Week 13 - Learning about literature from evolution and evolution from literature?

It is interesting to come back to this question having had another half of the semester go by.  Having read Howard’s End and On Beauty and discussed them for weeks in relation to biological evolution I have come to think that it isn’t really that generative to discuss the implications of biological evolution on a single novel or even on two.  I think that biological evolution can only be successful applied to large body of work.  All the writings of an author over the span of their life, or they evolution of style through the ages, but in one novel it is actually quite useless.   On the other hand I do think that applying literature to each and every experiment done can be incredibly generative.  It forces the scientist to confront the basic assumptions that they have places their faith in and whether they are truly deserving of that honor.  I think that far too often science become so stuck in its path that the scientist forget that ultimately they are not trying to prove a hypothesis but come closer to the truth.  Thinking of science as a story allows for the much needed fluidity of thought which can lead to fantastic things. 

So today I was sitting in the health center and the View was on television. Barbara Walters was talking about a Vanity Fair interveiw with Bruce Willis, and Bruce thought that morality was devolving in the United States. (I know, what are the odds, right?) His reasoning was that when people start flashing their private parts at cameras (Britney Spears, etc.) that our country is actual losing its morality. 

I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it. Could it not be a loss of morality but an evolution of a different kind of morality? Is it possible for morality to "devolve"? What do we think?

I think that combine exploration is generative, but I am still not sure how I feel about the process of evolution and the evolution of stories.   This class really provided for me a different way to look at the process of evolution and the process of science.  In some ways I feel like it broke down scientific barriers in my mind, giving me more freedom in my scientific exploration.  I am definitely seeing storytelling in a new way in terms of science.  I am not sure if in terms of literature I always though of literature in this evolutionary manner, I am not really sure how I though of it.  I definitely did not think of it as static and I did think of it as evolving, so perhaps the reason I do not feel like the way I think about this subject has changed is because I already thought this way.  However, I do think that combined exploration is generative on many different levels and in many different disciplines.  I think that courses like this are necessary to broaden this process and broaden exploratory thinking and learning.

I have to agree with Gaby in that Smith purposefully destroys Howard's life using very inane, unbelievable situations. The characters' actions are sometimes too arbitrary for me. their actions are not very congruous with personality types that were delivered to the readers. it's like the crimes don't match the profile.

I'm still very much confused about Victoria I can't really label her as anything. She's just so random and acts conflictingly. I'm a little frustrated at Smith because she simply used Victoria for other purposes concerning other characters without fullly developing Victoria as a character. I think when I read a book i prefer to have character has a sort of persona they they fit nicely into, making it very easy for readers to find understand their next actions with the background information given.

This course is a wonderful example of how to apply a certain line of thinking from one topic to a second topic in order to more thoroughly analyze that second topic. It is amazing how sure we are of ourselves in our thinking, when in fact, we may be totally off. I believe that this “thinking outside of the box” approach to any subject matter is important to maintain its intellectual integrity. In this class, I felt we made great strides in our thinking about evolution and literature by cross analyzing each topic with the other’s fundamental methods of analysis. By thinking about evolutionary theory as a story, we were better able to escape the confines of accepted evolutionary thinking, which allowed us to better question its validity. Similarly, by thinking about literature as an evolutionary project, we were able to analyze literature from a unique perspective that most of us hadn’t considered. Ultimately, this type of cross-analysis allowed us to think more creatively about certain topics that allowed us to arrive at more original conclusions. While this type of thinking creates hypothesis that are more spread throughout the spectrum of less wrong and more wrong, it is this type of thinking that allows individuals to come up with groundbreaking work. While it is still important to include the more traditional teaching and learning that includes the momorization of current theories and building upon them, it is just as important to question those accepted theories now and again. It is this type of thinking that I feel has been lost in modern academia, and it was great to experience a class that brought it back.

