Dear Friedrich --

Arts and Letters Daily (here) linked to this Mary Duenwald NYTimes article here. The piece is interesting enough in its own right -- it's about the dads vs. cads phenomenon. But what I enjoyed most was Duenwald's reference to the "fledgling field of Darwinian literary studies."

"Fledgling"? "Fledgling"? Well, maybe to a NYTimes culture reporter.

Mary, darling: 2Blowhards visitors have been getting familiar with the impact of evo-bio on thinking about the arts for well over a year now. And, you know, Mary love, it's been the most interesting, freshest development in thinking about the arts for quite some time. Joseph Carroll's "Evolution and Literary Theory," for instance, was published in 1994. (It can be bought here.) And Ellen Dissanayake's "What Is Art For?" (buyable here) came out in 1990!!!

I've already ventured the thought that, for all their showy up-to-dateness and edge, arts people are about as slow to catch on to really significant developments as it's possible to be, haven't I?

Best,

Michael

You do realize, at the age of one year a mayfly's been dead for 364 days.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on December 6, 2003 12:50 PM

Sigh, it really is all relative. I wonder if the Times is being staffed by mayflies these days.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 6, 2003 12:54 PM

These days?

Posted by: annette on December 6, 2003 01:20 PM

Well, I'm just catching on.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 6, 2003 01:49 PM

Don't forget futurist and poet Frederick Turner, whose "Neural Lyre" notions go back at least fifteen years.

Posted by: Alan Sullivan on December 11, 2003 09:48 AM

Do his ideas go back that far? Well, Turner's amazing too. Thanks for pointing that out.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 11, 2003 11:21 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?