Humanities/Faculty of Arts Course OutlineYork University Fall 2016

HUMA 4228 3.0 NATURE IN NARRATIVE:

LECTURES: Wednesdays 2:30-5:30Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Building (formerly TEL) 0011

COURSE DIRECTOR: Joan Steigerwald312 BethunePh: 416-736-2100 ext 70417steiger@yorku.ca

Office Hours: Wednesdays, 1:30-2:30

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course explores narratives of nature in both literary and scientific texts. In the course, we examine how figures and understandings of nature are developed in and through literary forms—from novels and plays to essays and short stories. In some of the literary texts studied, ideas from science are employed as central metaphors or themes. A few of the texts in the course are scientific works—works written to be accessible to a non-scientific audience—that are read for their use of literary forms, such as metaphors and rhetorical techniques, to enrich their narratives, to ease the comprehension of scientific ideas, and to persuade readers of the theories put forward. Students are encouraged to read all the texts in the course as narratives, as stories or points of view of the natural world or human nature, even the scientific works. Most of the texts in the course self-consciously play with their character as narrative, several presenting alternative versions of the story being told from contrasting viewpoints. This emphasis on the narrativity or literary forms of texts encourages us to reflect on the constructed character of all our narratives of nature, whether literary or scientific. But the course also asks how narratives can provide true accounts of our world, and examines the central place of nature in the narratives.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

Participation - 15%Presentation - 15%Commentaries - 25%Research paper

Proposal (November 2) - 10%Final Paper (December 12) - 35%

Participation: All students are expected to have done the required readings for each week with care and reflection, and to come to class prepared to discuss the readings with other members of the class. The success of the discussions requires that each participant be ready to raise questions and to articulate and defend his or her opinions, as well as to listen to and to work with the ideas of other participants. It is recognized that some students are more comfortable with class discussion than others, but opportunities will be created for all students to raise points for discussion. All students should come to class with questions and issues for discussion prepared in advance. Participation, of course, requires attendance, but attendance does not constitute participation.

Presentation: All students are required to give one class presentation. Dates for presentations will be selected September 21. Presentations will take place at the beginning of the class, and should introduce the class to the reading for the week and promote class discussion. The presentations are to provide background to the texts and authors, as well as to offer perspectives on the texts based on further reading. As many presentations will be group presentations, the formal presentation should be no more than 10 minutes for each presenter.

Commentaries: Students are required to provide commentaries of approximately 750 words on the readings assigned for eight of the eleven weeks of the course. Students can choose for themselves which weeks they will provide commentaries, but must comment on all the texts assigned that week. In weeks with more than one text assigned, the relationships between the texts should be indicated, but the commentary should still be no more than 750 words in total. The commentaries should state the main argument of the readings and indicate how it relates to the theme of the course, as well as highlight interesting ideas and issues raised by the readings. The commentaries will be due at the end of the class discussing that text. It is expected that students will discuss the contents of their commentaries in class discussions.

Research paper: A research paper of approximately 4000 words is to be submitted by December 12. A proposal for the research paper is due November 2. The proposal should be approximately two pages, and is to include a preliminary thesis, outline and bibliography. The research paper must be on a different topic than the presentation; although it may include a discussion of the text presented on, it must also discuss other texts and thus expand significantly on any material included in the presentation.

2

READING MATERIALS:

Required readings: Most required readings will be from the following list of texts, available at York University Bookstore:

Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de. 1990 [1686]. Conversations on the plurality of worlds, trans. H.A. Hargreaves. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frayn, Michael. 2000. Copenhagen. New York: Anchor Books.King, Thomas. 2003. The truth about stories: A native narrative. Toronto: Anansi Press.Le Guin, Ursula K. 2000 [1969]. The left hand of darkness. New York: Ace Books.Lopez, Barry. 1981. Winter count. New York: Avon Books.Martel, Yann. 2001. Life of Pi. Toronto: Vintage.Pynchon, Thomas. 1999 [1966]. Crying of lot 49! New York: Perennial Classics.

Additional readings are available on the Moodle website. These readings will form the basis of the discussions at the beginning of each class, and hence must be completed prior to that class.

Further Reading: Under each week’s reading, suggestions for further reading are included. These readings are not required for class discussions, but provide a range of sources for use for presentations or research papers on that topic, or for independent reading.

OUTLINE OF COURSE

Each class will begin with a group presentation, which should last approximately 20 minutes. A discussion will follow for the remainder of the class, based upon the presentation and the readings assigned for that day. There will be a break in the middle of the class.

