Carroll-schmarroll

Oh Joseph Carroll. You are one sly fellow. First you attempt to rock my world by introducing a completely new way of critiquing literature. Then you blow my mind by creating a literary labyrinth of your own. Why such torture? Such cruelty?

Perhaps, by attempting to use your model, I can comprehend your motive, your intentions in being so unjust to your innocent, unsuspecting reader. First of all, because I see life primarily as a “romantic comedy” (finding a mate, fulfilling our biological purpose: reproduction) Carroll may be flaunting his vocabulary, his sophisticated methods of reasoning in an effort to project power of the mind. Like a peacock flaunts his feathers, Carroll has puffed himself up; hopefully a younger, attractive female’s heart will go all aflutter. Going through other behavioral systems:

• Survival: he wrote it to earn money
• Technology: further the literary tools of critique
• Parenting: teach literary fledglings – or in reality a much more advanced audience
• Kin relations: assuming Carroll considers himself a part of the family of elite literary critics (aka snobs) he is maintaining his kin network by creating distinction between in-group and others.
• Social relations: achieve status
• Cognitive activity: tell stories, form beliefs

Could any number or combination of these be his intent in writing such a convoluted piece? Sure, but my high school English teacher always said, “We can’t invite the author to speak in class. We can’t argue intent.” To me, the Darwinian critique argues intent. Carroll says for example, “[Austen] also wishes for Elizabeth to gain access to the highest social level” (101). Wishes? I thought she was wishing for Elizabeth to be happily married because Austen and her sister never were. We know what Austen wishes? With the argument of intent off the table for four years (yes, I had the same teacher for four years of high school), that is counterintuitive.

Perhaps the fact that I am referencing high school should throw up a red flag. Maybe the Darwinian critique is more sophisticated, and I should exert myself to know it better. I doubt it. If Carroll had the good sense to describe his case logically for the laymen, everything would be sunshine and ribbons. Instead, to Carroll I must recommend a dose of Will Durant so that his writing is not “...intelligible only to its exclusive devotees.”