Madame Bovary's Ovaries
This book came to my attention when Doug blogged about it for SB Day. I checked a copy out of the library, and requested copies of the articles linked in the book review through my local library’s periodicals department. My take on the book is very much in line with Dutton's review for the Washington Post Book World.
MBO is a relatively recent publication by David Barash, professor at the University of Washington, and his daughter Nanelle, a sociology student. Comments in the afterword indicate that the book grew out of an article published in Chronicle of Higher Education which is linked in Dutton’s review.
Content-wise, MBO was interesting, but not what I expected or what it presented itself as, exactly. My expectation was that it was going to be a literary criticism on a broad scale, based on evolutionary biology and psychology. I didn’t anticipate intense analysis, but I did expect more concentration on the literary works. Instead, it was more an explanation of evolutionary biology and psychology, with references to several specific works of literature to demonstrate the biology in practice in fiction. Kin selection was demonstrated by Puzo’s The Godfather; hypergamy by Madame Bovary; parent-child relationship by Anna Karenina; male-male competition and sexual jealousy by Othello; etc. But the literary works were not examined in any in-depth manner. In fact, parts of the literary works that were contrary to the Barashes’ points were ignored. For example, the importance of mate selection and competition was discussed with reference to Elizabeth Bennett of Pride & Prejudice fame. But when discussing the cads vs. dads selection process, Lydia Bennett and her poor choice of mate were never mentioned. No mention is ever made of contradictory characters or themes in literature or in reality. See footnote.
Stylistically, MBO was a mixed bag, I thought. Many empirical statements were made regarding evolutionary biology, mate selection, etc., that had no footnotes or references. Not being a biologist, I have no idea if those concepts are so widely-known and accepted that references are unnecessary, but it would have been nice if studies establishing the mating patterns of chimpanzees or peacocks or whatever animal the Barashes happened to be writing about had been pointed out. The language was a little bit condescending, I thought, and kind of pop culture-ish; it was like they were trying not to be too academic but were also dumbing the text down for the average, nonscholarly reader. There seemed to be a great many parentheticals, especially in the early chapters. That just my own personal prejudice - parenthetical statements are okay in blogs and informal writing, but do not belong in professional, published works. I can still hear Professor Woody explaining that if something is important enough to be mentioned in the main text, it doesn’t belong in parens. If it doesn’t fit in the main text, make a footnote or endnote. If it can’t be fit in either way, it doesn’t belong.
MBO made me think about biology as a construct that unconsciously controls human behavior, despite the fact that we consider ourselves above animals. I tend to critique books using a very literal perspective, considering history and politics, but without thinking about biology or psychology. Now, having read MBO, I’ll probably examine books from a new perspective as I read. MBO also referenced a bio-lit-critic, Harold Bloom, and his book How to Read and Why, which I’ve added to my TBR stack.
It was an interesting book, and not one that I would have noticed or picked up if I hadn’t read Doug’s blog. I’m not sorry to have read it, but I’m not sure where it belongs in the hierarchy of my reading references. Maybe next to Carlos Fuentes’ The Buried Mirror - interesting and with a lot of good points, but not a book I would rely on or cite to in a debate about literary criticism or evolutionary biology.
Check here for other books and articles by Barash.
FN 1: At one point, the Barashes deny/discount the existence of the “zipless fuck” in both biology and in literature, which is a bold thing to do, I think. The discounting essentially negates or denies a great deal of human sexual behavior that has occurred since the advent of safe, reliable birth control. In evolutionary terms, the zipless fuck as a behavior is not consistent with historical sexual behavior, but isn’t the point of evolution that a single revolutionary change can send a species off in an unanticipated direction? Is that not what safe, effective birth control has done, socially speaking? Will our sexual taboos and behaviors now not evolve differently than they would have otherwise?
I can’t think off hand of modern works (other than Fear of Flying) that are thus reduced to nothing more than scribbling, but I’m sure there are books out there that include the perfect one night stand. I think I need to re-read this section to make sure I’m understanding what they are saying.
Edited to add: I just realized that I wasn't (perhaps) very clear. Yes, the point of the zipless fuck is that it won't result in offspring and has no consequences, so biologically speaking, it has no effect on evolution. But I'm thinking that it has a huge effect on social evolution and revolution. If the Barashes were discounting it because it has no evolutionary biological result, and I misunderstood their point, okay. But the fact that social behavior doesn't become part of the double helix doesn't mean that it can't or won't influence the course of evolution or history. I think. Or maybe I don't know what I'm thinking or talking about. I don't know.
