Seduced By Science!

Andrea/Cara here, musing on science today. I confess, given that my academic expertise in science ended in 9th grade biology class (you know, the one with formaldehyde, dead frogs and very sharp knifes!) it might strike you as rather strange that science plays a big role in the plot of Murder on Black Swan Lane, the first book of my new Regency-set mystery series, which hits the shelves next month. Allow me to explain . . .

I have an art background, which may seem like the polar opposite from the world of laboratories, microscopes and bubbling chemicals. I thought the same thing until I read The Age of Wonder by Richard Holmes a few years ago. In it, he talks about how during the Regency era, the artists and scientists all thought of themselves as kindred souls. For them, exploration and discovery in any discipline required imagination and creative thinking. Painters, poets, chemists, astronomers—they all shared a passion for pushing themselves to think outside the box.

Hmmm, I thought . . . these are just the same qualities required to unravel diabolical mysteries. So it suddenly struck me that having a scientist and an artist could be a really fun combination. In the Earl of Wrexford and Charlotte Sloane, I’ve sought to create two lead characters who embody the intellectual curiosity—and gritty courage—of the times. They are opposites: a brooding aristocrat whose extraordinary mind runs on the rational new principles of scientific inquiry, paired with a struggling artist whose innate cleverness and intuition are the keys to her survival. Forced to work together, Wrexford and Charlotte find they make a formidable team, despite their differences. (Ah, but as science tells us, opposites often attract!)

To create Wrexford required research of course, and I found it absolutely fascinating to delve into the history of science during the Regency. Like in our own times, new discoveries and new technology were radically changing society—it was both a source of wonder  . . . and terror. (I think we can all relate to the feeling of being a little frightened by the speed of the upheavals in daily life.) As is always the case for me, it’s not simply the innovations that interest me, but the people behind them. From a writer’s POV, it’s the characters who make the history come alive. I can’t begin to cover all the amazing people (you’ll hear more on science in future blogs) but here are two thumbnail sketches of two leading scientists of the era.

First of all, I’m cheating a little and starting with the Georgian era because Antoine Lavoisier, the great French chemist, was a catalyst for the modern scientific revolution. Considered the father of modern chemistry, as well as an influential thinker in biology, he was the first man to isolate oxygen (he came up with its name) and the first to explain its role in combustion. He also pioneered a number of fundamental discoveries—the fact that matter may change forms but always remained the same—and stressed the concepts of empirical observation as key to the scientific method.

Lavoiser also used science for the public good. He worked on getting fresh water, hygiene, was key in establishing the metric system, and served on committees to reform social ills. Alas, as a member of the aristocracy he came under attack during the French Revolution. He was sent to the guillotine in 1794—the judge said “"The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists.” (This is not a political blog, so I shall refrain from comment . . . however France soon lamented the decision to execute a man of such genius.)

In England, the star of Regency science was the charismatic Cornishman, Humphry Davy. A poet as well as a man of science, Davy first rose to prominence studying gases at The Pneumatic Institution (He experimented on himself and suggested using laughing gas as a minor anesthetic for operations, which was ignored until way later) He then was invited to be a lecturer at the Royal Institution, and took the town by storm!

An entertaining speaker, he made the public scientific lectures huge popular with the beau monde. (Ladies were known to send billet doux to his private office—often wrapped in silky undergarments—inviting him to give them private tutorials.) He made scientists (I use the word, even though it wasn’t coined until 1834 by William Whewell) the hot celebrities of the day—the equivalent of rock stars! (The satirical cartoon by Gillray at the top of the blog shows Davy lecturing at the RI—and shows how he was a household name.)

But Davy wasn’t just all show! He was a brilliant man of science, and his achievements in chemistry (he isolated a number of basic elements) and early research into electro-magnetism after Alexander Volta’s invention of the voltaic pile was fundamental in the development of electricity. He also invented the safety lamp for mining, which saved countless lives.

I’ve become really interested and appreciative of science, and now wish I had studied it in school. What about you? Did you like science as a kid? Or were you like me, and hid in the humanities? What about now—is there a scientific subject that captures your interest?


 

Comments

[Mary T]

I was always interested in science, but I did poorly in it. I also struggled with any type of math that was beyond the simple. Even Algebra was a struggle for me.