in this course we've talked about seeing through bad science. prof grobstein says that we shouldn't believe anything we don't test ourselves, but i'm not sure i can agree with him on this one because there's so much we're not capable of testing, and our "observations," which must be visible, may not explain all that is going on. in my studies of physics, there's been a "less wrong" way to see things, and it's always the opposite of what seems to be true visually. i think a lot of people have trouble with physics for this reason. however, if we're smart enough, we can see through bad research. after all, isn't every day of life a constant quest to deconstruct and argue against the ways in which culture manipulates us? and isn't this especially true for women, who have to deal with being the object of the gaze in the history of film and art? it's a lot of fighting all the time.

anyway, a professor of english, film, and cultural studies does a lovely job of dissecting a "scientific" article, so i thought i'd post it. i especially appreciate his last sentence:

Another Inane Bit of Pseudo-Research

Researchers in the UK claim to have discovered that the use of birth control pills “changes women’s taste in men”. (Via Metafilter, where most of the posters rightly pooh-poohed it). This research is worse than worthless in so many ways…

In the study, women were shown pictures of a variety of men. Women on the pill were more likely to chose pictures of “macho types with strong jaw lines and prominent cheekbones”; whereas women not on the pill were “more likely to go for more sensitive types without traditionally masculine features.” On the basis of this test, the researchers concluded that “where a woman chooses her partner while she is on the pill, and then comes off it to have a child, she may find she is married to the wrong man.”

OK. The article doesn’t say how many women were questioned in the survey, nor whether any control was used for other differences between the women who were on the pill and those who weren’t (maybe the difference in preferences are related to the women’s decisions on whether to take the pill or not; as one MeFi poster astutely noted, they didn’t even ask the same women their preferences first when they were on the pill, and then when they were off it).

Not to mention that the study takes for granted cultural norms (strong jaw lines and prominent cheekbones = macho) that may well vary with time and place, as well as race and ethnicity, class, etc. (The article is illustrated with a photo of Russell Crowe, presented as the epitome of macho features. I wonder if the women would have equally preferred, say, men with the features of Bruce Lee, or Richard Roundtree, or John Wayne, or Randy “Macho Man” Savage).

Not to mention that these categories themselves (macho vs. sissy, or jaw lines and cheekbones divided into two groups) are way too simplistic to account even for judgments on the handsomeness of faces, let alone for “mating choices” more generally.

Not to mention that it’s quite a stretch to extrapolate from a survey in which somebody looks at pictures of faces for a moment or two to grandiose statements about the dangers of getting married to somebody you turn out not to like.

Not to mention that, as in so many psychological studies of this sort, the assumption of norms in male and female behavior, and of ubiquitous heterosexuality, is so strong as to rule out a priori any understanding of the vastness of human diversity and eccentricity.

The rhetorical trick of studies like this is that they give lame, and almost totally arbitrary, pseudo-Darwinian explanations for the findings: “As women who take the pill cannot become pregnant, they are sub-consciously attracted to sexy, macho men, rather than to men who are most likely to make a sensible long-term mate.” (If I didn’t know that these were actual researchers, I’d swear the whole thing was a mischievous parody of sociobiology).

Then, if you don’t accept the study’s extravagant claims, you are accused of being virtually a creationist, or someone who believes that biology is totally irrelevant to behavior (as one supporter of the survey put it on MeFi, “why is it that educated and informed human beings at the beginning of the 21st century still have trouble being told that many of the decisions they make in life are made in part by hormones and genetic wiring?”)

Well, sorry–I don’t doubt that human beings have evolved by natural selection, and that “hormones and genetic wiring” have a lot to do with how we act. But it’s quite a big jump from a study like this to an assertion that the observed changes in picture preferences are linearly determined, in all women, by sex hormone levels (let alone to posit a genetic cause, since no mechanism of that sort is proposed at all). (Not to mention that all talk of “sex hormones” is so wildly inflated as to be a misnomer, as Anne Fausto-Sterling has demonstrated at great length).

