In the late 1960s, the ubiquitous catch phrase that was sweeping the country, whether in bar talk or casual conversation between the opposite sex was: “What’s your sign?”
Apparently, a book entitled Sun Signs that appeared in 1968 written by Linda Goodman sparked this sudden widespread interest in astrological Sun signs. According to her photo on the book jacket, she was a pert, dark-haired pretty young woman with a pouty lower lip and a determined look in her eyes. The hard cover edition of her book sold hundreds of thousands of copies and the follow-up pocket book version sold millions. It is still selling today.
I was married at the time, a scientist working for a company out west, and was only vaguely aware of the “What’s your sign?” commotion. As a scientist, I thought astrology pretty much a hocus-pocus con game and, since I was married (without need of a bar pick-up line), astrology was the furthest thing from my mind.
However as its popularity spread into the 1970s, apparently many other scientists and professors around the country did have astrology on their minds. In 1976 (I believe), some 180 of these “eminents” took out a full-page ad in a New York newspaper condemning (in no uncertain terms) the practice of astrology now and forever as a sham on immature young minds. Because many of these experts had the ultimate badge of wisdom and truth next to their names – the Nobel Prize – I am sure that they thought their proclamation against astrology would darken the astrologers’ stars forever. But as one follow-up article amusingly reported, the condemnation attempt was the most futile broadside since the futility of the Spanish Armada. The interest in astrology just kept rolling along, perhaps to spite the old “eminents.”
So, given my disinterest in astrology, and unconcerned with the “sign” business, I was surprised one morning at my office coffee break (about a year after Linda Goodman’s book had appeared) when a technician from our photo shop asked me if I believed in astrology. Not wanting to appear too “scientific,” I replied noncommittally that I hadn’t given it much thought. He pressed on, flattering me with his belief that I was one of the most open-minded scientists on the staff. I could see where he was going as I noticed the book Sun Signs in his hand. Although I always liked to be flattered, I glanced around at the other coffee drinkers hoping to catch someone’s eye and extract myself from what I guessed was coming.
But he asked me if I would read the book as he extended it to me before I could be rescued. “I would like your comments on it,” he said. He was an avid believer and wondered what a scientist would have to say about the book.
He was so sincere about it that I knew I couldn’t say no. So I took the book, set my coffee down, and leafed through the pages pretending to show interest in the contents. The truth of the matter was, the pretty, young woman on the back cover impressed me.
So that is how I came to read about astrology. I was a true skeptic entering into it, but after the first chapter on Aries, I was very impressed with Linda Goodman’s writing style; she wrote with verve, humor, and knowledge. I found myself enjoying the book and read it through more quickly than I thought I would.
To my surprise, I found many of my own personality traits described “right on the money” but not only in my birth date sign. My traits appeared in several of the Sun signs described by Goodman. This perplexed me. If astrology was correct, why didn’t all my traits fall into my birth date sign or else what good was the “What’s your sign?” business?
I mentioned this to my technician friend and he told me to read the Introduction, which I had bypassed in my initial read. There I found that the astrologer “tweaks” the personality profile by calculating a natal chart using “ascendants” (sign rising on eastern horizon at moment of birth), finding out in which “houses the planets were at the instant of birth,” and so on. To a scientist, this “tweaking” was somewhat suspicious.
I also found in the Introduction that astrologers used the eight planets (excluding Earth) and the Sun and Moon to define Sun sign types. That was ten heavenly bodies, but there were twelve Sun signs. This was perplexing to me – how could ten bodies produce twelve types? Astrologers “solved” this disparity by predicting future discoveries of two more (far-distant) planets (including one named Vulcan). This seemed rather bogus to me. Pluto, the farthest “planet” from the Earth, is so far away it seemed a very tenuous premise that “mysterious emanations” (whatever their form) from Pluto, let alone future even farther-out planets, could affect personality traits on Earth at the exact instant of birth. Until the new planets were discovered, a few of the existing planets doubled up, “ruling” two Sun signs according to astrologers. (It should be noted here that astronomers now consider Pluto to be a “pseudo planet”).
To me, this all seemed rather ingenuous. Astrology has a history of either glossing over any new scientific discovery – like the Earth orbiting the Sun rather than vice-versa – or ignoring it completely. Over the millennia, there were so many patches added to the scheme that today it seems to be like an old, tired, vain woman, once beautiful, now overweight, addicted to lots of makeup and a quick patter to make a living.
I must admit that after reading Linda Goodman’s book, I came away still convinced that the “stars are our destiny” was a sham. The tremendous distances involved between the Earth and other planets makes astrology a wishful endeavor by both practitioner and customer.
I also must admit, however, that the personality traits delineated in Goodman’s book for each Sun sign were very impressive. Being based on millennia of observations made me wonder whether the traits were indeed valid in relation to a personality type. So, in 1976 when the “eminents” (previously mentioned) came out with their newspaper ad condemning astrology across the board, I thought they might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.