The Good Oil News and Podcast

The Good Oil News and Podcast News You Can Trust

    Diving Into Obscurity: Alan Dean Foster: A common theme that’s emerged in the artists I’ve profiled in this series i...
06/12/2025

Diving Into Obscurity: Alan Dean Foster: A common theme that’s emerged in the artists I’ve profiled in this series is that they’ve either been hugely influential or created best-selling works without ever becoming household names. Murray Grindlay and George Young, for instance: you definitely know and love a great many of their songs, although you didn’t know their names. Others, like Dario Argento, are famous among fans of their particular genre, but barely known outside it.

This brings me to this week’s subject: Alan Dean Foster.

Foster is a science fiction and fantasy author who began writing bestsellers in the 1970s, but which were associated with other people’s work and franchises, which are household names, while Foster isn’t. That’s because his career first took off as a ghostwriter or official noveliser of some of the biggest science fiction franchises in cinema: Star Wars, Star Trek and Alien.

Such work is often badly under-rated, however well the authors translate cinematic narratives into rich prose and simultaneously expand the necessarily limited worlds of cinema into dense sub-creations. Orson Scott Card’s novelisation of The Abyss, for instance, expands the film enormously by expanding even minor characters’ backgrounds in ways that film-maker James Cameron never even indicated, but which he fully approved of.

That’s because good novelisers and ghost-writers like Card and Foster have, in fact, a rare talent: to be able to capture another person’s voice, extend existing fictional universes and meet tight studio deadlines.

Alan Dean Foster published his first story in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1968 and his first novel, The Tar-Aiym Krang, in 1972. But, from early on, he was also known in professional circles as a reliable and fast ghostwriter. Such projects provided Foster with the envy of any professional writer: steady work and economic stability. During the 1970s, studios looking to expand the reach of their properties frequently turned to him. While many specific ghost-writing assignments remain confidential, it is widely known that Foster worked on Star Trek projects, novelisations for television series and other behind-the-scenes writing.

What made Foster valuable was not merely speed, but an ability to treat adaptation as genuine storytelling, not transcription. His background, with degrees in both political science and film studies, no doubt made him ideally suited for such work. His prose added psychological nuance, descriptive richness, world-building detail, and thematic depth – all while respecting the tone of the source material. These strengths would soon find their fullest expression in a project that exploded his reputation beyond genre circles.

Throughout the 1970s, Foster authored multiple Star Trek works, most notably the 10-volume Star Trek Log series, from 1974–1978, adapting episodes of Star Trek: The Animated Series and expanding them far beyond their brief screen time. His adaptations often doubled or tripled the narrative scope of the originals, adding internal politics, alien cultures and character motivations.

In 1976, Alan Dean Foster was hired to ghost-write the novelisation of an obscure, as-yet-unreleased space fantasy film by a young director named George Lucas. The book, Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, appeared months before the 1977 film premiere. I well remember kids at my school reading it, as we eagerly awaited this new movie we’d started seeing trailers for (I first saw a trailer for Star Wars on a first-run screening of Logan’s Run: few things sum up the epochal shift in popular culture, for better or worse, that Star Wars ushered in).

But Foster’s name appeared nowhere on the cover. Instead, “George Lucas” was credited as author, a standard practice at the time. Foster was given a screenplay and early production art, along with the freedom to add internal monologue, expanded backstory and richer descriptions. His work helped set up Star Wars as a literary as well as cinematic phenomenon and paved the way for the expanded universe that still dominates pop culture half a century later. Foster’s contributions included elaborating on the political situation surrounding the Empire and added texture to locations and technology that the film could only briefly show. More importantly for George Lucas, the early release of the novelisation was key to building up expectations for the forthcoming film.

The fact that the book was credited to Lucas, with Foster’s own name never appearing anywhere, didn’t faze the author. Not at all. It was George’s story idea. I was merely expanding upon it. Not having my name on the cover didn’t bother me in the least. It would be akin to a contractor demanding to have his name on a Frank Lloyd Wright house.

