Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: a modest letter of submission, so to speak

Expand Messages
  • Carroll, Joseph C.
    Hi again. One of my correspondents tells me that for some reason the message below came out in his email system as computer gibberish. Other correspondents
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 14, 2011

    Hi again. One of my correspondents tells me that for some reason the message below came out in his email system as computer gibberish. Other correspondents seemed able to read it without difficulty. In case the message was unintelligible to more than one recipient, for whatever reason, I’m copying and pasting it into Word and from Word back into Outlook. If this is gibberish to any of the recipients, would you please let me know?  Thanks.

     

    As insurance, I’ll attach the pasted-in note as a whole document, the cover note with the bioblurb and abstract.

     

    If you had no difficulty receiving this the first time, my apologies for the duplication.

     

    Joe

     


     

    Hi folks,

     

    This might be of some general interest: a cover letter accompanying the copyedited ms. of a response to an article titled “Against Literary Darwinism.” The article to which this ms. offered a rebuttal is by Jonathan Kramnick and was published in Critical Inquiry, a flagship journal of academic literary theory, Marxist mostly. I think this cover letter might be of some general interest because it gives a bird’s eye view of the positions of various camps—opposing armies—dispersed across the current academic intellectual landscape.

     

    Joe Carroll

     

    From: Carroll, Joseph C.
    Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:38 PM
    To: 'James Williams'
    Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
    Subject: RE: ci ms.

     

    Jay, I'm attaching one document that contains both the bioblurb and the abstract of "An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick. I’ll also paste them in below. I'm also attaching a photo, as you requested.

     

    Thanks for taking care of all this. I'll look forward to receiving a copy of the issue of the journal in which the exchange appears.

     

    You might be curious to see an article on literary Darwinism that recently appeared in Science. It’s both more sympathetic and better-informed than Kramnick’s piece. That’s pretty much to be expected. It’s a pattern. Nature and Science both have run previous pieces sympathetic to evolutionary studies in the humanities, and the sciences in general, along with the educated reading public, have been intelligently interested in what the literary Darwinists are up to. The academic establishment in the humanities, in contrast, has been unintelligently uninterested. The establishment is now becoming interested, but only, usually, in the way that Kramnick is interested. In his first paragraph, Kramnick describes the situation very clearly—one of the few unconfused if still misguided statements he makes in that article. He explains that while the academic establishment can get no traction at all with educated general readers (people who read, for example, the cultural and science sections in The New York Times), the literary Darwinists have been having quite a lot of success in that area. His conclusion, the part that seems misguided, is that people like the editors and readers of Critical Inquiry should stop ignoring the Darwinists and start attacking them. That’s progress, of a kind. You no doubt have heard the commonplace that all paradigm changes precede in three stages: (1) it can’t be true; (2) it might be true, but it’s trivial; and (3) it’s both true and important, but we knew it all along anyway.

     

    In case you might be interested, I’ll also attach the essay review I recommended Kramnick read in order to be able to start to stop faking it when he talks about the development of evolutionary theory in the social sciences over the past forty years or so.

     

    I’m copying this note to my co-editors in Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (Brian Boyd and Jon Gottschall). I’m sure they’ll be interested.

     

    Sorry I couldn’t produce a better photo. The problem is not in the camera, or the photographer.

     

    Joe Carroll

     

     

    Bioblurb for Joseph Carroll

     

    Joseph Carroll is Curators’ Professor of English, University of Missouri, St. Louis. In addition to authoring monographs on Matthew Arnold and Wallace Stevens, he is author of Evolution and Literary Theory (1995), Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature (2004), and Reading Human Nature: Literary Darwinism in Theory and Practice (2011). He produced an edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (2003), co-edited the first two annual volumes of The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture (2010, 2011); and co-edited Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (2010).

     

    Abstract of “An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick.”

