Brian Boyd is ‘University Distinguished
Professor’ in the Dept of English at the University of Auckland, specialising
in Nabokov.
The above-named study’s book blurb
summarises the content as follows:
In the first half of the book
“Brian Boyd explains why we tell stories, how our minds are shaped
to understand them, and what a difference an evolutionary understanding of human nature makes to the stories we love.
Art is a specifically human adaptation…it offers tangible advantages
for human survival… derives from play, itself an adaptation widespread among intelligent animals…sharpened social
cognition, encouraged co operation and fostered creativity.
After considering art as adaptation, Boyd examines Homer’s ‘Odyssey’
and Dr Seuss’s ‘Horton Hears a Who!’, demonstrating how an evolutionary lens can offer new understanding
and appreciation of works of literature. What triggers our emotional engagement with these words? What patterns facilitate
our responses? The need to hold an audience’s attention…is the fundamental problem facing all storytellers. Enduring
artists arrive at solutions that appeal to cognitive universals: an insight out of step with contemporary criticism, which
obscures both the individual and universal.”
PRESS REVIEW in New Scientist of 23rd May 2009, pg 44.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227091.900-review-how-storytelling-shaped-humanity.html
ROWNEY
MARSHAL RESPONSE Introduction:
I
was delighted that anyone had written on this topic and found the study exciting, innovative and stimulating. However, some
of Boyd’s analysis and conclusions differed from my own consideration of the subject, hence the response which I hope
adds to the debate he has authoratively begun.
This
is not an academic study, however. I have the cohones to engage, because, after
decades of reading of both literature and science above the populist level for research, I have formed opinions , and because,
motivated by a commitment in my scifi fiction to stay within parameters constrained by the laws of physics, chemistry and
biology, and by an interest in furthering wonder at the cosmos by manipulating words not belief systems, I have a vested interest
in developing an objective understanding of this subject.
ROWNEY MARSHAL RESPONSE Summary:
I start with refining some definitions:
Work as defined mechanically,
emphasizing the time dimension, extended by Kauffman to include constraints and Marx to include the means of production, to
initiate a cost-benefit analysis in societal groups.
Play as it differs
in juvenile and adult populations, examining Boyd’s concept that play is rewarded rehearsal whilst also being free.
Types of play named
as Diversion and distinguished from Rehearsal.
Comparing Rehearsal
and Diversion with Work and allocating costs to each.
Feature of playing
named as Immersion.
I continue with a discussion of audience investment of time in leisure pursuits
and argue a special place for reading the modern novel format:
Place of work and
play in society contrasting each with the audience investments.
Discrimination between
audience investments in different art experiences, cost-benefits and features of human attentiveness, called Escapism and
Exploration.
Audience attention
and motivation constrained by energy and time limitations, in relation to selecting for non-survival activities and between
types of activity for surplus time/energy.
Recent advent of literacy
and impact on analysis of literature as rooted in conflated ‘arts’.
Tracing a modern niche
for the behaviour of reading.
I add to Boyd’s study by differentiating between art maker and receiver:
Consideration of Boyd’s
group selection pressures upon audience choices versus drivers for authors.
Constraints upon solo
composers and their access to audiences as differing through time and societies.
Authorial characteristics
of personality and the high investment/low return of composition as an endeavour that demands explanation.
Selection effects
on solitary creativity, negative and positive reinforcements for the activity.
Inspiration concepts
in creativity, recent work on brain modelling & configuration promoting possible creativity & traits required to sustain
novel writing.
Special place for
literary endeavour and specific characteristics of authors that support explorative fictionalizing, differing from other artistic
labours.
Inaccessibility of
readership implying self-sustaining motivation for the majority of writers, unable to achieve success in audience attention-grabbing.
Conclusion, writers
need a separate explanation from audiences.
ROWNEY MARSHAL
www.rowneymarshal.co.uk
contact@rowneymarshal.co.uk