Foster’s novelisation for Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979 was similarly credited to Gene Roddenberry. Many fans consider the book superior to the film, as it clarifies the philosophical stakes and adds emotional clarity. No doubt Foster cried all they way to the bank.Just a fraction of Foster’s work. The Good Oil.

Besides, the massive success of the film boosted Foster’s own career, even if he often still remained in the shadows. Even before Star Wars launched, for instance, Lucas was looking ahead to sequels and commissioned another novel, this time with Foster’s name alone on it. Still, Lucas was hedging his bets: if Star Wars performed only modestly, he needed to convince studios they weren’t throwing good money after bad. So Splinter of the Mind’s Eye was a much more low-key affair, for a prospective low-budget sequel, than the sprawling space opera of Star Wars: set on just one planet and featuring only Luke and Leia.

Somewhat awkwardly, in retrospect. With The Empire Strikes Back well in the future, Lucas had yet to hit on the idea of Luke and Leia as secret siblings. With which hindsight, several scenes in Splinter, especially when the pair share a sleeping-bag and some (mild) romance. Unsurprisingly, Lucas later declared Splinter non-canon, even if it did introduce some key concepts, such as a crazy old Force-mentor hiding on a swamp planet, and the all-important (to the Jedi) Kaiburr crystals.

As he did with Star Wars, Foster added notable psychological depth and atmospheric to Alien’s story, a year later. He enhanced the characters’ inner lives, especially Ripley and Dallas, lending emotional resonance to what is visually a stark, claustrophobic film. Foster also expands the biology of the xenomorph, a remarkable achievement given that he was given very little to go on – especially no detailed descriptions, let alone pictures, of the creature. Hence, his novelisation relies heavily on suggestiveness and a shadowy monstrosity.

Foster also expanded on the technology of the Nostromo and the tension between the crew and the faceless corporation Weyland-Yutani. Something he carried over to his Aliens novelisation, clarifying James Cameron’s world-building, such as interstellar travel, colonial administration, and corporate policy, that the film merely hints at. He also expanded on Colonial Marine culture, Ripley’s PTSD, Newt’s tragic backstory, and the social dynamics of the terraforming colony.

Foster would later return to the franchise with original novels, including Alien: Covenant – Origins in 2017, cementing his position as one of the major literary architects of the Alien universe.

More importantly, Foster’s work on Star Wars engendered the concept, now commonplace in pop culture, of an ‘extended universe’. The massive success of Star Wars prompted a commercial empire that went well beyond toys and collectibles. Star Wars novels and comics number well into the hundreds. Other science fiction franchises, from Alien (Foster wrote the novelisations of both Ridley Scott’s Alien and James Cameron’s Aliens), to the Halo videogames and the Warhammer 40K table top games.

But Foster is far more than a translator and expander of other peoples’ ideas. His original works in SF and fantasy, while less well-known outside the fandoms of their genres, constitute a remarkable opus of their own. The Humanx Commonwealth SF universe and the Spellsinger fantasy series are his most enduring original creations, representing strikingly different expressions of his imaginative range. Though both series feature cross-species cooperation, ecological sensitivity, and wide-ranging adventure, they diverge sharply in tone, purpose, and literary strategy. Together they demonstrate the breadth of Foster’s talent: one offering a mature, expansive vision of interstellar civilization, the other a playful, satirical re-imagining of portal fantasy.

The Humanx Commonwealth is Foster’s grand project – a long-running future history centred on the alliance between humans and the insectoid Thranx. Its defining qualities are scale, ecological realism and sociopolitical nuance. Foster builds a galaxy that feels genuinely lived-in, shaped by diplomacy, trade and scientific development rather than simple conquest. Even the more adventure-oriented Pip & Flinx novels sit within a broader, evolving sociocultural context. Foster approaches alien worlds with an almost zoological curiosity: ecosystems are not backdrops but driving forces, often determining plot, culture, and technology. Though the Commonwealth books contain high adventure, they are fundamentally serious-minded, blending optimistic space opera with anthropology and environmental speculation.