MBO is a relatively recent publication by David Barash, professor at the University of Washington, and his daughter Nanelle, a sociology student. Comments in the afterword indicate that the book grew out of an article published in Chronicle of Higher Education which is linked in Dutton’s review.
Content-wise, MBO was interesting, but not what I expected or what it presented itself as, exactly. My expectation was that it was going to be a literary criticism on a broad scale, based on evolutionary biology and psychology. I didn’t anticipate intense analysis, but I did expect more concentration on the literary works. Instead, it was more an explanation of evolutionary biology and psychology, with references to several specific works of literature to demonstrate the biology in practice in fiction. Kin selection was demonstrated by Puzo’s The Godfather; hypergamy by Madame Bovary; parent-child relationship by Anna Karenina; male-male competition and sexual jealousy by Othello; etc. But the literary works were not examined in any in-depth manner. In fact, parts of the literary works that were contrary to the Barashes’ points were ignored. For example, the importance of mate selection and competition was discussed with reference to Elizabeth Bennett of Pride & Prejudice fame. But when discussing the cads vs. dads selection process, Lydia Bennett and her poor choice of mate were never mentioned. No mention is ever made of contradictory characters or themes in literature or in reality. See footnote.
Stylistically, MBO was a mixed bag, I thought. Many empirical statements were made regarding evolutionary biology, mate selection, etc., that had no footnotes or references. Not being a biologist, I have no idea if those concepts are so widely-known and accepted that references are unnecessary, but it would have been nice if studies establishing the mating patterns of chimpanzees or peacocks or whatever animal the Barashes happened to be writing about had been pointed out. The language was a little bit condescending, I thought, and kind of pop culture-ish; it was like they were trying not to be too academic but were also dumbing the text down for the average, nonscholarly reader. There seemed to be a great many parentheticals, especially in the early chapters. That just my own personal prejudice - parenthetical statements are okay in blogs and informal writing, but do not belong in professional, published works. I can still hear Professor Woody explaining that if something is important enough to be mentioned in the main text, it doesn’t belong in parens. If it doesn’t fit in the main text, make a footnote or endnote. If it can’t be fit in either way, it doesn’t belong.
MBO made me think about biology as a construct that unconsciously controls human behavior, despite the fact that we consider ourselves above animals. I tend to critique books using a very literal perspective, considering history and politics, but without thinking about biology or psychology. Now, having read MBO, I’ll probably examine books from a new perspective as I read. MBO also referenced a bio-lit-critic, Harold Bloom, and his book How to Read and Why, which I’ve added to my TBR stack.
It was an interesting book, and not one that I would have noticed or picked up if I hadn’t read Doug’s blog. I’m not sorry to have read it, but I’m not sure where it belongs in the hierarchy of my reading references. Maybe next to Carlos Fuentes’ The Buried Mirror - interesting and with a lot of good points, but not a book I would rely on or cite to in a debate about literary criticism or evolutionary biology.
Check here for other books and articles by Barash.
FN 1: At one point, the Barashes deny/discount the existence of the “zipless fuck” in both biology and in literature, which is a bold thing to do, I think. The discounting essentially negates or denies a great deal of human sexual behavior that has occurred since the advent of safe, reliable birth control. In evolutionary terms, the zipless fuck as a behavior is not consistent with historical sexual behavior, but isn’t the point of evolution that a single revolutionary change can send a species off in an unanticipated direction? Is that not what safe, effective birth control has done, socially speaking? Will our sexual taboos and behaviors now not evolve differently than they would have otherwise?
I can’t think off hand of modern works (other than Fear of Flying) that are thus reduced to nothing more than scribbling, but I’m sure there are books out there that include the perfect one night stand. I think I need to re-read this section to make sure I’m understanding what they are saying.
Edited to add: I just realized that I wasn't (perhaps) very clear. Yes, the point of the zipless fuck is that it won't result in offspring and has no consequences, so biologically speaking, it has no effect on evolution. But I'm thinking that it has a huge effect on social evolution and revolution. If the Barashes were discounting it because it has no evolutionary biological result, and I misunderstood their point, okay. But the fact that social behavior doesn't become part of the double helix doesn't mean that it can't or won't influence the course of evolution or history. I think. Or maybe I don't know what I'm thinking or talking about. I don't know.