     

    Jonathan Kramnick makes a crucial, basic error in his account of “literary Darwinism.” He supposes that the word adaptive is synonymous with the word modular. That’s an entry-level confusion in biological theory, with which Kramnick clearly has only a superficial acquaintance. Kramnick projects his own inchoate and misguided conceptual framework onto the literary Darwinists and then points out that the framework he imputes to them makes little sense. I argue that if he wishes to contribute effectively to the theoretical discussions about integrating evolutionary theory and literary theory, he will need to acquaint himself with a great deal of research that has thus far remained outside his range of expertise. I give him bibliographic suggestions as to where he needs to start.

     

     

  • Carroll, Joseph C.
    I ve had a few requests to send along Kramnick s article, Against Literary Darwinism. It s here:
    Message 2 of 5 , Aug 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      I’ve had a few requests to send along Kramnick’s article, “Against Literary Darwinism.”  It’s here: http://www.umsl.edu/~carrolljc/Documents%20linked%20to%20indiex/Kramnick/Kramnick%20Against%20Literary%20Darwinism.pdf

       

      And here’s my response: http://www.umsl.edu/~carrolljc/Documents%20linked%20to%20indiex/Kramnick/An_Open_Letter_to_Jonathan_Kramnick.htm

       

      Joe Carroll

       

    • Carroll, Joseph C.
      Jay, I overlooked one item in your cover letter for the copyedited ms. “If you would like us to create a link from your name as it appears in the biosketch
      Message 3 of 5 , Aug 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        Jay, I overlooked one item in your cover letter for the copyedited ms. 

         

        “If you would like us to create a link from your name as it appears in the biosketch to your email address, please supply us with that address.”

         

        Here is that address: http://www.umsl.edu/~carrolljc/

         

        Thanks,

         

        Joe

         

         

         

        From: Carroll, Joseph C.
        Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:01 PM
        To: 'Barbara Oakley'; Cook, Richard M.; Harold Fromm (hfromm@...); Ellen Dissanayake (edissana@...); Mathias Clasen; Pete Swirski (peter.swirski@...); Rose, David C.; Parker, Patricia G.; 'Bret A. Rappaport'; Chris Carroll (carroll.chris81@...); Carolyn Brown; Charles Duncan; David Bordwell (bordwell@...); darthur61@...; dmichel1@...; Emelie Jonsson (jonemchris@...); McManus, Ellen (emcmanus@...); Geoffrey Harpham; Glen Love (rglove@...); Jeff P. Turpin (jpturpin@...); jerry hoeg; jurekluty@...; John Johnson; John Knapp (jknapp@...); Judith Saunders; Maya Lessov; Mette Kramer (mettekramer@...); MICHAEL RYAN (mpryan@...); naomi stekelenburg (nastek1@...); Peter Kjaergaard (pck25@...); Robert Kurzban (rkurzban@...); Robin Headlam Wells; Horvathon@...; sj.davies@...; zatavu1@...; w.vandamme@...; 'schiefen@...'; '
        余石屹'; Yasbin, Ronald; George, Thomas F.; Katja Mellmann; Gordon M. Burghardt; Brett Cooke (brett-cooke@...); Clinton Machann; Thomson, James (jat4m) (jat4m@...); Andrew Higgins (higginsa@...); Michelle Scalise (michelle_scalise@...); Palmer, Craig T.; Kathryn Coe; biopoet@yahoogroups.com; Gary Comstock; gary.dunham@...; dwilson@...; Lauri Jang (laurij@...); Fotis Jannidis; David Miall; PRGHOME@...; Napoleon Chagnon (chag99@...); Wilson, Ami (UMSL-Student) (anwtg2@...); Wilmarth, Paul; 'Dan Kruger' (djk210@...); Flinn, Mark V.; Geary, David C.; w-irons@...; John Orbell (jorbell@...); Marcus Nordlund; Eileen A. Joy; koatley@...; 'ursula@...'; Helena Cronin (h.cronin@...); CAMPBELL A.C. (a.c.campbell@...); robertsi@...; Taylor, George T.; Cope, Glen; djtanaka1@...
        Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
        Subject: a modest letter of submission, so to speak

         

        Hi folks,

         

        This might be of some general interest: a cover letter accompanying the copyedited ms. of a response to an article titled “Against Literary Darwinism.” The article to which this ms. offered a rebuttal is by Jonathan Kramnick and was published in Critical Inquiry, a flagship journal of academic literary theory, Marxist mostly. I think this cover letter might be of some general interest because it gives a bird’s eye view of the positions of various camps—opposing armies—dispersed across the current academic intellectual landscape.

