Darwinian literary criticism

Flipping through the most recent issue of New Scientist this morning I came across a fairly interesting review of a book about how storytelling shaped humanity- On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, cognition and fiction by Brian Boyd.

Here are some of the good bits:

Boyd argues that art, including fiction, is a unique human adaptation whose
chief function is "for improving human cognition, cooperation and creativity".
His excellent accounts of these three areas of human activity show both an
impressive mastery of the science and an admirable inclination to question
orthodoxy.

[...]

Boyd does acknowledge that stories need both creators and audiences, and he
analyses their different evolutionary roles. Taking a cost/benefit approach, he
argues that the process of creating a story may be expensive in terms of time
and energy but is intrinsically rewarding because it appeals to our brain's love
affair with pattern. It also reshapes the mind, promotes a creative approach to
problem solving and increases the storyteller's social status. The audience,
meanwhile, pay a price in their time, but in return acquire a deeper insight
into society and the minds of other individuals.This cognitive exchange,
however, requires attention. "

Art alters our minds because it engages and reengages our attention," Boyd
writes. This may sound obvious, but for Boyd it has sweeping implications for
the content of stories. For one, it means that surprise is crucial - fiction
must appeal to our evolved preference to pay attention to the unexpected. So too
are elements of the fantastical, the ability to take readers beyond the here and
now, and the capacity to engage their emotions and appeal to their innate
attraction to pattern.

And when I looked it up on the website in order to do a bit of copy+paste magic, there was a link from that article to an article about literary Darwinism. Read it if you like! It is basically about a developing way of reading that challenges the prevailing idea in the way we approach humanities that "Nature is nurture, or, put another way, our nature is simply to spoon up whatever culture happens to feed us - and we are what we eat." Relating fiction to the idea that the human mind is not a blank slate. I don't agree with everything in it, notably the gender stuff, and it doesn't appeal to some of my more romantic ideals about art. Also, it's just about this experimental branch of criticism. However, it's a mildly though-provoking form of synthesis, if you're into that sort of thing. Another weary step on the potholed road to some sort of conclusion re: nature vs. nurture? Perhaps. In a very specialised way. Maybe I will think some more about this in the morning...