By contrast, Spellsinger is a deliberately lighter, more comedic undertaking. Its protagonist, college student and amateur guitarist Jon Meriweather, is transported to a world of talking animals where music constitutes magic. Here, Foster discards the realism and political structure of Humanx for irony, slapstick, and genre parody. Magic in Spellsinger is notoriously unpredictable, shaped by song lyrics that Foster gleefully twists into pun-laden consequences.

This central conceit – music as magic – is both strikingly original, and, at times, slightly endearingly dated. Singing Sloop John B to conjure a yacht for a sea journey is at once dangerously silly and cleverly subversive of the genre. Compared to Humanx, the world of Spellsinger’s social systems are simpler, character psychology more exaggerated, and the world itself a vehicle for humorous commentary on both fantasy tropes and 20th-century culture. Foster’s background in political science shows through, with dragons spouting Marxist gibberish, and N**i eagles fancying themselves the master-race.

Yet beneath the humour lies recurring Foster concerns: environmental degradation, the corrupting influence of power, and the ethical responsibilities of leadership. Foster also at times introduces a level of brutal mediaeval realism not often seen in fantasy before the advent of the ‘grimdark’ genre: cute little squirrel children are bullies who mete out brutal beatings on other children, and bar fights degenerate into hacked limbs and death. Even so, the series is primarily an exercise in play, whereas Humanx is an exercise in vision.

Thematically, the two cycles reflect different facets of Foster’s worldview. Humanx presents cooperation between species as a realistic, challenging, but noble endeavour; its best moments arise from the cultural friction and mutual growth of human and Thranx societies. Spellsinger, however, frames cross-species interaction as comedy and allegory: stereotypes are exaggerated for satirical effect, yet the underlying message about empathy and communication remains intact. Where Humanx leans toward social idealism, Spellsinger leans toward cynical satire softened by friendship.

Stylistically, the prose of Humanx is cleaner, restrained, and often lyrical in descriptions of alien landscapes. Spellsinger adopts a looser, more conversational tone suited to its comedic ambitions. Foster’s versatility as a stylist is most evident when comparing the two: the same writer who meticulously constructs alien ecologies can also riff on rock lyrics to produce chaotic spell effects.

Sadly, a mooted animated cinema adaptation of Spellsinger, some years ago, doesn’t seem to have progressed beyond some tantalising character sketches.Character sketches for a failed Spellsinger animated movie adaptation. The Good Oil.

As the two very different series, and the massive corpus of adaptations show, few American writers have had a literary career as varied, prolific, or quietly influential as Alan Dean Foster. His work as an uncredited ghost-writer and official novelizer of major science-fiction films helped shape how audiences experienced some of the most important pop-culture properties of the modern era. His original fiction demonstrates his mastery of world-building, ecological imagination, and character-driven adventure.

Together, these two halves of Foster’s career reveal a writer who is both craftsman and creator, bridging the gap between Hollywood spectacle and literary invention.
---
💡If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.

Alan Dean Foster’s extraordinary and prolific career.

  What Are They Whining About?: Here’s one to get the ladies’ knickers in a twist: is being a stay-at-home mum really th...
06/12/2025

What Are They Whining About?: Here’s one to get the ladies’ knickers in a twist: is being a stay-at-home mum really the Dickensian drudgery they’d have us believe? Or is it really mostly just sitting on their bums watching daytime telly?

Many men who’ve taken on the job of caring for their children reckon it’s a doddle.A Colorado dad has sparked debate online after questioning whether being a stay-at-home mom is as difficult as is claimed.

Cass Casperson () outlined what he does in a day caring for his one-year-old daughter at home while his wife goes to work in a clip on TikTok. “I can give her three meals a day, change her on time, get her and do her naps, playtime, arts-and-crafts time, and still make sure the entire place is clean,” the former army service member said. Casperson asked viewers: “When does being a stay-at-home mom become hard?”