I was just trying to figure out how 3D printers work. I found a website that seemed simple enough, but after a while I realized I was just reading the words, but they really weren't sinking in. I guess I need to see if I can find a Sesame Street version (smile).

[Quantum]

Andrea. I loved your idea of distilling the elements common to science and the arts. I must try your new mystery novel.

"but as science tells us, opposites often attract!"

True for electromagnetism, but don't forget the corollary that likes often repel! LOL

Davey was certainly a prominent figure of the period, but to my mind his mentoring of Michael Faraday was more important than his scientific discoveries. Faraday was the genius who laid the experimental foundations for our modern understanding of electromagnetism, enabling Clerk Maxwell to develop the theoretical understanding through his famous equations.

My field is mathematical physics but if I was starting anew I think I would find quantum biology and neuroscience particularly attractive. Especially developing better understanding of consciousness ... can a machine really become conscious?.

[Mary Jo Putney]

Andrea, I love that David portrait of Lavoisier and his wife, who worked as his invaluable assistant, according to the Mayhem Consultant. Which proves that romance can indeed be part of a scientific partnership. *G*

[Sonya Heaney]

I did well in science, but dropped it as soon as I could (because I did well, I was pushed into advanced chemistry etc. - ugh!). I think some things are fascinating, but when you actually hunker down and study it, it's *so* boring! I prefer things that involve imagination, passion, and creativity.

However, people in the science field - and especially people up against the religious set who reject any development - are worthy of HUGE praise.

I started off at university in a six-year psychology degree, but quickly realised I'd die inside if I had to do so many maths subjects!

I do have a real issue with the attitude that humanities are somehow "dumber" subjects (I just had someone tell me this the other day); I know so many science people who cannot construct a basic sentence!

[Andrea Penrose]

Oh, Mary, I am laughing in sympathy. Math absolutely stymied me in school. I somehow decided it was stupid and boring (I would rather have been drawing pictures), and thus never really let myself see the creativity and fascinating ways it expalins so many things about the universe. I have on my Wish List a desire to learn calculus . . . and a friend actually gave me Calculus for Dummies as a present. But I first need to go back and review elementary algebra. Sigh. I fear it may be a pipe dream!

BTW, when you learn how to explain 3-D printing, please post it here!

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha! Quantum, I almost put in a parenthesis for you in the post when talking about how scientists were the rock stars of the Regency!

And yes, I ran out of space, but Faraday is an amazing figure too, and probably even more influential, as you point out, in the grand scheme of modern science because of his work in electro-magnetism. It's fascinating how he was a shy, awkward assistant, overshadowed by Davy early on, but then proved to be a genius in his own right.

I'm in awe of your expertise—math has always intimidated me. And agree that quantum biology is incredibly interesting. I have a friend who has been doing a lot of reading on machine learning. Quite amazing . . .and a little frightening. But as a field of scientific research, it certainly seems to be on the cutting edge.

[Andrea Penrose]

Yes, no surprise that the women are the UNSUNG heroines, especially in the field of science. It's still a problem today. (Kudos to the Mayhem Consultant for his enlightened views—but of course, no surprise there!)

And yes, lots of fun "chemistry" to play with in using science in historical romance!

[Andrea Penrose]

I think these days I recognize that there are no "boring" subjects. IMO, imagination, passion and creativity there in any endeavor for those who are sparked by it.

And IMO, there are no "dumber" subjects. I can't do math, but I'm not stupid, just as a scientist who can't write an elegant sentence is stupid either. Expertise comes from committing to rigorous study. I, for one, am very glad we have people whose passions cover the whole gamut. It makes the world a better place.

You were right to leave a field that didn't resonate in your heart.

[Lillian Marek]

What made science so boring in high school, I think, was the sterile environment of the lab—all dark gray and white. (Plus some pretty dreadful science teachers.) But when I was in college I took a course in the history of zoology, which was fascinating. All those earlier scientists were adventurers and explorers, discovering all kinds of new worlds.
Pretty much everything can be interesting and exciting when you delve far enough into it, can't it. Maybe even things like tax law, though I'm not sure about that.

[Kareni]

Andrea, your book sounds fascinating, and I've just suggested that my library purchase a copy.

I have an advanced degree in Chemistry, but I'll admit that I know little about its historical study. Thanks for an enjoyable post.

