Some reading

Comments (13)

1. As always, thanks for the plug. I don’t believe how much more play this one’s gotten than any of my others. Eco-awareness in action?

   I should point out that we’re talking about _land_ photosynthesis here, photosynthesis in the water is billions of years older. (And there may have been cyanobacteria on land earlier, too.) And I should probably also point out that the point of view I’m espousing (and featuring peer-reviewed research about) is still somewhat revolutionary. (Not surprising, since I’m a self-professed intellectual anarchist, a Kuhnian revolutionary looking for a revolution.)

2. …but plants aren’t really alive, are they?

   1. What about Michele Bachman? Or Ben Stein?

3. Jospeh Carroll’s piece, I just don’t understand the appeal of that sort of thing and generaly aviod reading anything like this at all costs. It strikes me as being quite an old approach in many ways.

   I get very uncomfortable when science and psychology are used in these areas. I think their is far more work needed in historical cultures first before engaging in this sort of thing. It strikes me as deeply speculatve and not useful as an interprative or analytical tool.

   It makes no sense to me to be blunt.

   1. Jeb

      The article on literary Darwinism is worth reading; you will find Bill Benzon is not a fan of literary Darwinism.

      I attended a lecture by Joseph Carroll early this year. I had never heard of literary Darwinism before the lecture and Carroll’s lecture did nothing to convince me of the validly of the literary Darwinism approach to reading Jane Austen (the focus of the lecture).

      What disturbs me most about a lot of literary theory is students of literature depend on the theory to explain works of literature they have never read.

      If you have the time read Bill Benzon’s piece and read Denis Dutton’s review of Carrolls’s _Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature_ http://www.denisdutton.com/carroll_review.htm

      Literary Darwinism is an interesting approach to literature, but it is no substitute for reading the novels, and knowing something about the authors and the time the novels were written.

      1. Jeb

         Re: “I get very uncomfortable when science and psychology are used in these areas. ”

         You will appreciate Larry Moran’s post and his readers’ comments on Literary Darwinism:

         http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/literary-darwinism.html

4. I did read the piece and a number of others by Bill Benzon. Bill’s work I found rather exciting. But I think the problem here is that in order to conduct such research requires an understanding of a great range of subjects.

   It requires looking at narrative over the long term both written and oral and that in-itself is not an easy task as each period has to be put into it’s full historical context and a specific form of narrative can not be looked at as an individual species as they are often related to other forms of narrative. Meaning and context are also not static so the whole pattern changes constantly for any number of reasons.

   As narrative is also shared amongst diverse cultures understanding its exchange and development is something of a nightmare.
   It’s a constant processes of cultural interaction
   and interaction between diffrent social classes
   as well, which creates one further layer.

   Understanding and charting this development needs to be done before you start applying or developing theory.

   I can’t comment on the biology aspects as my knowledge of this is growing but still very basic. But I am very aware of my own limitations. My knowledge of oral culture and oral performance is a bit more advanced however.

   Its an area people don’t seem fully aware off, thats very clear from just glancing at some of these articles. Its understandable, this is a complex area and requires a wide range of skills.
   That takes a great deal of time and effort.

   It is very exciting to see people from diffrent backgrounds focusing on this area and bringing diffrent skills to the subject. I was unaware of this research before yesterday. I feel I will learn something from it, always a nice thing.

   I think theory is being applied before the ground work is done. It is an intresting area but a lot of rocks need uncovered before you can start to make tentative suggestions with regard to theory I feel.

   Thanks for the links Veronica most intresting.
   I will make sure I find the time to go through these perspectives more fully.

   Despite my discomfort I do think this could be a valuable approach. As an arts student dealing with science is a cultural shock as dealing with culture must be for biologists.

   I agree with youre comments with regard to literary theory, very much.

   1. Thanks, Jeb.

      The literary Darwinists have not taken a serious look at oral tales. Yes, some have done cross-cultural studies where they look at specific themes, but they’ve not paid close attention to the contents of individual whole tales nor have they given much thought to the story-telling situation. That is to say, they’ve not investigated story-telling as it likely evolved in the Pleistocene. It doesn’t seem to interest them, though they speculate endlessly on why those tales are told.

      I find their grasp of psychology rather superficial as well, which was one point I was making in my critique of Carroll. I think the “newer psychologies” (as I’ve taken to calling them) are important and deserve more attention from literary scholars. But the combination of inflated claims and superficial learning promulgated by Carroll is not the way to go.

5. I don’t wish to appear rude but the worst article I have ever read from an ethnologist was a piece on the evil eye, which was examined as something to do with lactating breasts. Carroll’s views instantly reminded me of that article and a range of material from the 70’s speculating on the Pleistocene and origins.

   I rejected the search for origins as oral material was presented as a static repitition that refers back to shamanisim at all periods by my old department. I dont think repitition works in such a manner.

   No question that some of this material is very old though. It’s what makes it so intresting.

   1. Sure, oral tales are conservative, but it’s not static repetition. As the world changes in significant ways, those changes will show up in the tales, though the tales will be presented as being about how things were and always will be. What needs to be attended to is the dynamics of the story-telling situation and the kinds of things that do show up in in the tales.

6. When it comes to “story-telling as it likely evolved in the Pleistocene“, IMO the first book to read is When they severed earth from sky : how the human mind shapes myth by Elizabeth Wayland Barber and Paul T. Barber. (ISBN: 0691099863)

   I recommend this book very highly, reading it will likely provide you a whole new perspective on story-telling in pre-literate societies.

7. Yes, that’s a fascinating book. I found it got a bit tedious after awhile, but it’s well-worth reading and thinking about.

8. I’ve been fascinated by oral culture since I’ve been able to speak. I’ve never seen a satisfactory theoretical explanation to date. Much academic methodology just does not fit with the evidence.

   One of the dynamics and emotions is sheer fear. Some of my older relatives used to scare the life out of you, these things are often a mix of fascination and sheer dread. Utterly terrifying, but this is a very distinctive feature of oral culture in Scotland and the North of England.

   This brief account of one of my direct ancestors from one of his “victims” in the 19’th century may amuse you Bill. It describes some of the dynamics of storytelling and the many roles of the storyteller in the community rather well.

   Auld Tam was a fiddler and singer as well, it would appear to have been the occupation of my family for many generations.

   http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?sid=8d5581db0956cbd2e7a9bfae3904e9b6&idno=aas7264.0001.001&c=moa&cc=moa&q1=bay+city&seq=87&view=image

Comments are closed.