         

        Joe Carroll

         

        From: Carroll, Joseph C.
        Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:38 PM
        To: 'James Williams'
        Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
        Subject: RE: ci ms.

         

        Jay, I'm attaching one document that contains both the bioblurb and the abstract of "An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick. I’ll also paste them in below. I'm also attaching a photo, as you requested.

         

        Thanks for taking care of all this. I'll look forward to receiving a copy of the issue of the journal in which the exchange appears.

         

        You might be curious to see an article on literary Darwinism that recently appeared in Science. It’s both more sympathetic and better-informed than Kramnick’s piece. That’s pretty much to be expected. It’s a pattern. Nature and Science both have run previous pieces sympathetic to evolutionary studies in the humanities, and the sciences in general, along with the educated reading public, have been intelligently interested in what the literary Darwinists are up to. The academic establishment in the humanities, in contrast, has been unintelligently uninterested. The establishment is now becoming interested, but only, usually, in the way that Kramnick is interested. In his first paragraph, Kramnick describes the situation very clearly—one of the few unconfused if still misguided statements he makes in that article. He explains that while the academic establishment can get no traction at all with educated general readers (people who read, for example, the cultural and science sections in The New York Times), the literary Darwinists have been having quite a lot of success in that area. His conclusion, the part that seems misguided, is that people like the editors and readers of Critical Inquiry should stop ignoring the Darwinists and start attacking them. That’s progress, of a kind. You no doubt have heard the commonplace that all paradigm changes precede in three stages: (1) it can’t be true; (2) it might be true, but it’s trivial; and (3) it’s both true and important, but we knew it all along anyway.

         

        In case you might be interested, I’ll also attach the essay review I recommended Kramnick read in order to be able to start to stop faking it when he talks about the development of evolutionary theory in the social sciences over the past forty years or so.

         

        I’m copying this note to my co-editors in Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (Brian Boyd and Jon Gottschall). I’m sure they’ll be interested.

         

        Sorry I couldn’t produce a better photo. The problem is not in the camera, or the photographer.

         

        Joe Carroll

         

         

        Bioblurb for Joseph Carroll

         

        Joseph Carroll is Curators’ Professor of English, University of Missouri, St. Louis. In addition to authoring monographs on Matthew Arnold and Wallace Stevens, he is author of Evolution and Literary Theory (1995), Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature (2004), and Reading Human Nature: Literary Darwinism in Theory and Practice (2011). He produced an edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (2003), co-edited the first two annual volumes of The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture (2010, 2011); and co-edited Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (2010).

         

        Abstract of “An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick.”

         

        Jonathan Kramnick makes a crucial, basic error in his account of “literary Darwinism.” He supposes that the word adaptive is synonymous with the word modular. That’s an entry-level confusion in biological theory, with which Kramnick clearly has only a superficial acquaintance. Kramnick projects his own inchoate and misguided conceptual framework onto the literary Darwinists and then points out that the framework he imputes to them makes little sense. I argue that if he wishes to contribute effectively to the theoretical discussions about integrating evolutionary theory and literary theory, he will need to acquaint himself with a great deal of research that has thus far remained outside his range of expertise. I give him bibliographic suggestions as to where he needs to start.

         

         

      • Carroll, Joseph C.
        Sorry folks, I hit the wrong button. Please ignore the message I accidentally sent you. Joe From: biopoet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biopoet@yahoogroups.com] On
        Message 4 of 5 , Aug 14, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          Sorry folks, I hit the wrong button. Please ignore the message I accidentally sent you.

