4827781
I just finished Isaac Asimov’s Asimov Laughs Again, an occasionally amusing book that somehow remains a page-turner even during the relatively unenjoyable parts. The book is mostly a stream-of-consciousness transcribed by Asimov, remembering jokes, anecdotes, and limericks. But I was exceptionally annoyed that he misquotes Samuel Johnson in entry 586. Johnson is informed that one of the words in his dictionary is defined incorrectly, and is asked to explain the reasoning behind his mis-definition. Asimov quotes Johnson as saying “Ignorance. Simple ignorance, sir.”
Assuming that he was quoting from Boswell (a very reasonable assumption) I remember the quotation as “Ignorance, madam. Simple [or sheer?] ignorance.” Petty distinction? Perhaps. But Asimov is a reknowned science writer, and a science writer does not simply repeat from memory. And how long would it have taken him to look this up?
Hmmm … how long indeed? I have a stopwatch function on my wristwatch; I will turn it on, fetch my Life of Johnson from another room, and attempt to find the reference. I sincerely doubt if I will be able to accomplish this any faster than Asimov would have. We will also see whether I am right or wrong in calling his memory into question. OK, here goes …
… and the answer is one minute, fifty-six seconds. My memory was erroneous as well: the quote is “Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance.” [If you think it would have been faster for me to search online, you are right. I just checked: it took 34 seconds, and this is without searching on the corrected text that I just presented. But Asimov would not have had this at his disposal for his 1993 book.]
Does Asimov so separate the realms of his science writing and his humor/historical writing that he sees one as requiring scholarship and one not? Or is he perhaps being devilishly clever, courting exactly this reproach? “Why did I misquote Johnson? Ignorance. Simple ignorance, sir.”
Email subscription