Cue fishwife screeching.

What are the women complaining about, exactly?The dad doubled down on his claim that being a stay-at-home mom is easy. “I don’t believe it’s hard to clean, to chase kids, to entertain and raise them while doing a few chores throughout the day,” he told Newsweek.

“However, I think that what comes with the role is hard. Dealing with isolation [and] depression. Dealing with partners who don’t support or don’t know how to support properly.”

Casperson said that his perspective may overlook factors like multiple children or neurodivergent kids. Still, he remained adamant that the core labor is not inherently difficult – just that the surrounding circumstances often are.

“I have no doubt that it’s harder and comes with its own difficulties; however, the act of being a stay-at-home mom or dad is still easy, especially if you have been in high-stimulation environments, high-stress situations beforehand,” he added.

Having been the stay-at-home partner, both with and without kids, it always seemed a pretty good lark, to be honest, even while running a freelance business from home. Certainly way easier than being a cubicle monkey, let alone physical labouring, especially farm work in the freezing hell of a Tasmanian winter. All of which I’ve done.

I’d take it any day above working a real job.Many viewers – men in particular – sided with Casperson, supporting his claim that the role of a stay-at-home mom is easy. “I’ve yet to see a single stay-at-home dad complain,” a user wrote.

One father of four agreed that it was “easy” to him, while another said the hardest part of being a stay-at-home dad was the boredom he felt.

If having too much time on your hands is your biggest complaint, then you really do have it easy.

Maybe it’s a ‘you’ thing, women.Casperson said his own characteristics – “very optimistic, high-energy, ready-for-the-day every day” – likely contribute to the disconnect many viewers felt with his perspective […]

Many wrote that it is more difficult for women who have gone through physical and emotional changes as they transition into motherhood.

So, join your local hen’s group, get clucking and stop complaining.Despite the reaction, Casperson said his perspective has not changed. “I don’t believe in making excuses. I think if something is challenging you, then it’s your responsibility to do something about it,” he said.

Except, as we all know, ‘responsibility’ is as foreign a concept to some modern women as ‘accountability’.
---
💡If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.

Stay-at-home Dad reckons it’s a bit of a bludge.

  Good Oil General Debate: Good morning, welcome to our daily General Debate.Our evening General debate is called Backch...
06/12/2025

Good Oil General Debate: Good morning, welcome to our daily General Debate.

Our evening General debate is called Backchat and will start at 6 pm.

On General debate, you are encouraged as a commenter to share your own stories, discuss other news, bring NEW news, catch up with friends or make new friends with other commenters.

To participate you’ll need to sign up for a Disqus account which is free, quick, and easy. All you need is an email address to register a username that suits you.

On posts that are not articles such as this one, you do not have to stay ‘on topic’ but you do still need to follow our commenting rules.

Please read our rules before you start commenting on The Good Oil to avoid a temporary or permanent ban.

To check if your ban might have been caused by Disqus, or to ask for a banning decision to be reviewed, email the voluntary helpdesk @ goodoil.news with your Disqus username in the subject line. Please be respectful and do not make demands.

Please read our rules before you start commenting on The Good Oil to avoid a temporary or permanent ban.

    The Good Oil Word of the Day: The word for today is…insidious (adjective) -1a: causing harm in a way that is gradual...
06/12/2025

The Good Oil Word of the Day: The word for today is…

insidious (adjective) -

1a: causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed
b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent
2a: awaiting a chance to entrap : treacherous
b: harmful but enticing : seductive

