I think it's a odd how all of the people who Sid Hammet asks to evaluate the Book of Fish believe it to be a fake because its contents don't match with the "historical record." One would think that people, especially professors, would jump at the chance to be able to analyze a primary document like this, but instead its called a fake. It's interesting that the book is dismissed because it doesn't agree with history. There seems to be a real emphasis with the professors, and publishers, and the others that he's talked to on finding evidence to support what Gould wrote in the book. It seems like this book contains some type of truth that can't be found in any documents from the past because someone wanted it to remain hidden. It is also interesting that a very similar second book of fish was found in a library after the first was deemed a fake by all of the different professionals; this discovery makes it harder to dispute the validity of the original.
For example, on page 20, it says that "while it is a matter of historical record that between 1820 and 1832 Sarah Island was the most dreaded place of punishment in the entire British Empire, almost nothing in the Book of Fish agrees with the known history of that island hell. Few of the names mentioned in your curious chronicle are to be found in any of the official documents that survive from that time, and those that do take on identities and histories entirely at odds with what is described in this...this sad pastiche (20; chapter V)." A professor should know better than anyone to be wary of historical documents. There are cases throughout history where documents don't always add up with actual events. I have a feeling that the officials at the prison falsified some of the documents and that the Book of Fish has a more truthful version of what really took place there.
No comments:
Post a Comment