The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

So I know it is likely many people in class would be happy to bitchslap me after I post this (especially you Tolkien fans), but  I think this is incredibly funny and relevant to our arguments over book vs. movie. So is it a sin to say that some movies are better than their book counterparts? I think not.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19156_6-deleted-scenes-that-prove-book-isnt-always-better.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

A few weeks ago, we discussed the criteria for selecting books for a course on the evolution of literature. Since then, I have been thinking about the elements of the stories we’ve read and watched that made them candidates for this course’s required readings. While reflecting on the books we’ve read and movie we watched this semester, I realized that their most advantageous traits were the ones that connected them to the stories read/watched and informed our reading of the next book. I suppose this makes sense in a class where we’ve learned that evolution in a biological and literature sense is endless.

 In Anne's discussion group on Thursday we touched on whether differing interpretations of what someone says or anything else they may put out there for the public and how to judge if any interpretations were "inaccurate".  This was not referring to outright lies and intentionally misleading others such as quoting "he hates _____" when the actual quote was "he loves ____".  Rather, we were trying to see if it is wrong to personally interpret someone's words as the original meanings may be lost during the process.  Personally, I feel that there are labelling it interpretations as wrong or right would not be very effective, rather it should be on a degree scale.

This week we will be hosting your final presentations about what-and-how you have been learning in this course. If you are performing alone, please plan a 5-minute presentation. If you are performing in a group, please plan something that will take less than 10 minutes.

Here's the schedule:
Tuesday
ewashburn
Lethologia
jhercher
poppyflower & alexandrakg
SarahSchnellbacher & vlopez
AnnaP & cr88
katlittrell, ashley, bee27
eleman, rachelr, Hope, skindeep & hannahgisele

Thursday
mindyhuskins
the.believer

Almost this entire semester, I've been going back and forth about some aspects of this course. I came into EvoLit something of an existentialist, and I feel (mostly) certain that that has remained constant, but these past few lectures in particular have made me unsure how comfortable I am with that existentialism. I'm not going to argue whether randomness implies a meaningless universe - I believe that it does, and for the purpose of this post (this ramble, really), my belief is the important thing. I accept that evolution is random; thus, I believe that our world is essentially meaningless; thus, my existentialism is also my last vestige of purpose.

Having met with my group to discuss what shape our presentation would take form, I chuckled at the evolution that took place even within our generating ideas. The progression that occurred until landing on an idea that we all liked and agreed on was a journey in and of itself. The evolution I saw was in regards to the way in which we started from one prompt, with one possible answer to that prompt, and from there spiraling into a variety of options. The majority built off of a previous idea, either to a large extent or with only an inkling of resemblance. For a second I even considered that that could be a presentation, the jumping from possibility to possibility and how the ideas evolve.

The line between literature and science has definitely blurred for me after this class, and I may go so far as to say it has disappeared. I think that, as Laura said, “boxing and compartmentalizing” aspects of academia and the world can sometimes just hinder us. Literature and science are just two ways of telling stories about the world. Some people had trouble with the idea that science is a “story”, but I think that is only problematic if we assume stories are all lies. We have this notion that there is more truth in science, when stories contain truth about the human condition. Emotions people experience, life experiences, the sense of past and future—these are all things that we can account for, that we know exist because we have felt them. Just because

In class we talked about the philosopher Richard Rorty, who was an American philosopher who had a childhood fascination with orchids and was also passionate about social justice. His goals for college were to find a framework for how these two could be related, but he couldn’t find one. Paul discussed how Richard spent the rest of his life focusing on the fact that there is no fixed truth or reality, which is why he could not find a fixed framework for these two subjects. Some passions just may not mix perfectly together or there may not be a reason for liking two very different things. What I find interesting is that rather than pursuing either of these passions, Richard focused his life on trying to figure out the meaning behind it. In this case, the pursuit o