Source : Merriam-Webster

Etymology : Few would choose to be associated with people or things that are insidious, sinister, or pernicious; all three of these words have decidedly unpleasant meanings, each with its own particular shade of nastiness. Insidious comes from a Latin word for “ambush” (insidiae), which is fitting, as this word often carries the meanings “deceitful,” “stealthy,” or “harmful in an imperceptible fashion.” The first two meanings may be applied to people or things (“an insidious enemy,” “an insidious plot”), while the last is usually applied to things (“insidious problems,” “insidious sexism”), in particular to the gradual progress of a disease (“an insidious malignancy”). Sinister comes from a Latin word meaning “on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious.” Although it is commonly used today in the sense “evil” (“a sinister cult leader”; “a sinister plot”), it may also suggest an ominous foreshadowing of some unfavorable turn of events (“a sinister omen”). Pernicious has largely stayed true to its etymological root, the Latin noun pernicies “ruin, destruction.” Its original meaning in English, “highly injurious or destructive,” usually applies to things (“pernicious apathy,” “pernicious effects”) and medical conditions (“pernicious fever,” “pernicious anemia”). When applied to people, pernicious means “wicked.”

If you enjoyed this Good Oil word of the day please consider sharing it with your friends and, especially, your children.

The word for today is melee

  The Good Oil Daily Bible Verse: Psalm 1477 Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our Go...
06/12/2025

The Good Oil Daily Bible Verse: Psalm 147

7 Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God.

Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God.

  Science Saturday: If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to share send it to videos@goodoil.news
06/12/2025

Science Saturday: If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to share send it to [email protected]

If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to share send it to [email protected]

  Andrew Coster Exit Fallout: The $1.5m Accountability Failure: If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to sh...
06/12/2025

Andrew Coster Exit Fallout: The $1.5m Accountability Failure: If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to share send it to [email protected]

If you have a great Youtube, Rumble or Vimeo video to share send it to [email protected]

  The Good Oil Daily Roundup
06/12/2025

The Good Oil Daily Roundup

Just a brief note to readers who like to add their own contributions to Daily Roundup in the comments. This post is for family friendly humour ONLY thank you.

  Good Oil Backchat: Good evening, welcome to Backchat.On Backchat, you are free to share your own stories, discuss othe...
06/12/2025

Good Oil Backchat: Good evening, welcome to Backchat.

On Backchat, you are free to share your own stories, discuss other news or catch up with friends. To participate you’ll need to sign up for a Disqus account which is free, quick, and easy.

On posts that are not articles like this one, you do not have to stay ‘on topic’ but you do still need to follow our commenting rules.

Please read our rules before you start commenting on The Good Oil to avoid a temporary or permanent ban.

NOTE: Moderation queries MUST be expressed VIA EMAIL and not by posting a comment.

To check if your ban might have been caused by Disqus, or to ask for a banning decision to be reviewed, email the voluntary helpdesk @ goodoil.news with your Disqus username in the subject line. Please be respectful and do not make demands.

Please read our rules before you start commenting on The Good Oil to avoid a temporary or permanent ban.

    Is It Really a ‘Woman’s Choice’?: With Pauline Hanson sparking renewed debate over the notion of banning face-coveri...
06/12/2025

Is It Really a ‘Woman’s Choice’?: With Pauline Hanson sparking renewed debate over the notion of banning face-covering Islamic garb like the burqa, the most obvious question is: why not?

After all, such things are completely at odds with Australian culture. Even in the olden days when ladies never went into town without their gloves, and gentlemen all wore hats, the sight of a woman clad head to toe in an all-obscuring, suffocating tent would have been just as confronting as it obviously is to those in the Senate chamber in 2025.

The burqa is, as Brendan O’Neill puts it, “fashion as f**k-you, where the aim is to appear as ostentatiously non-Western as possible”. It’s an ostentatious public statement of allegiance, not to the Western, secular nation-state, ruled by man’s laws, but the Muslim ummah, ruled by Allah. Its Muslims make a clear and unambiguous statement: we are not you.

Even worse than that, it’s a direct assault on one of modernity’s most dearly held beliefs: the emancipation of women. Mealy mouthed Islamophile apologists bleat that Muslim women ‘choose’ to wear their suffocating oppression tents. Just ask them.

