Darwinistic Literary Criticism?

Darwinstric literary criticism is like a combination of bologna and Swiss cheese: it’s a bunch of compressed God-knows-what with lots of holes in it. First off, it seems that Carroll never heard of Durrell and his views about specialists creating their own vocabulary. Carroll deemed it fit to create “cognitive behavioral system,” “fitness maximization,” and “domain-general intelligence” among others. If I wanted to read VCR instructions, I’d rip them off the back panel of my TV. But, this is beside the point.

Carroll feeds the reader the original model of Darwin Literary Criticism and then proceeds to beat it out of commission and make his own version of it, which is flawed for reasons explained in the Pride and Prejudice section. It does bring up a unique point, though. Characters in books are not humans. Their lives are completely controlled by the author. Therefore they cannot fulfill the basic human requirements that psychologists pinpoint. On the other hand, the author is human and each character is an extension of them so they do have some qualities of true people. If they completely lacked any familiarity with humans then the book would remain unread because the reader would be unable to connect with the story. So, literary characters must have some qualities of humanity though they may not remain true to them and can be largely parodies or exaggerations of human behavior.

This method, as suggested by Carroll, also has the flaw that it has generalized individuality. Not all humans have the same basic instincts and needs that underlie cognitive thought and choice. There is a separation of mind and body, just as Carroll speaks of women being capable of having children and yet choosing not too. It is the same reason that people have sex changes. However it is his argument that people still have the basic instinct to mate, whether it involves children or not. He fails to forget that there are people with no sex drive, or there are people who are attracted to the same sex. Also he states that, on the matter of children, people don’t want to maximize their progeny the way animals do. That is false. There are many religions and cultures that have a high (or normal) sex-drive with the absence of birth control. Also, think of third world countries where people still work the land and need as many bodies as possible, especially with the child death rate being so high. Also, in his little graph of the basic human needs such as kinship, socialization and parenting he neglects to say for what percentage of the population this is true. What of the loners? I’m not referring to the social outcasts but of those who chose to be alone and reclusive or those who abhor human contact. I am one of these and became extremely upset when someone referred to my teaching children in Sunday School as “Mommy training.” She didn’t seem to understand my total refusal of the concept. Look at Timothy Treadwell, he was not made to live with human beings.

Carroll, Joseph. "Human Nature and Literary Meaning: A Theoretical Model Illustrated with a Critique of Pride and Prejudice."