Sigh. If you want to learn something about human sexual psychology, forget studies like this, and go read Jane Austen or Marcel Proust instead.

So today we talked about morality... what it is, where it's come from.  On AOL news, there was a headline- "Student Places Stone for Killer -of Virginia Tech Memorial - She calls it Morally Right" (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/student-adds-memorial-stone-for-gunman/20070426115109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)..thought it was ironic that we were just talking about this today and here it is in the news..also, to further the trolley example of morality a little.. in high school, my english teacher posed this- is it better to save/affect more people rather than less? There are 4 people. 3 have families, and also are dying of organ failure. One person is perfectly healthy, but without a family or others really involved to him. Logically... should we kill that person and save the organs to save the other 3 people? That way, only one person dies and three survive..even though that one person was totally fine?

Can we see to the end of the novel? As I'm reading my favorite books I become so involved with the characters that I don't want the story to end. Just because the book ends, and there are no more pages left to read does not mean that the story ends. In terms of Smith reading Howards End, the story was just beginning for her. I won't go so far as say that I will create a work like on beauty that really continues the story, but in my imagination i create a future for many characters in my favorite books. In biological evolution the story doesnt end either. The timelessness and in some way the inevitability of further adaptation and mutation ensure that this continuation. The more I think about the story of evolution the more brilliant it becomes and the more plausible. I think the teleological method of viewing life on earth is very heavily embedded in our culture and has led to a number of spin-off ideals like the hierarchy of races or genders. In this way, i find evolutionary theory, which branches instead of climbs, as very useful for thinking about equality between humans and further between species.

We can also find randomness in literature the way we can find randomness in our own lives. Ever wonder how you ended up where you are? I do nearly every day. The journey here has been quite random. As with writing a work of fiction or non-fiction (fact?) the factors that influence an author are random as well : birth into a certain society, parents and siblings, educational training, tripping on the sidewalk, even finding an old copy of howards end on a bookseller's blanket in central park and deciding to buy it for 50 cents because you need something to read on the train ride home. How these factors influence the writer are equally unpredictable. Not being able to see to the end is what makes me get up every morning.

Danielle

In discussing the relationship between literature and evolution I thought it would be interesting to bring up a recent discovery scientists have made. Astronomers have discovered a planet located just outside of our solar system that potentially could be inhabited. There is still a lot of speculation surrounding this planet because much of  it’s terrain still remains unexplored. But, astronomers have been able to deduce that this planet might have water in a liquid form and the star that it closely orbits is very much like our sun. So in other words, life may have the potential to exist on another planet! This discovery just blows me away because after years of speculation about life on other planets there is now actually reason to believe there might be life on other planets. Just think- the literature that future generations read could be based in scientific discoveries made today!!! Some generations get to discover new planets but, our generation is able to discover a planet that could support life.

I think my fascination with this discovery stems primarily from my fascination with the passage of time. The greatest contribution an individual can make to history is to live in the present and observe their surroundings. In a way, this idea stems back to the disccusions we shared during the first week of class. Our observations and descriptions of reality can have a direct impact on how people in the future interpret our observations. There have been plenty of people who have argued that life can only exist on Earth but, this recent discovery suggests otherwise. To sum my point up, I think what  I like most about the relationship between literature and evolution is how the passage of time seems to fit perfectly right into both fields.

