Skip to main content

Why is an insect like a leased aircraft?

Lewis Carroll famously came up with the nonsense riddle ‘Why is a raven like a writing desk?’ - which was never intended to have a meaningful answer. But for some reason a piece of science news I read in Physics World inspired the question in the title of this post: why is an insect like a leased aircraft?

The leased aircraft in question was one that British Airways borrowed from Aer Lingus. The plane was then repainted in BA colours for the duration. But part of the deal involved repainting the aircraft in the Irish airline’s livery and generally putting it back with the configuration Aer Lingus required before returning it. When the engineers finished, they fixed a little plaque to the instrument panel in the cockpit reading ‘FLY GREEN SIDE UP.’

The science story that made this come to mind was the answer to a long-term puzzle: why do insects seem to be so attracted to lights at night? I had heard the suggestion that they used the Moon to help with navigation - but the study shows that they don’t fly towards light. Instead they turn their backs to the light, apparently because with a natural light source this essential gives them the correct orientation for ‘fly this side up’. Light is treated as an indicator of upwards, which is why, for instance, they often fly around a light at an angle. You can read the details here.

One last thing. Previous generations wondering why a raven is like a writing desk could not consult an AI. I asked ChatGPT and Gemini (the renamed Bard) for their thoughts. Of the two I preferred the answer from Gemini, which is below:

This famous riddle from Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" has no definitive answer, and that's part of the point! Carroll himself offered several playful solutions:

  • Because it can produce a few notes, though they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front! (Early versions spelled "never" as "nevar," mirroring the reversed letters in "raven.")
  • Because Poe wrote on both. (Referencing Edgar Allan Poe, known for his dark poems and stories.)
  • Because they both come with inky quills.

However, the beauty of the riddle lies in its openness to interpretation. Here are some other creative solutions people have come up with:

  • Because one has flapping fits and the other has fitting flaps.
  • Because one is good for writing books and the other better for biting rooks.
  • Because a raven is nevaR backwards and a writing desk is for Words. (A play on words and spelling.)

Ultimately, the answer depends on your perspective and playful creativity. What do you think makes a raven like a writing desk?

As Gemini hadn't answered my question directly I asked what it thought:

As a large language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. Therefore, I can't truly "think" there's one definitive answer to the riddle. My role is to present the various interpretations and let you, the user, decide which one resonates most with you or sparks your own creative response.

However, I can offer some observations based on the history and nature of the riddle:

  • Lewis Carroll intended it to be ambiguous and humorous. He enjoyed wordplay and logic puzzles, and this riddle serves as a playful challenge to think outside the box.
  • There are multiple layers of meaning. The most obvious level involves their physical qualities (feathers/quills, flat surface), but deeper interpretations draw on wordplay, literary references, and abstract connections.
  • The best answer is the one that delights you. Don't feel pressured to find a "correct" solution. Instead, have fun exploring the different possibilities and appreciating the open-ended nature of the riddle.

So, while I can't point to a single "right" answer, I encourage you to continue exploring and enjoying the imaginative possibilities!

Image by Miguel Angel Sanz from Unsplash

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...