Which is, in fact, just what Daily Mail Australia did. The responses were quite something.Muslim women wearing the burqa said they can’t talk about their decision to wear it because their husbands won’t let them.

Tell us again, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, that Islam is ‘like, the most feminist religion’. We could all do with a good laugh.

It’s a strange sort of ‘feminism’ where women can’t speak for fear of copping a beating. (Religiously sanctioned, of course: just ask Muslim preachers.)When approached by Daily Mail Australia, five women confessed their husbands would not like them speaking about it.

‘I would love to but my husband won’t let me,’ one woman told Daily Mail Australia, while three others replied with ‘I’m sorry, I can’t. My husband won’t like that’, ‘No, I would need to speak to my husband about it,’ and, ‘My husband doesn’t want me speaking about it, sorry.’

A fifth woman refused to speak to Daily Mail Australia and quickly walked away when asked about her burqa.

An acid attack just ruins your whole day, after all.Data obtained by the Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI) via a freedom of information request estimates that in England and Wales there were 941 attacks in 2017, falling steadily over the next few years to 427 in 2021. However, this has since gone up again, with 710 attacks reported in 2022 (an increase of 70 per cent).

These attacks are widely correlated with Muslim communities in the West, and nearly endemic in Islamic countries like Pakistan. Pakistani plastic surgeon Dr Bilal Saeed says he treats hundreds of women who’ve had acid thrown in their faces, usually by men in their own families.He admits to being depressed by his work.

“On average we do multiple surgical and cosmetic procedures on these patients,” he said. “But whatever we do, we are not getting their smile back.”

Many commit su***de, according to Dr Saeed, in spite of his best efforts.

Why are Muslim men doing this? In Iraq, since the fall of the secular Arab socialist Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein, acid attacks have suddenly become commonplace. According to senior police investigator in Baghdad, Maj Abbas Dilemi, the perpetrators “cannot accept Iraqi women wearing Western clothes and walking without veils, alleging that it’s a prohibition by God”.“Our country is a Muslim country and women should respect this by wearing veils and long cloaks. I’m against the use of acid against them but something should be done to force them into wearing the clothes,” Sheik Hussein Abbas, a radical Shi'ite leader in the capital, said.

When the ‘choice’ is between being murdered or disfigured for life for ‘immodesty’, or wearing a suffocating tent, is it a ‘choice’ at all?
---
💡If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.

Just ask them, their husbands will tell you.

  Don’t Mourn the ‘Great Library’: Here’s one that’ll set internet midwits and ‘IFL Science’ bros foaming at the mouth: ...
06/12/2025

Don’t Mourn the ‘Great Library’: Here’s one that’ll set internet midwits and ‘IFL Science’ bros foaming at the mouth: the Great Library of Alexandria never existed. And even if it did, its loss wasn’t much of a loss at all.

Okay, I’m being deliberately provocative, there – but not by much. Because, firstly, there’s no hard evidence that it actually existed. In fact, there’s less reliable evidence for the existence of the Great Library than there is for Jesus. Yet, the types who sneer that there was no such real person as Yeshua ben Yosef in first century Israel, are adamant that the Great Library was real.

Secondly, even though the Great Library probably did exist, what evidence there is contradicts the conventional wisdom both about the size of its collection and its importance to the sum of human knowledge.

Rather, as Esoterica’s Dr Justin Sledge notes, what people believe about the Great Library says a lot more about them than it does about the library. In that respect, the Great Library is a palimpsest: a parchment scraped over and re-written, again and again, according to the prejudices of whoever is doing the current re-writing. Especially whom they blame for its destruction.

First, the evidence for the Great Library’s existence.

Almost non-existent. Almost. There is not a shred of hard physical evidence. Despite centuries of excavation, not a single physical trace of such a library structure in Alexandria has ever been found. Still large areas of Alexandria’s ancient shoreline is today underwater and larger areas remain unexcavated.

So, we are left to rely on secondhand and thirdhand reports, often written centuries later. Y’know, just like Jesus. Except that, in the case of the Great Library, these reports are notoriously vague and unreliable, including some outright forgeries. Indeed, the common modern concept of the Great Library is largely a Renaissance-era legend.