[Tempest]

While I find science fascinating, I can't really "do" science. (I was rubbish at lab in school.) Much of my fascination with science can be traced to Madeleine L'Engle. She made science look amazing and full of wonder. (She also did the same thing for 17th century poets such as Henry Vaughn.) So I love getting my science in my fiction -- especially mysteries. Of course, I think almost everything is better if put into a mystery . . .

[Janga]

The last time I was excited about math was when I learned to count to one hundred. After that, it was all downhill. My interest and achievement in science classes were connected to how much math was involved. I liked biology, although I was smart enough to always choose a lab partner eager to dissect while leaving me to label parts and write our report. But the only thing I liked in chemistry was my final project--a look at cotton from the field to the showroom, with a detour for stain testing. I found the process fascinating, and, again, I wisely chose a partner who insisted on being in charge of any math involved. In grad school, my ed research prof gave me an A on my research project but said, with a huge sigh, "Your research is impeccable, your writing is excellent, your numbers are correct, but how you arrived at them is mathematically impossible." LOL

I do love the idea of a poet-scientist. One of my favorite English professors insisted that all creative endeavor from the poet's lines to the scientist's findings to the baseball player's best play is connected. I like to think that is true and that the barriers we place are artificial.

[Sue McCormick]

Science is a truly blank spot in my life; I am "tone-deaf" to it. I took biology and physics in high school, beginning botany, zoology, and beginning genetics in college. I did well enough to pass the courses, but nothing sticks!

Well, almost nothing. And what does stick is also rather esoteric (like the genetics).

I think one reason I like science fiction is that the authors have found ways to help me "keep" what I have learned.

But reading about the people of science and mathematics is a different case. They are often very, very interesting people.

[Nancy]

The Age of Wonder by Holmes is a book easily accessible by non-scientists. It really is an excellent book . I heartily recommend it. I don't have a scientific background either . Then there are the stories of Luke Howard who named the clouds; Herschel and his sister who named the planets and comets.
A museum of Design in Atlanta -- MODA - has several 3-D printers. They mostly make small items. It was fascinating to watch it make a bracelet. I received a 3-D paperclip in the shape of a shark as a momento. The substance used comes from the back . The plastic used was on a spool like a fishing line . It was melted in a pipe that ended in a piping nozzle such as one might use tiny pastries. The design was on a small SD card. Quite fascinating. Look around you and see if there isn't a museum or someplace that will demonstrate it for you, Mary T. One of the earliest ones made pancakes in different shapes. I want one that works with cloth and will make me a Regency shift, stays and a gown.
I really do recommend the Age of Wonder to every one. Caroline Herschel was a female scientist of the day whose discoveries have often been overlooked because her brother was so famous.
I look forward to the mystery series.

[Andrea Penrose]

Wow! I'm very impressed, Kareni! So glad you enjoyed the post. The history of science in the regency truly is fascinating.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha! I was "rubbish" at science too, but have come to really find it fascinating.

Hope you enjoy the science in Murder on Black Swan lane!

[Andrea Penrose]

Oh, LOL on your scientific process. Sounds very to me! (Higher math still stymies me to this day, so I know the feeling.)

I really think your English professor had it right—creativity, excellence and the joy of exploration is inherent in every endeavor for those who have a passion for it. I admire that commitment of the human spirit, whether it be science, sports, the arts or humanities. Learning is to be celebrated!

[Andrea Penrose]

I agree, Sue. My own experience in science is rather pathetic, but I appreciate reading about the people who excelled. And I also enjoy trying to grasp basic concepts that eluded me in school. It's fun to try to learn new things!

[Andrea Penrose]

Nancy, I agree—The Age of Wonder is an amazing book, and was the catalyst for me getting interested in Regency science. I heartily recommend it to any of our readers.

And thanks for the fascinating description of the 3_D printer. I'm dying to see one in action—sounds amazing!
(And if you get that regency gown, we need to see a photo!)

[Sonya Heaney]

Where I live, when you graduate high school, you get a score out of 100 which determines what university you can get into. People who do maths and/or science and ignore English, history, sociology, (even psychology!) etc. get much higher scores by default. The science subjects are just graded higher. So the prejudice is real - and enormous. It's odd, and rather upsetting...

So I have no problem defending humanities with a great deal of passion, having had my intelligence questioned people who prefer numbers so many times. :) :)