E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPluto and its discoverer play key roles in "Percival's Planet," a novel that weaves a fictional tale around historical and scientific facts from 80 years ago.
That's not the way Michael Byers expected things to go when he began thinking about the book. The University of Michigan creative-writing professor intended to write about his grandparents and their turbulent relationship in the 1920s and 1930s. But once he started telling the story of his grandfather's Harvard law-school education, his courtship and marriage, he realized that the tale was "very boring."
"I couldn't quite find the interest in the material that I felt was needed," Byers told me, "so I actually put the whole project down." Instead, he wrote a novel about something else entirely, titled "Long for This World."
By the time he returned to the family saga, another angle popped into his head: Byers recalled that while his grandfather was in law school, other folks with Harvard connections were engaged in a more exciting project: looking for the mysterious Planet X that had been predicted by Percival Lowell, a Boston brahmin-turned-astronomer.
"I decided to turn my grandfather from a lawyer into an astronomer," Byers said. And not just any astronomer: In Byers' story, the fictional character is a close colleague of Clyde Tombaugh, the real-life astronomer who found Pluto in 1930 at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz. Byers' character, named Alan Barber (Alan B. - hey, I like that!), is given the task of checking Tombaugh's math to make sure what he found was a real planet.
Henry Holt and Co. via AP
"Percival's Planet" uses the search for Planet X as its starting point.
The resulting novel blends fictional characters (such as Jean and Sarah, Tombaugh's supposed daughter and granddaughter) with real ones (such as Percival Lowell's meddlesome widow, Constance, as well as Tombaugh's wife, Patsy, who is very much alive today at the age of 97). The reviews have been mixed: The Seattle Times' Misha Berson calls "Percival's Planet" an "absorbing, fascinating new novel," while The Associated Press' Patrick Condon says it's a "strangely earthbound book."
I wasn't about to let Condon's discouraging words keep me away from the novel, in large part because of my own work of nonfiction about the dwarf planet's discovery, "The Case for Pluto." Sure, I like a good romance as much as the next guy, but I was primarily interested in how Byers handled the story of Pluto's discovery. It turns out that was a subject of interest for Byers as well.
"I really did want to know more about what they thought they had," Byers told me. "It seemed to me that they were a little cagey about what they came up with, and they were cautious. ... It seemed to me that one of their difficulties was in telling the story to themselves of what they had done."
That squares with my impression: Veteran astronomer Brian Marsden, who supported Pluto's controversial reclassification as a dwarf planet almost exactly four years ago, once said that the Lowell Observatory's astronomers "bamboozled" the world into accepting the smaller-than-expected world as one of the solar system's major planets. But the historical record shows that the Lowell scientists were unusually circumspect about describing what they found - until the press anointed Pluto as the "ninth planet."
The astronomers waited for a month before announcing what they found - and when the announcement was finally issued, they noted only that the object behaved like a "Trans-Neptunian body at approximate distance [Lowell] assigned." Tombaugh was reportedly so baffled by Pluto's dimness that he wondered whether he had merely found the moon of a planet yet to be discovered.
"Clyde is figuring out that they're a little unsure of what they found," Byers said. "Basically, he asks 'What is it?' ... and he gets told, 'Well, it's Planet X, kid, get used to it.'"
Once the rest of the world accepted Pluto as a planet, so did the astronomers. One of the difficulties was that Pluto was the first object of its kind to be discovered. The next object in the icy belt of material beyond Neptune would not be discovered until 1992.
"When they found Pluto in 1930, they didn't have a better word for it," Byers observed. "It was a planet, and that was the best applicable term to come up with. They could have invented a term, like dwarf planet, I suppose. But it wasn't there. ... I think they acted in fairly good faith, let's say. They weren't trying to fool anybody, but they didn't stand in anybody's way."
Because Byers' story ends in 1990, there's just a tiny whiff of the debate over Pluto that was to come. "As the author, I ackowledge that there's a controversy over its status," he told me. "The story goes on, but I choose to leave the story back in 1990 as a tip of the hat to Clyde himself, just to honor him and his discovery. I don't have a horse in this race. I leave that to the pros to figure out."
