鈥淵ou don鈥檛 acquire Homer; Homer acquires you.鈥� So writes Adam Nicolson in , his paean to that indispensable pair of ancient epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Christopher Nolan鈥檚 of the latter makes Nicolson鈥檚 book essential reading now for anyone interested in the story鈥檚 greater significance.

Nicolson鈥檚 work follows three trains of thought. In the first, he waxes philosophical about what Homer 鈥� always referred to in the singular, but acknowledged to have been multiple people, spanning generations 鈥� has to say about the meaning of life and the clash between civilisation and depravity. He delves into the fascination literary giants have had with Homer, including John Keats, whose poem Endymion gives the book its title, and Alexander Pope, whose translations leave much to be desired.

The other two strands are more rooted in the tangible world. Nicolson digs into the text of the Iliad and the Odyssey and parses out variations in the Greek, tracing the language鈥檚 structure back to the Linear B of the Mycenaean era and beyond, and uses this linguistic examination to attempt to pin down exactly when the poems were first composed 鈥� much earlier than we鈥檇 previously thought, he argues. The standardised, written Homer that we know came down from a much older oral tradition, says Nicolson, as far back as even 2000-1800 BC.

Finally, he finds traces of Homer鈥檚 writing in archaeological treasures from around the ancient Mediterranean, from a papyrus found at the Hawara site in Egypt to a pottery shard discovered in a tomb on the island of Ischia, one of the oldest surviving examples of written Greek. The papyrus dates to about AD 150; the pottery, to the 8th century BC. Much attention is also paid to the shaft graves of Mycenae, and what they can tell us about the world before the Bronze Age collapse.

Nicolson isn鈥檛 interested in the historicity of the poems themselves 鈥� they are myths, after all 鈥� as much as he is in the world that produced them. He draws a compelling portrait of a complex ancient realm, and of people for whom these stories provided a link to their nomadic, warrior-centred past.

Rereading The Mighty Dead, with its focus on relics and remnants, reminded me of my honeymoon to Crete. My husband and I visited the archaeological museum in Heraklion and saw a boar-tusk helmet on display; in book 10 of the Iliad, you will find Odysseus described wearing one, too. It is a reminder, as Nicolson鈥檚 book impressively contends, that the world of Homer is still very much all around us, if we know where to look.

Who were the enigmatic Sea Peoples blamed for the Bronze Age collapse?

Around 3000 years ago, several empires and kingdoms in the Mediterranean collapsed, with a group of sea-faring warriors implicated as the culprit. But new evidence shows that many of our ideas about this turbulent time need completely rethinking

When you make a purchase via the links on this page, we receive a commission.

罢丑别听New 女生小视频 Book Club聽has been reading a popular-science classic in June: Richard Dawkins鈥檚聽, which celebrates its 50^th聽anniversary this year.

I hadn鈥檛 previously read this one 鈥� it had always intimidated me (an English graduate). But my colleague Rowan Hooper, a behavioural ecologist as well as our podcast editor, reread it to see how it holds up today and concluded it pretty much did. He had a few issues with the biology and said it 鈥渇eels its age鈥� 鈥� Dawkins himself admits to 鈥渟exist pronouns鈥� in a 1989 preface 鈥� but Rowan found that 鈥渢he core message remains relevant not just because genes being selfish is a brilliant meme (a term Dawkins coins at the end of the book), but because it is such a powerful way to understand how evolution operates: the metaphor makes us think as if genes behave selfishly鈥�.

Read an extract from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Dive into the opening of The Selfish Gene's first chapter 'Why are people?', the New 女生小视频 Book Club鈥檚 read for June to mark 50 years since the popular science classic was first published

It was time to gird my loins and embark on a book I鈥檝e always been a bit embarrassed for omitting. I have to admit to being a little exhausted at first: there was preface after preface in my edition, in which Dawkins was arguing with all sorts of people about how the book had been received. This was somewhat confusing, given I hadn鈥檛 鈥� yet 鈥� 聽read it. I should have skipped straight to the first chapter.

Once I got into it, though, I found myself (mostly) carried along swimmingly by Dawkins鈥檚 writing. He certainly has a knack for a good metaphor 鈥� I particularly liked the idea of our bodies as 鈥渟urvival machines鈥� for genes. Without having studied any biology after the age of 16, I got my head around his central point: that natural selection works because genes, or copies of them (replicators, as he calls them), are out to survive, building the optimal bodies (or survival machines) in order to do so.

I did find his tone a little irascible and hectoring at times. It was like he was having conversations with various colleagues/rivals about his points, rather than the general reader. For example, talking about how 鈥渙ne gene may be regarded as a unit that survives through a large number of successive individual bodies鈥�, he writes that 鈥渋t is an argument that some of my most respected colleagues obstinately refuse to agree with, so you must forgive me if I seem to labour it!鈥�. We鈥檙e also firmly told about the correct pronunciation of 鈥渁lgae鈥� (a hard 鈥済鈥�, people). There鈥檚 a lot of that sort of thing, but I finished feeling pleased to have got my head (mostly) around his argument.

Book club members were less impressed 鈥� this is, I think, the book that has received the most negative comments of any we鈥檝e read, with a handful of members deciding not to join us in reading it at all, as they disagreed with some of Dawkins鈥檚 personal views. (I share the perspective of member pwhipp, who wrote on our channel: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think we should reject serious scientific writing simply because the author is combative, controversial, or personally irritating. If we did that consistently, the shelves would become very thin indeed.鈥�) Pwhipp, by the way, called The Selfish Gene 鈥渁n important and very well-written book, whatever one thinks of Dawkins鈥� public persona or his outspoken atheism鈥�.

