The Animal Woman, Desmond Morris, the coroner must I have not read "The Naked Ape" by an author well known but I expected much more. This essay is a collection of curious and interesting information, but put together a very questionable scientific theories that make superficial, unscientific and, on balance, unnecessary.
The book describes each chapter in a part of the female body, from hair to toe, explaining the evolutionary reasons for differences between men and women, seasoned with anecdotes and ethnographic curiosity. The idea sounds interesting, but there are so many and such nonsense passed off as science becomes unreadable.
For example, the author introduces more than once a so-called scientific theory that would man arising from aquatic forms, which would explain the lack of hair, the presence of the hymen (typical of marine mammals), and some say the upright position. Having studied in detail the evolution of man can say that this theory has a zero weight in science textbooks, in lectures at the university level, in scientific papers. Of course, nobody forbids mention it, but talk for two or three times in a popular book seems least risky, the lack of critical requirements can give the impression that this hypothesis has more weight in science than it is true.
Then another thing that gave me a lot nuisance is the tendency to reduce the physical differences between males and females of the human species to the alleged role differentiation in prehistoric times. The man is taller, has more muscles, runs faster, has her nose done anything differently because it was important to his life as a hunter. The woman is lower, have less muscle mass and so on because it was the picker, and she did not need these features.
I would note that the illustrious writer sexual dimorphism is present (and stronger as humans) is closest to us in primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) and in our ancestors several million years ago (and parantropi australopithecines, or however you want to call them). Chimpanzees and gorillas hunted very little, and it seems that the ancient hominid cited were limited to a maximum of stealing the carcasses of freshly killed animals to predators and looters. Accredited scientific theories also relate the size difference between the sexes among the first with the social structure, rather than with the strategies for obtaining food.
Then let's talk about Venus. The Venus figurines are female from the upper Palaeolithic and later periods. Those Paleolithic main feature hips, breasts and belly particularly pronounced, and head and foot normally only sketched.
paleolithic Venus, in order: Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic), Hohle Fels (Germany), Savignano (Italy), Willendorf (Austria), Lespugue (France, reconstruction, the original is damaged between the breast and belly)
According to the author of this book shows that women Paleolithic, as Bushman and Hottentot women, suffering from steatopygic an excessive accumulation of fat on the buttocks. By the same logic then they should be free of arms, feet and small heads and without hair (in many cases, not all).
One final thought, quite subjective. The author speaks of the female characters to explain the evolutionary reasons for which are more attractive. For example, says that the woman keeps most typical children than men, and this stimulates the male protective instincts and makes it more attractive. See, I like a good woman Mediterranean soft but high, with large hands and feet and so I feel a bit 'crap to read that the more feminine features (well, those of women "evolutionarily perfect") have blond hair, fair complexion, small hands and feet, reduced height. Even my navel is wrong, I should it vertical instead of horizontal.
And to think of it also seems to me a point of view a bit 'sexist.
Thumbs down, in fact.
As mentioned Denis Guedj I really like. I love the way he skillfully mixing archeology, history, mathematics and philosophy, I like his style, I love her stories. I have read several of his novels and me and everyone 'liked most of the previous year. Except this.
When I started this book I was very disappointed. Tells five stories, five "reincarnation" in later times with the same woman: Aemer. Ur, Babylon, Baghdad, the Gulf War. These five stories have the background to the discovery, or rather the invention of 0, and its role in mathematics.
starting the story of reincarnation I do not like. It seems to me one of those little tricks that writers use fantasy to make their work more appealing, often without success. In this case, even if in fact not at odds, it seems that the repetition of the same character in the five stories to the novel takes something away instead to add it.
also bothered me the figure of the protagonist, this beautiful woman, almost divine in its perfect features. I'm tired of women beautiful and perfect. Aemer seems to me both by advertising one of those girls: beautiful, intelligent, in many of the stories with a job or an important social role, solves its problems and those of others with grace and wisdom. Treated as a postcard too, nice to look at, but too fake to be true. I feel like real characters, in the round, perhaps unpleasant, even stupid, but true.
Beyond 'I find that the personal antipathies of the major flaws of this book is the brevity of the stories. Guedj, a teacher in the novels, it seems forced the structure of the short story, not to dwell too leaves out elements of which the reader feels the lack (or the level of plot, or the level of scientific explanations or the environment). The idea is good, and the history of zero is certainly fascinating, but would have to develop it more, more calmly.
bad, but if that one book was a series of novels (to Ramses, to understand) we would gain immensely.