           

          Joe

           

          From: biopoet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biopoet@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carroll, Joseph C.
          Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:32 PM
          To: Barbara Oakley; Cook, Richard M.; hfromm@...; edissana@...; Mathias Clasen; peter.swirski@...; Rose, David C.; Parker, Patricia G.; Bret A. Rappaport; carroll.chris81@...; Brown, Carolyn; Charles Duncan; bordwell@...; darthur61@...; dmichel1@...; jonemchris@...; emcmanus@...; Geoffrey Harpham; rglove@...; jpturpin@...; jerry hoeg; jurekluty@...; John Johnson; jknapp@...; Judith Saunders; Maya Lessov; mettekramer@...; mpryan@...; nastek1@...; pck25@...; rkurzban@...; Robin Headlam Wells; Horvathon@...; sj.davies@...; zatavu1@...; w.vandamme@...; schiefen@...;
          余石屹; Yasbin, Ronald; George, Thomas F.; Katja Mellmann; Gordon M. Burghardt; brett-cooke@...; Clinton Machann; jat4m@...; higginsa@...; michelle_scalise@...; Palmer, Craig T.; Kathryn Coe; biopoet@yahoogroups.com; Gary Comstock; gary.dunham@...; dwilson@...; laurij@...; Fotis Jannidis (fotis.jannidis@...); David Miall; PRGHOME@...; chag99@...; anwtg2@...; Wilmarth, Paul; djk210@...; Flinn, Mark V.; Geary, David C.; w-irons@...; jorbell@...; Marcus Nordlund; Eileen A. Joy; koatley@...; ursula@...; h.cronin@...; a.c.campbell@...; robertsi@...; Taylor, George T.; Cope, Glen; djtanaka1@...
          Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
          Subject: [biopoet] RE: a modest letter of submission, so to speak

           

           

          Jay, I overlooked one item in your cover letter for the copyedited ms. 

           

          “If you would like us to create a link from your name as it appears in the biosketch to your email address, please supply us with that address.”

           

          Here is that address : http://www.umsl.edu/~carrolljc/

           

          Thanks,

           

          Joe

           

           

           

          From: Carroll, Joseph C.
          Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:01 PM
          To: 'Barbara Oakley'; Cook, Richard M.; Harold Fromm (hfromm@...); Ellen Dissanayake (edissana@...); Mathias Clasen; Pete Swirski (peter.swirski@...); Rose, David C.; Parker, Patricia G.; 'Bret A. Rappaport'; Chris Carroll (carroll.chris81@...); Carolyn Brown; Charles Duncan; David Bordwell (bordwell@...); darthur61@...; dmichel1@...; Emelie Jonsson (jonemchris@...); McManus, Ellen (emcmanus@...); Geoffrey Harpham; Glen Love (rglove@...); Jeff P. Turpin (jpturpin@...); jerry hoeg; jurekluty@...; John Johnson; John Knapp (jk napp@...); Judith Saunders; Maya Lessov; Mette Kramer (mettekramer@...); MICHAEL RYAN (mpryan@...); naomi stekelenburg (nastek1@...); Peter Kjaergaard (pck25@...); Robert Kurzban (rkurzban@...); Robin Headlam Wells; Horvathon@...; sj.davies@...; zatavu1@...; w.vandamme@...; 'schiefen@...'; '
          余石屹'; Yasbin, Ronald; George, Thomas F.; Katja Mellmann; Gordon M. Burghardt; Brett Cooke (brett-cooke@...); Clinton Machann; Thomson, James (jat4m) (jat4m@...); Andrew Higgins (higginsa@...); Michelle Scalise (michelle_scalise@...); Palmer, Craig T.; Kathryn Coe; biopoet@yahoogroups.com; Gary Comstock; gary.dunham@...; dwilson@...; Lauri Jang (laurij@...); Fotis Jannidis; David Miall; PRGHOME@...; Napoleon Chagnon (chag99@...); Wilson, Ami (UMSL-Stud ent) (anwtg2@...); Wilmarth, Paul; 'Dan Kruger' (djk210@...); Flinn, Mark V.; Geary, David C.; w-irons@...; John Orbell (jorbell@...); Marcus Nordlund; Eileen A. Joy; koatley@...; 'ursula@...'; Helena Cronin (h.cronin@...); CAMPBELL A.C. (a.c.campbell@...); robertsi@...; Taylor, George T.; Cope, Glen; djtanaka1@...
          Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
          Subject: a modest letter of submission, so to speak

