プライム無料体験をお試しいただけます
プライム無料体験で、この注文から無料配送特典をご利用いただけます。
非会員 | プライム会員 | |
---|---|---|
通常配送 | ¥410 - ¥450* | 無料 |
お急ぎ便 | ¥510 - ¥550 | |
お届け日時指定便 | ¥510 - ¥650 |
*Amazon.co.jp発送商品の注文額 ¥3,500以上は非会員も無料
無料体験はいつでもキャンセルできます。30日のプライム無料体験をぜひお試しください。
¥8,279¥8,279 税込
発送元: Amazon.co.jp 販売者: Amazon.co.jp
¥2,850¥2,850 税込
配送料 ¥350 6月8日-9日にお届け
発送元: ノースブックセンター(不備・不具合があれば返品・返金対応致します) 販売者: ノースブックセンター(不備・不具合があれば返品・返金対応致します)
無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
Literary Darwinism ペーパーバック – イラスト付き, 2004/3/25
購入オプションとあわせ買い
- 本の長さ304ページ
- 言語英語
- 発売日2004/3/25
- 寸法15.19 x 1.75 x 22.91 cm
- ISBN-100415970148
- ISBN-13978-0415970143
商品の説明
レビュー
"If you want to know what's going to be the next big topic in literary theory, read this powerful new collection of essays by the author of Evolution and Literary Theory. In Literary Darwinism Joseph Carroll argues that we should stop basing our view of literature on penseurs who have long been obsolete in their own fields, and listen instead to what modern science has to tell us about that forbidden topic human nature.
." -- Robin Headlam Wells, University of Surrey Roehampton
"A brilliant exposition of a new paradigm in literary criticism which, because it is among the first to bridge modern biology and the humanities, has a feel of permanence to it.
." -- Edward O. Wilson
"A series of clear-sighted and far-sighted views of early and modern literary critical and evolutionary thought, as seen from the high ridge Joseph Carroll has climbed to in the most promising new territory in literary studies." -- Brian Boyd
"These authoritative writings of Joseph Carroll focus, update, and solidify the insights of his landmark work, Evolution and Literary Theory. Collected into one volume, they now can serve as a handbook for students, critics, and academics, an invaluable introduction to the general theory and concrete practice of Darwinian literary analysis." -- Harold Fromm, co-editor of The Ecocriticism Reader
"Carroll's eye is that of an extremely perceptive literary critic. In fact, I would judge him to be one of the most acute and knowledgeable readers of fiction I've ever encountered." -- Denis Dutton, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Johns Hopkins University Press
"Joseph Carroll brings to his Darwinian position a sensitive aesthetic and critical sense. He writes beautifully about deep, rich works of art. This gives a wholly earned air of importance to the essays in LiteraryDarwinism. For the last decade, I've heard it said that evolutionary aesthetics is a field of great potential. Read his extended analysis of Pride and Prejudice and you can see how Carroll goes beyond the promises into the payoff. . . . His Literary Darwinism is a book to reckon with." -- Denis Dutton, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Johns Hopkins University Press
In Search of Positivism
"Literary Darwinism is nonetheless a singular accomplishment. "Generally literate readers" who wish to comprehend the value and purpose of the evolving philosophy of adaptationist literary studies will find much value in Literary Darwinism." -- Pauline Uchmanowicz,entelechyjournal
著者について
Joseph Carroll is Professor of English at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He has published books on Matthew Arnold and Wallace Stevens. In Evolution and Literary Theory (1995) and in his subsequent writing, he has spearheaded the movement to integrate literary study with Darwinian psychology.
