The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

 A lot of our discussions have revolved around our ability to make ourselves happy, and how much of our happiness is genetically inclined. What makes people happy is truly dependent on environment, and what people expect out of life. I feel like in America, our happiness levels are much harder to get to because we are used to instant gratification all the time. The means of survival has no longer become a central issue in our everyday lives. We’ve gone past the necessity to survive, and towards the goal of thriving. Life is not about living anymore, it is striving towards making things “better”, which is in essence what will make us “happier”. Because we are always striving towards this goal, we don’t stop to think how we may be happy already.

 In class today we discussed where prose is heading in our digitized world of short attention spans. In a world where we read in 140 characters or less and in which we spend an average of five minutes reading the New York Times online, is Powers' novel foreshadowing the kind of abbreviated prose and fragments structure that will be seen more often in the coming years? Where is our beloved novel headed?

From this book, I felt that Powers was exposing everyone's inherent desire to be happy.  We are not all like Thassa, constantly happy wandering through life seemingly untouched by the disasters surrounding us.  We are, I believe, individuals who are in a constant state of un-happiness.  Not sad or depressed or angry, simply not happy - the absence of happiness.  Therefore, we all seek those moments of happiness, regardless of how insignificant or important they may be to us and/or the world in general.  Those that choose to see happiness and joy in the most disastrous circumstances - as an example was shared in our group discussion - are more successful, I would say, in finding those 'moments' that we all strive to find. 

I was really intrigued by the importance a lot of people gave to whether or not the character had died.  I guess I've never really thought about it because, to me, in order for a character to die the story has to die as well.  Because as long as the story exists, so will the character.  Therefore, I was surprised and slightly amused to see how there were so many 'emotional connections' or stories about the character's death. 

Charlotte inquires whether there is something broken or something really fixed with Thessa during her student conference with Mr. Stone. Stone and Candace initially focus on the first half of Charolette’s inquiry until Thomas Kurton’s article makes a splash and convinces the population that Thessa possesses something incredibly right. After learning about Thessa’s existence and the alleged scientific explanation for her condition, society concluded that they were the ones that needed to be fixed since their brief moments of happiness paled in comparison to Thessa’s euphoria. This notion of fixing the body’s natural state with scientific intervention reminded me of certain elements of Darwinian medicine.

In our Thursday discussion group, we considered the stereotypes and generalizations associated with scientific studies vs. areas within humanities. We came to the conclusion that science connotes ideas of the future, of progress, and positivity. On the other hand, humanities often seems static, “tragic”, and stuck in the past. Nevertheless, as an English major, I was grateful when my classmates argued in defense of my interests. In combination with their thoughts, I’ve come to see story-writing as a limitless, eternal opportunity for creativity, communication, and catharsis.

In Professor Dalke’s discussion on Thursday we discussed Powers’ style of writing, and how he writes as though he’s present in the actual world of the characters, but does not allow the reader to lose himself in the story. In addition, he creates a disconnect between the reader and the characters, adding to the difficulty of the plot to be truly engaging to the reader. This lack of connection to the characters arises because Powers is constantly reminding the reader, “you know this story”, assuming therefore that we must know these stereotypical characters.

 I'm not sure where I stand in regards to my feelings about this book, Generosity. On one hand I find myself itching to underline so many quotes and passages that resonate with me, that I find funny, or that I find thought provoking, but on the other I feel so distant from the characters, so isolated from the book that I just want to take a sledgehammer and break through the narration to get to the characters. The plot I like, the narration not so much. In our section on Thursday Anne stated that this was indeed a novel of ideas, not of characters. I agree with this- and it really pisses me off because I really like what I do see of the characters and the plot and the relationships that are forming.

 So the other day I received this email on my BMC account. I also got a notification from the Erdman email list-serve that I moderate to have it verified through that so I have NO idea how they got into the BMC email lists. I read it and tried to avoid twitching over the word choices and grammar/spelling mistakes, but thought it was interesting and it connects back to which story of evolution each person chooses to believe… enjoy!!!

THE CAUSE