The life of Alan Turing could have easily been pulled from any number of Hollywood films. He was the famous code-breaker of the Enigma code in WWII, the inventor of the computer and a scandalous homosexual. In the beginning of the essay/autobiography, Jim Holt introduces these fascinating aspects of Turing’s life. However, after only a few short paragraphs, it turns into a comparatively dry autobiography chronicling Turing’s life from childhood until his passing. However intensely interesting aspects of Turing’s life was, Holt insists on focusing on the more drab aspects of Turing’s life, giving less attention to what many people would consider the more exciting aspects.
Why would Holt portray Turing in this way? Holt says “we’re prepared for a life story that, though steeped in logic and mathematics, is part parable of sexual politics, part fairy tale” (339). Holt may have wanted to bring Turing back to the realm of the logical and factual. By not concentrating on the aspects of Turing’s life that are based solely in fact, Holt brings Turing back from the Hollywood style retelling of Turing’s life. Whether Holt told Turing’s life story in this way is out of respect for Turing and his considerable achievements, or a distaste for the way his life has been exaggerated and fictionalized, is impossible to tell. However, Holt does a remarkable job of pulling Turing away from the myth and mystery that has surrounded his life following his death.
Works Cited
Holt, Jim. "Code-Breaker." Katherine Anne Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen Eaton Hume. Perspectives on Contemperary Issues. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006. 337-346.
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteYour response raises a good point that Holt was trying not to go down the sensational path but instead was trying to examine the achievements Alan Turing made in the area of computers, and his achievements in decoding the Enigma machine. I would have liked another paragraph from you that examined some of these achievements. It would have illustrated your point more deeply. This response seemed to be just one paragraph too short.