Byers isn't so interested in asking whether Pluto is or isn't a planet (and it's a type of planet, by the way). He's much more interested in asking why people care so much about the answer - and here again, Byers' view squares with my own.
"It matters to us what these facts are," he said. "It matters to us deeply. And we don't notice how much it matters until those facts change. And the most moving aspect of the controversy surrounding the planet's reclassification has been that recognition in people: that it matters to them how the solar system is laid out. It's probably something no one would have given a second thought to, had Pluto not been forced to suffer its demotion. I like that."
If you like that, too, give Byers' book a look - and take a look at the other works from the Pluto Authors' Fraternity, including my own "Case for Pluto," Neil deGrasse Tyson's "The Pluto Files," Laurence Marschall and Stephen Maran's "Pluto Confidential," Alan Stern and Jacqueline Milton's "Pluto and Charon," Paul Sutherland's "Where Did Pluto Go?" ... and the true story of Clyde Tombaugh, David Levy's "Clyde Tombaugh: Discoverer of Planet Pluto."
Update for 5 p.m. ET: Still more authors are due to be inducted into the fraternity. Caltech astronomer Michael Brown is coming out with "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming," and longtime Plutophile Laurel Kornfeld is working on a book as well, titled "The Little Planet That Would Not Die: Pluto's Story." Keep an eye out for "Pluto: Sentinel of the Outer Solar System," written by British astronomer Barrie Jones. The book gets into the nitty-gritty of Plutonian planetary science, including actual math and data diagrams. Jones also presents a sensible view on Pluto's current status:
"I dislike the creation of the class 'dwarf planet' separate from the distinct class 'planet.' I would much prefer a class 'planet' with a sub-class 'dwarf planet,' and another sub-class, possibly named 'large planet.' ...
"So, for now, we have to make do with a flawed, incomplete classification system for planets.
"With things as they are, is the solar system 'stuck' with just having eight planets? Not necessarily. Who knows what lurks in the outer depths of the solar system?"
Who indeed?
More about the planet search:
- Hunt for new worlds goes into overdrive
- Pluto debate is about more than one little world
- Interactive: The new solar system
- Alien planets locked in close embrace
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter with @b0yle.
Leave a Comment:
We've been taught in schools that the solar system has 9 planets and our emotional side tends to hold on to some images that we grasped when we were young. It's a bit like the family who stayed at the cornor of the street with whom you never talked or smiled, but did notice since you were 6 years old. So when you grow up and you see them move out one day, you'd prefer they remain because "you first saw them when you were young". You associate them with memories that reminds you of your formative years, why is why you prefer the status quo. And being told now that Pluto is no longer a planet, changes the status quo.
So when are we going to hear about "The case for Ceres", "The case for Juno" and "The case for Vesta?" Each of these three was once designated a planet, and if we are somehow supposed to stand up for Little Guy Pluto, these are even littler.
I mention in my book that "The Case for Pluto" is not about one little world ... the case is actually a class-action suit. I do distinguish between objects that are in hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e., roughly spherical, as Ceres and Pluto are) and "failed planets" that are more irregular (such as Juno and Vesta). Here's a picture of Juno to illustrate what I mean:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/12asteroid/
In his book, Barrie Jones says "perhaps the category 'planet' could include anything orbiting the sun with sufficient mass to be spherical." That makes sense to me.
... But if you want to call Juno and Vesta planets - as the IAU does by referring to them as minor planets - I won't complain. The key is to draw useful distinctions between classes of objects. I'm totally fine with calling Pluto a dwarf planet, as long as it's understood that dwarf planets make up a type of planet. And I totally endorse the idea that objects such as Vesta get their due. Vesta, in fact, will play a starring role in NASA's Dawn mission starting next year. I can hardly wait!
Those of us who advocate dwarf planets being a subclass of planets largely support the concept that all objects in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting the Sun be classed as planets, Ceres included. Vesta and Pallas are borderline, as they appear to have been spherical only to have had parts of them lobbed off by an asteroid impact. They may qualify as dwarf planets or possibly merit another subclass, which I call "sub-dwarf planets." Many astronomers who share this view of a broadened planet definition also believe spherical moons of planets should be included in another planet subcategory, sometimes called "satellite planets" or "secondary planets."