登録情報
- 出版社 : Routledge; 第1版 (2004/3/25)
- 発売日 : 2004/3/25
- 言語 : 英語
- ペーパーバック : 304ページ
- ISBN-10 : 0415970148
- ISBN-13 : 978-0415970143
- 寸法 : 15.19 x 1.75 x 22.91 cm
- Amazon 売れ筋ランキング: - 434,362位洋書 (洋書の売れ筋ランキングを見る)
- - 2,278位British Literature
- - 2,928位Literary Criticism & Theory
- - 4,230位Literary Movements & Periods
- カスタマーレビュー:
著者について
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
カスタマーレビュー
他の国からのトップレビュー
The imaginative arts allow us "freedom" that the sciences, for example, limit. But that "freedom" is our window into ourselves, a projection of every possible nuance one can imagine. It allows us to create and fabricate all sorts of "alternative realities," explore different possibilities, stretch our limits, and go in directions that physics won't allow. Even those "worlds" that bear close resemblance to our own, such as Shakespeare's or Byron's, are still distant lands. We take a journey into realms only our imaginations understand. We must never lose this precious inheritance. But we also must not "confuse" it for the real. Nor try to "codify" it with overarching theories of interpretative hegemony. It remains a frontier that should not be reduced to ideology or the scientific method. That is both perversion and a "category mistake." It boxes-in that vestige of energy that must not be contained.
At first blush, literary Darwinism seems eminently sensible, using sociobiological insights of "life" itself to better understand our "creative lives." After all, we are humans first, and understanding our biological natures surely aids our understanding of each other, not the least of which is our own creative projects. With this level of approach, I have no cavil. It is clearly superior to the dogmatic Ivory Tower Drivel that has infected the Humanities over the past half century. Having "a foot on the ground" cannot but help bring our Humanities folk back to reality. But I cannot endorse a new "empirical" literary theory to replace the old ideological paradigm, however more sensible, because it just adds another template through which to force us through a sieve.
Being empirically-oriented myself, I cannot fault an English-literature professor suggesting we "re-impose" some reality in our literary theory. It's long been absent. Moreover, he's working in an environment hostile to such "realities," but his treatment is worse than the disease. He's advocating placing readers under imaging devices (e.g., fMRIs) to measure their responses to the literary experience, to tabulate the data, and show how it comports with all the other evolutionary work done in anthropology, biology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. This is positively garrish, a project Darwin himself would find repugnant!
Let's situate Carroll in his predicament, and try to understand why he would make such an outlandish proposal. As a former Arnoldean, steeped in the Liberal Humanistic Tradition, he's convinced that only an appeal to "empiricism" will lift off the shackles of the Postmodernist Hegemon that dominates the Humanities. He's convinced that the "entrenched interests" will not budge otherwise, because it's their "bread and butter" to be contrarian, subversive, and radically irrational. He may be right. Certainly the English Departments in Anglo-American academies are a species of their own. And their ideological spue is toxic as well as dissonant. Asking why it persists, despite the onslaught of criticism from all other disciplines, only validates Carroll's point. It's entrenched.
But there is more. Carroll claims that the nexus of Marxism, Freudianism, and Deconstructionism creates a "whole" theory of the "world," arguably false, but complete. This claim needs to be taken seriously, even if I find it preposterous. Do these ideological flights of fancy really make a composite whole? Carroll insists the "nail" was sealed with Deconstructionism, which denies everything but "rhetoric," and then makes rhetoric so indeterminate, that all that is left is the assertion of the "will to power." Marxism and Freudianism just fill-in on the margins when anxieties get too tough. It's an interesting claim. And, if the claim is true, why? Why are English Departments exempt from substantiating their dogmas? No other academic discipline is "allowed" this latitude.
These questions need answers before we start forcing the "arts" through the "scientific" paradigm. Gilbert Ryle's famous phrase "category mistake" just screams at this indiscretion. And the "cure" is just as unsettling as the "sickness." Again, don't misunderstand me. Biological insights certainly enhance our understanding of imaginative works, because they both herald from "life" itself. Here we're on common ground. But "empiricizing" the imaginative arts should seem terribly dissonant, and "measuring" the aesthetic experience is fundamentally incoherent. Even if it could be done, why would we? To save the Humanities from itself? The prescription is worse than the problem.
Notwithstanding this broader reservation, Carroll's articulate, incisive, and well-crafted Humanistic scholarship blends with sociobiological facts and theory to produce one of the most sustained indictments of the impoverished Humanities and a compelling raison d'etre to look to proven sociobiological theory, coupled with Wilson's advocacy of "consilience" (unity of knowledge), to move Humanistic Study forward to a far more promising frontier. There's no looking back.