a book he completed shortly before his death in 2024. In short, I loved his testimony about his belief in God and how he sought to live his scholarship. As a result, I ordered a couple more of his books, something I reserve for authors I really love.

Terry Gross also mentioned she prefers books under 300 pages, which she thinks is enough for any author to say his or her piece. She notes, interviewers have to sleep too! I laughed, because I had just finished Ron Chernow’s 1000+ page account of Mark Twain. I know he writes really long books, but I think this could have been shorter.

Finally, I’ve been delighting in J.R.R. Tolkien’s translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. If you ever wanted a crash course in chivalry, it’s all here. He even resists seduction by his host’s wife three times without turning her into “the woman scorned.”

Next Week’s Reviews

Monday: Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man

Tuesday: Italo Calvino, If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler

Wednesday: Regin V. Cates, The Real Conversation Jesus Wants Us to Have

Thursday: Ron Chernow, Mark Twain

Friday: Rachel Joy Welcher, Charlie Can’t Sleep!

So, that’s The Weekly Wrap for August 10-16!

Find past editions of The Weekly Wrap under The Weekly Wrap heading on this page

Review: American Prometheus

Cover image of "American Prometheus" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin

American Prometheus, Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Vintage Books (ISBN:  9780375726262) 2006.

Summary: A biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, focused on his leadership of the atomic bomb program and security clearance trial.

My birth and the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima occurred on the same day (although in different years). I’m in my eighth decade of living under a nuclear cloud. One of the scientists who helped make that possible was J. Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer led the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, from 1943 to 1945, that built the first bombs, including those dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Therefore, Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin’s massive biography of Oppenheimer was one of those books I knew I would read sooner or later (though I will pass on the movie). They trace his early life and educational work, and early work in theoretical physics that led to appointments at Caltech, and eventually at Berkeley.

While at Berkeley in the mid-1930’s he expressed his developing social consciousness through associations with and support of organizations with Communist party ties. While likely not a party member, he had close friends who were among the scientists he worked with and others he associated with. One of them, Haakon Chevalier, would later cause him much grief. He also pursued an intimate relationship with psychotherapist and party member Jean Tatlock, who later committed suicide. His wife, Kitty Puening had previously been married to a man killed in the Spanish Civil War fighting for the Communists.

World War Two changed many things. The USSR became an ally. Intelligence, including warnings from Albert Einstein, revealed the Germans were working on an atomic bomb. Oppenheimer’s theoretical work with Ernest Lawrence made him a strong candidate to lead the bomb development program. By this time, he had severed ties to the Communist Party, but his past raised security issues. But investigations cleared him and he became director under Leslie Groves.

His fertile mind and quick grasp of the various challenges facing the teams of scientists made him an ideal director. Meanwhile, he paid assiduous attention to building the Los Alamos community, including cross-team seminars that facilitated teamwork and advances on the science front. But his past associations tripped him up. Haakon Chevalier made an approach, exploring whether Oppenheimer would consider sharing information with Soviet scientists. While he flatly refused Chevalier, his tardy reporting and attempts to cover for his friends, including his brother Frank, made him suspect, though he maintained his clearance and overall director, General Leslie Groves staunchly supported him.

The successful Trinity test of the bomb was significant in raising Oppenheimer’s own fears about using the weapon. He sought unsuccessfully to stop its use. The book raises evidence that the U.S. could have ended the war without using it or invading the mainland. I think that will continue to be debated. But Oppenheimer later had a meeting with Harry Truman “repenting” his own role, something Truman ever after despised.

Leaving Los Alamos, Oppenheimer accepted a position as director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, perhaps the happiest situation he enjoyed. He advocated for open sharing of nuclear secrets (though maintaining security himself), hoping for an international order that would oversea and prevent nuclear war. He also opposed the H-bomb, although a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. Chairman Lewis Strauss, who was also on his board at Princeton, became an enemy. Eventually, when he was up for renewal of his security clearance, Strauss orchestrated a star-chamber-like hearing process with the result of denying that clearance. The father of the atomic bomb was excluded from all further nuclear work.