Free newsletter

Sign up to Book Club

Sign up to newsletter

Pwhipp was in the minority, however. Alan P was one re-reader who felt 鈥渦nderwhelmed鈥� by The Selfish Gene. 鈥淭he text is (as he admits himself but doesn鈥檛 change) sexist throughout. It鈥檚 not just the assumption of male pronouns for general statements, but there are some comments in the end notes and the text of the book itself that even for the eighties are questionable,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淭he tone is argumentative 鈥� sometimes I鈥檓 not clear that it isn鈥檛 argument for its own sake 鈥� but it鈥檚 definitely jarring. The endless footnotes contradicting the text are really difficult to follow. If the science has changed then the text of the book needs to change as well. So it may be that it was a masterly summary of the known science in its day 鈥� but now it鈥檚 a bad tempered, difficult to follow, mess.鈥�

Alan did enjoy the new chapter 鈥淣ice guys finish first鈥�, added to later editions: 鈥淚 was always of the opinion that genes don鈥檛 make ethics so it鈥檚 nice to have the idea that even if genetic determinism was a thing, that cooperation is a successful strategy in the wild.鈥�

The Selfish Gene at 50: Why Dawkins鈥檚 evolution classic still holds up

When Richard Dawkins鈥檚 first blockbuster book was published half a century ago, few genes had ever been sequenced or studied in detail. Yet the book鈥檚 gene-centred view of evolution still has much to teach us in today鈥檚 genetic age

Dee55, meanwhile, first read The Selfish Gene back in the early 80s and found it 鈥渁n absolute revelation鈥� at the time. Going back to it was 鈥渋nteresting鈥�, but, as a humanities graduate, Dee55 found 鈥渟pecific challenges in following some of the arguments鈥�. 鈥淚 enjoyed the Chapter 5 stuff on the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) as a fun ride, but I think I need to reread it before continuing. I am very aware that I am just not in a position to assess RD鈥檚 ideas in the context of other evolutionary biology thinking,鈥� Dee55 wrote.

Rowan took a deeper dive into the book in a longer piece for New 女生小视频, speaking to biologists about its message and what still stands today. Taking into account developments in the field that have happened over the past 50 years, Rowan wrote that 鈥渁ll the evolutionary biologists I spoke to for this piece struggled to find major problems with The Selfish Gene鈥�. There was one exception: the idea of the meme, which, despite its memetic proliferation today, 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 hold up鈥�, he was told.

Overall, then, a thorny choice: this particular piece of popular science was notedly unpopular for the New 女生小视频 Book Club.

When you make a purchase via the links on this page, we receive a commission.

Togetherness
Rowan Hooper
(, UK, out 4th June; , US, out 18th August)

The best books are those that give you a new perspective, but聽 by my colleague Rowan Hooper has given me something more than that 鈥� not just a new view, but a new way of seeing. In essence a book about symbiosis, Togetherness zooms from the inner workings of our cells all the way out to how our planet functions as a whole and back in again, revealing how biological cooperation underpins all life 鈥� and why Western science has largely failed to notice this for centuries.

Symbiosis is the kind of concept you learn at school, often with a too-neat-to-be-true definition and a few quirky illustrative examples 鈥� coral, say, or lichen. Both feature in Togetherness (plus plenty of extraordinary cases you won鈥檛 be familiar with), but Rowan makes it abundantly clear that symbiosis isn鈥檛 a freak occurrence confined to a few classic cases: it鈥檚 a rule of nature, occurring time and time again and everywhere you care to look.

How a radical new view of life could reveal its origin 鈥� and aliens

We've been looking at nature the wrong way, argues Rowan Hooper. If we stop focusing on the individual, we get a whole new picture of how life on Earth 鈥� and elsewhere 鈥� may have begun

Having demonstrated this, he then makes his passionate argument for how this revelation requires us to re-examine everything we know about the natural world. He traces our understanding of evolution through history, and how Charles Darwin鈥檚 dazzling fundamental insights on competition and survival have an overlooked counterpart in the tendency of unrelated living things to come together. Rowan 鈥� as big a fan of Darwin as I鈥檝e ever met 鈥� treads the line carefully and shows how you can have both.

In the thrilling final third of the book, Rowan explores all the environmental ills of today, many of which are the result of us neglecting to consider how different species live and work together. He speaks to the scientists trying to figure out how, in turn, we could use symbiosis to right these wrongs.

I鈥檝e worked closely with Rowan, New 女生小视频鈥檚 podcast editor, for over a decade, so I can鈥檛 pretend that this is an objective review of his third book. But listeners of our podcast The World, The Universe And Us will know that Rowan is someone who loves to dive into big ideas, and Togetherness manages to be both hugely ambitious in scope and also very enjoyable.

His plea for us all to adopt an ecological world view, one underpinned by the insights of symbiosis, is deeply rooted in his earlier career as a scientist, but Rowan鈥檚 many journalistic titbits 鈥� from what Karl Marx thought of Darwin to Carl Sagan鈥檚 opening chat-up line to Lynn Margulis 鈥� make it really fun.

Spirit of Antarctica expedition cruise

Join Rowan Hooper on a journey into one of the most remote and pristine environments on Earth guided by a team of seasoned experts, from naturalists to historians, who will share their knowledge of this extraordinary region.

Read more