Chicks On Lit discussion

Part 5

I don't understand why Alma never goes home. She has reconciled with Prudence. She has reconciled with her memories. Why stay in Holland? And, given the aloofness of her mother's family, why is she so readily embraced? Why does even Rogerhave a personality change when he moves to Holland?

I feel that Alma stays in Holland because she can work and be respected as a professional and not just as a rich man's daughter engaging in a hobby. Also, it's her turn to sacrifice for her sister as Prudence did for her and that means leaving the estate to her without interference.

I loved the discussion Alma has with Wallace. It made me wonder how many times something similar has happened yet not made it into the history books.

Full circle.

Irene wrote: "Full circle."

I agree, full circle, indeed. It feels as though we've really trekked with Alma through her whole life. I think it was fitting that she never went home, but found a new home among her mother's family. After the turbulent middle section of her life, this felt like a much-needed episode of peaceful acceptance. I love the peace at the end and the image of the old tree holding her up a little longer.

I've also been thinking about the presence of the number three in the novel. Wallace states "there are three of us" providing Alma with confirmation of her feelings of connection with Darwin and Wallace. She connects this with Retta's statement (and song), highlighting another important threesome in Alma's life. The original Whittaker clan was three before Prudence interrupted, and there is an interesting threesome between Alma, Tomorrow Morning, and Ambrose, and the connection between Prudence, George, and Alma, followed by the George, Retta, Alma alliance, and the household Hanneke, Henry, Alma. Okay, I'm probably reading too much into it; it's just something I've been pondering!

Daniale good observation.

Okay, I finished last night, and am afraid to say I am confused as to what the purpose of this story was. LOL

It seemed like a big mish-mash to me. I kept expecting things to come together, to have a deeper meaning, but for me they didn't. Was the story just to tell us Alma's life? She seems like she was always adrift, always searching, but never really finding what she was searching for. Even in the end, she didn't think her theory was good, because she couldn't explain the "Prudence" issue, the altruism of people. So she was still searching even then, as an old lady. Always looking...

The answer is love a human emotion.

I don't think Prudence loved George forever. I'm sure after a certain time the energy of her love was redirected to her children and mission.

How do the characters fit in Darwin ' s theory of natural selection ?

Nature vs Nurture, as per Roger.

Irene wrote: "How do the characters fit in Darwin ' s theory of natural selection ?"

Alma was never able to answer this question, and this was why she never published her own paper, because Prudence and those like her did not fit the theory of natural selection.

I wonder what the author herself thinks of Darwin's theory. Was she trying to sway us one way, or another?

Well, for the nature vs nurture debate, I think we had characters that proved both. Henry and Ambrose seemed strikingly different from the family environment in which they were raised. Beatrix and Alma seem to be very influenced by their environment, although it could be argued that both would be the same in any environment, that it was their nature despite their nurturing context. I think the problem with Prudence for Alma was that it did not appear to be a trait that furthered survival of the fittest. But, Alma has a very narrow understanding of what allows a creature to survive long enough to pass along genes. Look how many kids Prudence had and all of them had a chance of inheriting a gene for altruism, if in deed it is an inheritable trait and not a cultivated trait. Alma is the one who does not pass along her genetic material; it is her genes that do not make it to the next generation. Mosses are described as amazingly adaptable, flurishing in narrow nitches, developing characteristics that allow for them to exploit tiny spaces in the environment. In the same way, each of these characters developed the qualities needed to survive, well, except for Ambrose maybe.

Irene wrote: "Well, for the nature vs nurture debate, I think we had characters that proved both. Henry and Ambrose seemed strikingly different from the family environment in which they were raised. Beatrix an..."
I think it comes down to being selfish or not.

I also think that the author neglects to think about the religious aspect of the Prudence Issue. Prudence give so much to others, thereby disproving Darwin's theory (and Alma's, and Wallace's...). However, when people believe in a religious afterlife, their altruism serves as a function of survival in the afterlife.

But, in a strictly Darwinian model, religion does not necessarily play a part. Traits that ensure the survival of the creature long enough to successfully reproduce are passed along. Traits that do not, die out. If religious conformity enables a person to find a mate, to thrive in a community, to reproduce and to have the resources to see children into adulthood, then that trait is successful in a Darwinian model. Prudence's accommodating behavior was advantageous to her. From a Darwinian perspective, it endeared her to the dominant family, which allowed her to grow up, to the tutor which found her a mate and the context for raising her children. Selflessness is not necessarily antithetical to Darwin's theory. One who appears selfless may be increasing the status in the community and therefore increasing the likelihood of reproducing. But, as with Henry, so can selfishness and ambition lead to the same end. Like the mosses, different traits are needed to exploit survival in different nitches of the environment.

Abby, I agree with you. in Amsterdam she is highly respected , whereas in PA, she will always be Henry Whittaker 's daughter playing around with moss.

Irene wrote: "But, in a strictly Darwinian model, religion does not necessarily play a part. Traits that ensure the survival of the creature long enough to successfully reproduce are passed along. Traits that ..."

Interesting post, Irene. I agree, selflessness may help a person to find a mate and reproduce, so certainly could fit in Darwin's model.

Sheila wrote: "Irene wrote: "But, in a strictly Darwinian model, religion does not necessarily play a part. Traits that ensure the survival of the creature long enough to successfully reproduce are passed along...."

Good point ladies.

Alma does not seem to understand "survival of the fittestes". I wonder if this reflects the author's misunderstanding or if Alma really does have a misperception. Prudence is actually the winner in this evolutionary contest. Prudence alone reproduces withthe anticipation of passing her genetic traits to further generations. Henry, for all his ambition and money, has no grandchildren. His genetic material ends a few decades after he takes his final breathe. Loretta & George, Alma, Hanneke, etc, none of them have children. Of course, the Darwinian theory is designed to explain much larger population trends, not individual family members. But, if this is a microcosm, it was the hoaring woman and her murdering husband who managed to pass along their genes through Prudence and her children. Alma should be more troubled by this than by the trait of altruism.

Ha!.... Yes. So true, Irene. Alma doesn't even really consider this aspect, she's so stuck on the function of altruism. She seems to go through her life with a series of blinders on. Perhaps the blinders get smaller...but it's almost as though she's so brilliant, that she can't conceive of human nature.

I felt as if Alma had a very narrow focus, and that's why she didn't understand the Prudence Problem. That's also why she didn't see what was going on around her with Prudence and George, among other things.

I've heard lecturers speak about how Darwin's theory was designed to be purely biological and shouldn't be applied to sociological aspects of life. If that's the case, then natural selection doesn't explain all of life - only certain physical aspects of it, and Alma would never find the answer unless she looked elsewhere.

In any event, this book and the issues being addressed have made me curious enough to download The Origin of The Species so that I can read it later.

Amy, I just bought a used copy of The Origin of Species/The Descent of Man because this book made me curious enough to know more. :-)

Great minds, Sheila! ;)

Sheila wrote: "Amy, I just bought a used copy of The Origin of Species/The Descent of Man because this book made me curious enough to know more. :-)"

I was reading the website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr...

Great resource, Irene!

Well if nothing else then, this book certainly made several of us interested in learning more about Darwin and his theories. :-)

That's true Sheila. :)