Reply to comment

What stuck with me from the small group (with Grobstein) on Thursday was Evelyn's comment about Darwin being a pessimist.  When I read the first four chapters, I didn't really get a feeling of pessimism at all.  It seemed to me that he was very appreciative of the natural order of things, and was not criticizing humans but simply de-emphasizing their role in the process of evolution. 

Her comment, however, made me think about reading Darwin in a different way - I guess I finally started thinking about what I was reading as a story that can be read with multiple interpretations.  I must admit that I had trouble reading Darwin at first, and I think it was because of the instruction to read it like a novel.  I did not really know what that meant.  Our disussion on Thursday made me realize that it's okay to read Darwin by looking at his word and punctuation choices and analyzing what he's saying in the same way one would look at a book labled as a fictional novel.  I suppose the fact that this barrier existed for me in the first place is further evidence that there is still a science/literature divide I need to work on overcoming for the purposes of this course.  I think one reason for this divide is that I have been reading Darwin in a more detached way, analyzing the facts he's presenting and completely ignoring his own voice as an author.  When I read literature, I do look for the author's insertion of his or herself into the writing.  It's an interesting divide between the two...I think it highlights the "cut-and-dry" reputation that science has, especially in comparison with the artist-centric reputation of literature.  In reality, it seems that both science and literature have examples of both detached and involved writing.