Here’s what seems certain: a centre of Hellenic learning, the Museion, was almost certainly built by the Ptolemy dynasty (the Greek rulers of Egypt that ended with Cleopatra) in Alexandria. Even no trace of even that remains – it is likely that it included a campus with a library of some sort.

But that library could not possibly have been the ‘Great Library’ of legend, which supposedly housed 400,000 to 700,00 scrolls. As Sledge demonstrates, scrolls are not exactly the most compact form of information storage. A single scroll can contain about 10,000 words. Even a single modern 300-page paperback book would require dozens of scrolls. These scrolls take up a much larger footprint than modern books.

A Great Library housing even 400,000 scrolls would have to be vast. Its footprint would be several acres at least. Far bigger than any known public building of the time.

Not only that, but, unless it contained many, many copies of the same works, such a collection would represent a corpus of books and writers far, far, in excess of what we know and can estimate actually existed in the Classical world. Not just those which have survived to today, but those which scholars can guess at from references in other texts. It would mean that some 90 per cent of ancient authors remain totally unknown to us. A modern city library, or a modest university research centre, contains orders of magnitude more books than likely ever existed in the Classical world.

That such a vast body of literature might have existed is a tantalising fantasy, but just that – a fantasy.

Another problem with the claim of such a vast collection is the fact that papyrus is just not a very durable medium. In particular, it’s massively vulnerable to humidity – and humidity is something Alexandria has in spades. Those papyrus scrolls that have survived to today were all found in the dry, desert interior of Egypt, or in dry, temperature-stable environments like the caves at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. As well, the simple act of rolling and unrolling scrolls inflicts rapid and inevitable damage.

In hot, damp Alexandria, where students and scholars would have been constantly unrolling them for study, papyrus scrolls would have rapidly fallen apart. Sledge estimates that, within 50–100 years, most scrolls would have been destroyed beyond use. So, with a collection numbering over half a million scrolls, an entire army of scribes would have had to be constantly at work just copying and recopying scrolls before they fell to pieces. And we thought keeping the Sydney Harbour Bridge painted was a never-ending job.

More likely the upper limit of the Great Library’s holdings is around 40,000 scrolls. Still impressive, but clearly less than a tenth of what internet bros would have us believe.

But was the Great Library the vast repository of knowledge its fanbois believe? Almost certainly not.

Because what such a fantasy ignores is that the primary purpose of the Museion, and the Great Library that supposedly accompanied it, was not the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, but propaganda.

Remember, the Ptolemies were Greek colonisers ruling a subject population who were, obviously, not Greek. They were, in Greek parlance, barbarians. The Hellenistic worldview, after all, was one of Greeks – and a whole lot of barbarians who could only wish they were Greek. The primary purpose of the Great Library was Hellenisation: spreading Greek knowledge and culture: the only culture, the Ptolemies would have though, worth spreading.

So, the Great Library collection would have been heavy on Hellenism – and not much else.

In that respect, the destruction of such a collection would have indeed represented to the Hellenes of Alexandria the destruction of the world’s entire body of knowledge. Because Hellenic knowledge was the only knowledge worth anything.

This touches on the other notable thing about the Great Library: what we believe about its destruction says more about our own prejudices than anything else. To the Hellenic Greeks, the obvious culprit was those militaristic barbarian upstarts, the Romans. For mediaeval Christians, with Islam knocking on the Gates of Vienna, Muslim conquerors were an equally obvious culprit. For modern porch atheists, ignorant, violent Christians were just as obviously to blame.

The boring truth is that the Great Library was almost certainly an interesting place, but not the great lost repository of ancient wisdom we’d like to believe.
---
💡If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.

Reports of the Library of Alexandria are greatly exaggerated.

Address

Ponsonby

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Good Oil News and Podcast posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Good Oil News and Podcast:

Share