Evolution and Literary Theory (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

This work attacks the foundational principles of poststructuralism and offers in their stead a new theory that situates literary criticism within the matrix of evolutionary theory. Opposing textualism and indeterminacy, the author affiliates himself with a realist and naturalist perspective.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 518 pages
• Publisher: University of Missouri Press (December 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0826209793
• ISBN-13: 978-0826209795
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.6 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,848,346 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Bravery!, March 6, 2005

By	Wildeguy "wildeguy2000" (New York) - See all my reviews

I think Joseph Carroll has written a work that is perhaps too ranging in content. He has an admirable intellect and his knowledge is so sweeping that he reminds one of those Victorians who converged the unexpected into their immediate intellectual pursuit. Wide learning is very much absent from academic centers where specialization is the rule. Carroll's unique intellect is a welcome sign in this respect. I was mostly intrigued by his estimate of Arnold's participation in the debates between the rising professional scientists and the entrenched Greek studies at Oxford. I think the book could have been more beneficial if focused on late nineteenth century Britain when the concept of human nature that developed from the study of Greek literature was not so radically incompatible with evolutionary theories propounded by Spencer, Huxley, and Darwin.

A good place to begin such an analysis might be the commonplace notebooks of men like Wilde, and the Essays, Speculative, and Critical of John Addington Symonds. Therein lies the truth of the the thesis that compatibility existed between Arnold's "Literature and Science" (1882). Arnold proposed: "Let us, therefore, all of us, avoid indeed as much as possible any invidious comparison between the merits of humane letters, as means of education, and the merits of the natural sciences."

Those critics that Carroll takes to task for their lack of knowledge about their own subject matter (i.e. critics of late nineteenth century writers like Wilde, Symonds, Pater, Vernon Lee, Grant Allen, etc.) would be presented with stronger arguments for why they should begin reading Spencer, Huxley, and Darwin. These writers all contributed to the various magazines, reviews, and periodicals of their time making their knowledge of scientific issues an everyday concern. One of the salient features of such reviews is the propensity for synthesis
which grew decidedly more idealist toward the 1890's. Out of that environment emerged the New Woman, Fabianism, and the very society that financed Wilde's rise.

I was surprised that Carroll did not quote Wilde's Intentions where the darling of queer theory made his statement avant la lettre: "Aesthetics, in fact, are to Ethics in the sphere of conscious civilization, what in the sphere of the external world, sexual is to natural selection." (Ellman, 406) Did Geoffrey Miller not propose this same thesis? Surprisingly the Victorians were brave in their speculations and showed little fear to venture new readings. Evolutionary psychologists interested in history and literature have a gold mine in the Fornightly Review, Cornhill Magazine, Mind, Nineteenth Century, etc. This is where the New Historicists dip and double dip. What they must find there in those archives of the politically incorrect necropolis of DWEMS must be a sadist's delight. Thousands of old white Victorian fannies to kick and whip. A scholar needs to enter such sites with a healthy dose of scepticism and an open mind. Carroll's method will prepare the Victorian scholars of the future, hopefully, to think and observe before they speak and write. So much of our literary theory today is bred in an isolation tank. What Carroll proposes is that we take a good hard look at the evolutionary science being written today and connect to it.

Carroll has chosen his fate well. He has the backing of great minds from the nineteenth century, minds that mostly appear unfathomable to today's dwarfs. This book deserves close study if for that reason alone. I don't know that he argues convincingly that the greater concerns of the queer theorists are banal, I do concur with him however, that much of what passes for literary study really belongs back in the locker room or the public facilities.

There is such a thing as tactful and insightful literary exploration of same-sex themes in texts. I don't think Carroll argues against that. Although these concerns are not the burden of Carroll's argument, it might have benefitted his case to have presented the subject with more grace. In particular, his characterization of Sedgwick seems unfair in light of her equally brave move to have relentlessly worked to carve out a space for alternative readings of Victorian literature. The attack on queer theory as pure rhetoric simply will not do when one considers that the more substantive issues lead directly to concerns germane to biological study. Though much is said of Foucault, no time is given to Boswell or Simon LeVay. This is a great error in his attack on queer theory and readers will quickly perceive a lack of balance. Again, considering that this book was written in the mid ninties, some slack must be given.

I have other major concerns with some of his readings that I cannot voice here, but I think this work is valuable as a source for ideas not available in Sparta (my term for the empire of academia).