The biography portrays the complexity of Oppenheimer. He is both aloof and condescending and warm and sensitive, He both adored Kitty and yet engaged in several outside relationship. Intelligence mixed with lack of common sense. Most notably, we see how his enemies used the McCarthyism of the early 1950’s to smear him. Yet his character emerges as he comes to terms with his fate. But he was a victim of one of the uglier sides of American character.

Most of all, there is the bomb. Oppenheimer stood apart from many scientists in wrestling with the morality of what he had done. And he spoke out against the fundamental immorality and insanity of a nuclear arms race. His life exemplifies the inherent immorality of war-making. It implicates us in the taking of lives we would never personally choose to take. Bird and Sherwin’s biography serves as a mirror that makes us take a good look at ourselves.

Review: The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians

The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians by Cynthia C. Kelly
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I feel like I’ve lived my life under an atomic cloud. My birthday is on Hiroshima Day. So every birthday also falls on an anniversary of this event. I grew up with bomb shelter exercises at my school and watched President Kennedy talk to the nation about the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a stretch in October 1962 where we didn’t know whether we would wake to see another day. Over the years, I wonder if we’ve become inured to the potential horror of the use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps for this reason, it is good to read this book and to understand the terror unleashed on the earth because of the Manhatten Project and the desperate race to build the bomb before Hitler could.

manhatten

This book is a collection of primary documents and eyewitness accounts from the earliest warnings of the danger of Germany building the bomb to more recent statements about the continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. What is striking in this collection is that Kelly has “stitched” these together in a way that provides a more or less seamless narrative of the Manhatten Project and its aftermath and yet speaks with a vividness because of the eyewitness character of this narrative.

We read the early warnings about the possibility of this weapon of mass destruction including Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt. The beginnings of Allied efforts to build the bomb following the MAUD report including narratives of the first nuclear chain reaction by Enrico Fermi and a young Richard Feynman talking about the great scientists he worked alongside at Los Alamos. We read a number of the profiles of the two leaders of this effort, overall director General Leslie Groves, and Scientific Director J. Robert Oppenheimer, an unlikely but effective pairing. We see the development of secret research facilities in Oakridge, Hanford and Los Alamos and the excitement of everyone from scientists to the high school educated women and blacks who played crucial support roles in being involved in this urgent race to build the bomb while still facing barriers of gender and race.

Alongside this incredible research effort, we have accounts of a darker side as well. One is the infiltration of the project by spies who gathered sufficient information to jump start the Soviet project, giving them the bomb by 1949. We have the Trinity Test in July 1945 and the vary responses from awe to elation to urgent appeals of some scientists to not use this weapon against the Japanese. Then we have eyewitness accounts from the air and ground of the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the peculiar disease of radiation sickness suffered by survivors exposed to deadly fallout–not a mark on their bodies and yet they became ill and died.

The concluding sections of the book include reflections on the bomb including arguments about why we used it. Was it really to avoid invasion and save lives as President Truman and others argued, or was it to check Soviet ambitions at the outset of the new ‘cold’ war? Finally, we have documents that reflect our struggle to live with and limit these weapons stretching from the 1950s until 2007, when several former Secretaries of State as well as Mikhail Gorbachev published articles in the Wall Street Journal.

Most intriguing to me was the fascination of Oppenheimer and others with atomic bomb research as a research problem and the interesting mental rationale this involved in separating the thrill of the research from the moral implications of the use of these weapons. Not all could sustain this. Joseph Rotblat left the project when he realized the Germans would not build the bomb and became a disarmament advocate. Leo Szilard organized scientists to appeal to the President not to use this weapon.

Nuclear arms are in fact proliferating with more countries joining “the nuclear club”. There may be more possibility now that these weapons could actually be used now than in the ‘Cold War’ when Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) created a climate in which there use was unthinkable. It is scary to consider that some are thinking the unthinkable, which makes a collection like this more timely than ever. It is some comfort on my birthday to think that no nuclear weapons have been used in war since those days in August of 1945 and my prayer that it might always be so.

View all my reviews