If I'm pressing down keys, which, to me, represent letters, which represent words, which represent sentences, which represent ideas in my head that I'm trying to translate in an accepted, understood form to relay these ideas to others.. then that moment I'm pressing down the first letter, I'm aware of my actions.  The thing is, though, as clear as I may have thought these ideas in my head, as detailed as they may have been, and as thought provoking, to me, as they maybe were, it will never translate that clearly, that perfectly, into another context, another forum.  In my head- my thoughts, my ideas, my reactions- that is my reality. The moment they leave your head, the moment we try to have them understood by others, the moment we try to communicate them, a little bit of our own reality is lost.  When we debate, the words we debate, the ideas we counter arguments with- are missing their original location- they lose something when they leave your head, but remain relatively useless- having no effect on the outside world- until you share them. I think, it's for this reason, that reality, as a story, makes sense.  My mind, my ideas, are comprised, largely from listening to other people discuss their ideas, but these ideas have lost some reality. The way I put all of this together, though, makes up my reality, and when I discuss an idea, it's of fragments of other people's realities, broken into even smaller fragments.  Reality is the story we each tell, the best we can.  What's in our head- the orginal fragments, put together uniquely- is something more. But reality? Reality may just be the best sense we can make of things, at the moment.. just getting things less wrong, hopefully.  

From writing my paper, I think that I am now a firm believer in the evolution of literature. I think literature can be so completely generative. It can change and evolve in so many ways. However, I still can't say that biological evolution is exactly the same as literary evolution. It can't be. They are two different things. It would be really scary if all of a sudden books started sprouting legs and walking away. :) The evolution of literature still lacks the randomness for me. But I think although necessary in nature, it isn't a requirement for literature. The processes of the two might be slightly different, but the end product is still the same. Both have evolved into different products based on the original. It is really exciting that my favorite book could span generations of great books.

It's hard to imagine that a full week has already passed since last Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech. Everyday there's a new article to read on the subject, usually with a new piece of evidence that I can only imagine makes those in charge at Virginia Tech shake their heads and wonder "How did we not catch this in time?" It's an immensely sad situation to think about, but one that shouldn't be forgotten or put aside too early.

What I wonder about with horrific situations like this (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami, Columbine, etc) is when and how we finally do move on. I'm in no way saying that anyone present when the Twin Towers fell will ever truly move on, but speaking from my own experience, my sentiments and feelings are much more settled now than they were on 9/11 and in the following weeks. Over the period of human development and existence, how did coping mechanisms come into place that allow us to deal and process such sad occurrences? We can easily say that early humans would never have had to deal with the devastating effects of 9/11 or the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, but they must have had their own respectively traumatic events from which our "modern" coping mechanisms developed.

When I hear about the violence present in today's world - the daily reporting on the news of the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq along with the escalating number of civilian deaths in that region, for example - I can't help but wonder if we've become desensitized to such violence. Yes, such news saddens me, but I don't find myself grieving. Maybe it's because I'm lucky enough thus far to have been spared from being directly impacted by such things that my reaction is so small, but I still find it... odd, I guess, that all I feel is a sort of indifferent numbness when I read the death tolls. Has the fact that we have all grown up in a time of increased accessibility to news in a way commoditized death?

I'm sorry if this post has been more political than most, and I apologize if I've upset anyone by talking about what I have. These are just things that have been on my mind recently, and as we continue to collectively mourn for those lost at Virginia Tech, I hope that some good can come of this sadness. That maybe it will help us to focus on the important issues present in our own nation, as well as those abroad. But for now, like I said, all I can do is hope.

I've officially become a flip-flopper and I'm damn proud (or maybe my brain is just tired).

Although I tend to stick to my convictions (and am capable of arguing my point until I'm blue in the face) I've realized slowly that my current opinions contradict some of those that I've held for the majority of this course. Recently, i have expressed confusion regarding evolution, from the standpoint of a biology major, English minor.

I remember blogging that I had lost my ability to enjoy literature while considering evolution. Though those sentiments were true with regards to the novels we have read since the beginning of the literature section, I find I am now more confused reading scientific texts. The conversation about published articles and truth (discussed last Tuesday) really set me up for my two biology classes, in which we are constantly reading up on new discoveries. Though I find them (the articles) interesting, I am no longer anxious to jump the gun and consider the future evolution about Topic A, B, etc. addressed by them. One step in a positive direction does not illustrate the journey to come. In this way, On Beauty and Howards End have helped me to consider scientific evolution, because whereas in literature, we can often see to the end, there simply is no such concept in Science.