Blog #2

In our assigned text, Joseph Carroll explains that the Darwinian literary criticism model is insufficient when analyzing literature. This model looks at basic evolutionary psychological motives to predict how people will behave. Carroll argues that this method of criticism is unsatisfactory because people do not always follow universal patterns of behavior. Also, Carroll argues that characters in literature are not real people, and instead are expressions of the author. This Darwinian method analyzes behavior by looking at the universality of human nature. It does not take into account contingent factors like culture, economics, intelligence, or social standing.

After summarizing the flaws of the Darwinian literary criticism, Carroll begins to critique Pride and Prejudice using a different model. In this model, Carroll analyzes the points of view of the author, characters, and audience in order to fully explain what Austen was trying to write to her audience. The Darwinian literary criticism explains that men in the novel look for women who are beautiful and women look for men who have recourses. However, these biological and evolutionary attractions are not the only important attributes. Instead, “they must…be weighed in the balance of the total set of values that can be integrated a well-proportioned economy of human life” (100). Austen is explaining her own set of values in the novel, often times through the Elizabeth-character. Along with Elizabeth, Darcy is the other protagonist Austen uses to refute the “Darwinian” idea of human nature. Instead of youth and beauty, Darcy is attracted to Elizabeth’s wit. And instead of property and rank, Darcy’s strength of character (originally thought to be weak by Elizabeth) is what eventually attracts Elizabeth. I think Carroll does an excellent job in analyzing the novel.

After reading Carroll’s analysis of Pride and Prejudice, it was evident that not all humans act universally. It is easy to assume that humans act in and evolutionary and reproductively driving behavior. However, humans are much more complex than this. One must look at a human’s background and their uniqueness in order to better predict their behavior. I think the Darwinian literary criticism is too general and too large scale. I believe biologists and evolutionary idealist support it because it probably rings true when looking at the human race as a whole. However, I think a better model must be used when analyzing specific humans in specific situations.