Reply to comment

            It is obvious that “Beauty” is at least somewhat of a modern adaptation of “Howard’s End”.  The writing is somewhat similar, as are some of the characters and plot.  But what does this say about the evolution of literature.  Is “Beauty” better (more fit) than Howard’s end, because it represents the next generation?  It depends on how we look at it.  It seems that the majority of the class, including me likes “Beauty” better, because we can better relate to the times Smith talks about, as well as the way in which she writes about it.  Smith took a great piece of literature (Howard’s End), and evolved it into a novel that can be better understood, and enjoyed by the current generation.  In this sense, “Beauty” is “better”, because those who are living now can enjoy it more. 

A literary critic or someone who studies literature may have an alternative opinion about which novel is better.  They may argue that because “Howard’s End” is more original, and “Beauty” is more of an adaptation than an original work, “Howard’s End” is superior; in terms of credit given to the author, yes, but in terms of the evolution of literature, no.  It is interesting how different people interpret literary work differently.  Who is to say what makes one work “better” than another? 

The evolution of story is extremely interesting in the sense that what makes a story more or less fit is extremely debatable.  Just how the interpretation of a story relies on the one reading it, the interpretation of how good the story is relies on the same.  Now that I think about it, biological evolution is the same.  Yes, biological evolution is a process determined by nature, but us humans have the power to change the way nature works (change the environment).  So again, there can be a debate about what is evolutionarily “better”.   Is treating a person with a genetic defect evolutionarily the right thing for the human species?  Some would argue that is not.