ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 2, Spring 2015
yet provided. I see a number of articles sympathetic to our inquiry acknowledge the
central ‘fictiveness of literature’ and then ignore this most central tenet of literary representation by jumping straight to evolutionary functions or trying to justify the endeavor in the first place. Much of this posturing is necessary, but how far out into the
meta-level-representation can EA theory extend (cf. Pat Hogan on this) without itself
becoming another metaphor or, by contrast, losing its interpretive quality and range?
How do we mix authorial intention with that meta-level of representation in literary or
artistic works? Many questions, not enough space. I am not suggesting that these issues are new, surprising, or haven’t already been addressed in some way previously
and often.
In relation to Lock’s paper, I think that some backing here and there by using findings
in primatology would certainly create a more resonate structure and solid argument.
But there’s the problem again: That we are then tasked with mastering 4-5 different
disciplines enough to be conversant in them (let alone, to find the time to simply do
the reading). Couple that with the general hostility or indifference or quizzical looks
from within the academic community and it’s a wonder the motivation remains. I
don’t think there has been a ‘unified field theory’ put out just yet. The discipline is
relatively young. Cognitive theorists, literary Darwinism, evolutionary aesthetics are
all working nicely toward the same goal, but ultimately as I see them, they’re not quite
yet methodologically sound or comprehensive enough to warrant the title ‘theory’ (let
alone the need to have a ‘title’ for the group). Onward we go, regardless. My many
thanks to Anthony Lock for prompting my thoughts on this, sincerely and with sincerest respect.
▬
53