           

          Hi folks,

           

          This might be of some general interest: a cover letter accompanying the copyedited ms. of a response to an article titled “Against Literary Darwinism.” The article to which this ms. offered a rebuttal is by Jonathan Kramnick and was published in Critical Inquiry, a flagship journal of academic literary theory, Marxist mostly. I think this cover letter might be of some general interest because it gives a bird’s eye view of the positions of various camps—opposing armies—dispersed across the current academic intellectual landscape.

           

          Joe Carroll

           

          From: Carroll, Joseph C.
          Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:38 PM
          To: 'James Williams'
          Cc: Brian Boyd; Jon Gottschall
          Subject: RE: ci ms.

           

          Jay, I'm attaching one document that contains both the bioblurb and the abstract of "An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick. I’ll also paste them in below. I'm also attaching a photo, as you requested.

           

          Thanks for taking care of all this. I'll look forward to receiving a cop y of the issue of the journal in which the exchange appears.

           

          You might be curious to see an article on literary Darwinism that recently appeared in Science. It’s both more sympathetic and better-informed than Kramnick’s piece. That’s pretty much to be expected. It’s a pattern. Nature and Science both have run previous pieces sympathetic to evolutionary studies in the humanities, and the sciences in general, along with the educated reading public, have been intelligently interested in what the literary Darwinists are up to. The academic establishment in the humanities, in contrast, has been unintelligently uninterested. The establishment is now becoming interested, but only, usually, in the way that Kramnick is interested. In his first paragraph, Kramnick describes the situation very clearly—one of the few unconfused if still misguided statements he makes in that article. He explains that while the academic establishment can get no traction at all with educated general readers (people who read, for example, the cultural and science sections in The New York Times), the literary Darwinists have been having quite a lot of success in that area. His conclusion, the part that seems misguided, is that people like the editors and readers of Critical Inquiry should stop ignoring the Darwinists and start attacking them. That’s progress, of a kind. You no doubt have heard the commonplace that all paradigm changes precede in three stages: (1) it can’t be true; (2) it might be true, but it’s trivial; and (3) it’s both true and important, but we knew it all along anyway.

           

          In case you might be interested, I’ll also attach the essay review I recommended Kramnick read in order to be able to start to stop faking it when he talks about the development of evolutionary theory in the social sciences over the past forty years or so.

           

          I’m copying this note to my co-editors in Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (Brian Boyd and Jon Gottschall). I’m sure they’ll be interested.

           

          Sorry I couldn’t produce a better photo. The problem is not in the camera, or the photographer.

           

          Joe Carroll

           

            ;

          Bioblurb for Joseph Carroll

           

          Joseph Carroll is Curators’ Professor of English, University of Missouri, St. Louis. In addition to authoring monographs on Matthew Arnold and Wallace Stevens, he is author of Evolution and Literary Theory (1995), Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature (2004), and Reading Human Nature: Literary Darwinism in Theory and Practice (2011). He produced an edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (2003), co-edited the first two annual volumes of The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture (2010, 2011); and co-edited Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (2010).

           

          Abstract of “An Open Letter to Jonathan Kramnick.”

           

          Jonathan Kramnick makes a crucial, basic error in his account of “literary Darwinism.” He supposes that the word adaptive is synonymous with the word modular. That’s an entry-level confusion in biological theory, with which Kramnick clearly has only a superficial acquaintance. Kramnick projects his own inchoate and misguided conceptual framework onto the literary Darwinists and then points out that the framework he imputes to them makes little sense. I argue that if he wishes to contribute effectively to the theoretical discussions about integrating evolutionary theory and literary theory, he will need to acquaint himself with a great deal of research that has thus far remained outside his range of expertise. I give him bibliographic suggestions as to where he needs to start.

           

           

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.