My review of Byers' excellent book is now on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
Alan, one request. I genuinely appreciate your mentioning my book, but could you add the title when you do? The title is The Little Planet that Would Not Die: Pluto's Story. Since you listed all the other Pluto titles, it's only fair you list my title as well.
Will do, thanks
You're welcome, and thank YOU!
I would think that we already have three main classes of planets, Earth-like planets, such as those in the inner system, since they are all of a similar size and (rocky) composition, even though Mercury is small; Gas Giants like Saturn, Neptune Uranus and Jupiter; and Dwarf Planets such as Pluto and Ceres. Sub classes could include Super Jovians like the ones we have found around other stars, and Sub-Dwarfs such as Vesta and Pallas. I like Laurel's idea for Satellite or Secondary planets which would include Ganymede and Titan for sure as well as others.
The FACT is that they are out there, the only problem is in classification and naming them as such.
Thank you, B. Honest, but I cannot take credit for the idea of "satellite planets." Spherical moons of planets were called "secondary planets" during the 19th century. The term "satellite planets" has been suggested by Dr. Alan Stern, New Horizons Principal Investigator, as a classification for these bodies.
We have no Idea what a planet is. And we won't until we look back at a full solar system, like ours, or even fuller, and realize at that point what it is to be a planet. Our Clues are subtended in the system of saturn, where the shepard moons play an integral part in the entire ring structure. We find sheparding moons both beside, above and within the rings. As brash as mankind is, there is no doubt that only hindsight will reveal what we all know is right but bicker about anyways. Pluto is a planet for a lot of reasons but it is a planet, suggesting that it's size makes it any less important to the system as a whole than say mars, or for that matter even jupiter is more than just presumptous, it is an avid sensalisation!..a theory leapt at for superficial reasons and totally devoid of true logic, since in fact the detailed nature of gravitational forces within the solar system are, far and above, unknowns. For pure observational data, we do not have years of looking BACK at the solar system to OBSERVE the true dynamics of the system. Rather we have troves of academicians plotting with and against each other to present a best picture of what the picture MIGHT look like. Pluto could very well play a more important roll as a planet than we could have ever imagined. Yes exploration of pluto may yield data to help categorize it better, till then we are at the mercy of another group of self appointed central scrutizers who claim that pluto is nothing more than a barely discernable minor planet, one of a large group (and growing, that is another clue) of discovered/known (that surely is another clue) minor planets. Well great. What about bodes law. We get something that far out and it matches bodes law close enough that when the discoverer of the nucleous relized the gravitational implications he proceded to reveal atomic structure then turn right around and shove it einstiens face during a series of now famous traveling debates....of course pluto is a planet. Even if it was not, it is a defacto planet by common speech and common knowlege. To change that is exactly the same thing as changing the name of Main Street USA to something else...you call it something else, we still call it Main St. They can pry pluto from our cold dry hands, but it is still a planet. Someone just forgot to notify the self appointed central scrutizers......which would be the best idea yet, eh?
For my part I don't care what you call Pluto. The fact remains that Pluto exists regardless of what label you hang on it.
What I do take exception to is a man of science using the term "bamboozled"* in describing the actions of other scientists who didn't have the insights we have today. I think this causes confusion and distrust with the man on the street when discussing science. If it isn't bad enough we have a million hacks that are using flawed scientific concepts to make a buck, it is twice as bad when a respectable member of the scientific community takes a cheap shot like this when he should know better. Had they known in 1930 that Pluto's local neighborhood wasn't cleared out by the planet they may have well fought against the classification of planet but it is what it is given the limitations of their time.
* I will be forthright in declaring that I do not know the context was used in. If I'm a bit heavy handed about it usage I apologize in advance.
I purchased and read your book Pluto-very interesting-Enjoy all of your commentary on the net! It's a pleasure to have immediate access to all form of subject matter at one's finger tips - Thanks to the like of Mr. Gates and people such as yourself contributing to it!
I just dont get what the problem is, I mean with the complexity of the Universe we are going to have to rename/classify things until our species knows everything about everything(which will never happen). The only constant is change, if people cant deal with that they they will be left behind.