September 14

Introduction to nature in narrative

PART I: SCIENCE FICTIONS

September 21

Required reading:Fontenelle, Bernard Le Bovier de. 1990 [1686]. Conversations on the plurality of worlds,

trans. H.A. Hargreaves. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Further Reading:Gelbart, N.R. 1990. “Introduction.” In Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle, Conversations on the

plurality of Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press, vii-xxxii.Haraway, D. 1992. “Introduction.” In Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of

3

modern science. New York: Verso, 1-8.Aït-Tuati, Frédérique.  2011. “Fontenelle: Unveiling the spectacle of the world.” In Fictions of

the Cosmos, trans. Susan Emanuel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ch. 3.Fara, P. 2004. “Heavenly bodies: Newtonianism, natural theology and the plurality of worlds

debate in the eighteenth century.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 35: 143 - 160. Cerceau, Florence Raulin. April 2010. "What possible life forms could exist on other Planets: A

historical overview." Origins of life and evolution of biospheres. 40 (2): 195-202.Petrovich, Vesna. 1999. “Women and the Paris Academy of Science.” Eighteenth-century

studies 32: 383-90Terrall, M. 1995. “Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: Inside and outside the Paris Academy

of Sciences.” Configurations 3: 207-232.Douglas, A. 1994. “Popular science and the representation of women: Fontenelle and after.”

Eighteenth-century life 18(2): 1-14.Anscombe, L. 2005. “As far as a woman’s reasoning can go: Scientific dialogue and

Sexploitation.” History of European ideas : 193-208.Gaukroger, Stephen. 2008. “The Académie des Sciences and the republic of letters: Fontenelle’s

role in the shaping of a new natural‐philosophical persona, 1699– 1734.” Intellectual history review 18 (3): 385-402.

Adkins, G.M. 2000. “When ideas matter: The moral philosophy of Fontenelle.” Journal of the history of ideas 61: 433-52.

Also see the bibliography compiled by Hargreaves on pp. xlviii-xlix.

September 28

Required Reading:Le Guin, Ursual K. 1976. The left hand of darkness. New York: Ace Books.

Further Reading:Le Guin, Ursula. 1989. Dancing at the edge of the world: Thoughts on words, women, places.

New York: Grave Press.Rochelle, Warren. 1996. "The story, Plato, and Ursula K. Le Guin."  Extrapolation. 37 (4): 316-

29.Lothian, Alexis. 2006. “Grinding axes and balancing oppositions: The transformation of

feminism in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction.” Extrapolation 47 (3): 380-95.Pearson, Wendy Gay. 2007. “Postcolonialism/s, gender/s, sexuality/ies and the legacy of ‘The

left hand of darkness': Gwyneth Jones's ‘Aleutians talk back.” Yearbook of English Studies 37 (2): 182-196.

Pennington, J. 2000. “Exorcising gender: Resisting readers in Ursula K. Le Guin's Left hand of Darkness.” Extrapolation 41(4): 351-58.

Peel, E. 2002. Politics, persuasion, and pragmatism: A rhetoric of feminist utopian fiction. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Chang, H.-C. 1992. “Utopia as subversive: Androgyny and The left hand of darkness.” Studies in language and literature 5: 43-58.

Fayad, M. 1997. “Aliens, androgynes, and anthropology: Le Guin's critique of representation in

4

The left hand of darkness.” Mosaic: A journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature 30(3): 59-73.

Benczik, Vera, 2008. "Circles and lines: The voyage in Left hand of darkness.” Paradoxa 21: 74-87.

Cornell, C. 2001. “The interpretive journey in Ursula K. Le Guin's The left hand of darkness.” Extrapolation: A journal of science fiction and fantasy 42 (4): 317-27.

Pegg, B. 1995. “Down to earth: Terrain, territory, and the language of realism in Ursula K. LeGuin's The left hand of darkness and The dispossessed.” Michigan academician 27 (4): 481-92.

Bloom, H. Ed. 1987. Ursula K. Le Guin's The left hand of darkness. New York: Chelsea, 1987. PART II: NATURE IN LITERATURE

October 4

Required Reading:King, Thomas. 2003. The truth about stories. Toronto: Anansi Press.

Further Reading:Andrews, Jennifer. 2007. “Thomas King.” In Twenty-First-Century Canadian Writers, ed.

Christian Riegel. Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale, 118-25.Arnold E. Davidson, Priscilla L. Walton, and Jennifer Andrews. Border Crossings: Thomas

King's Cultural Inversions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.Gruber, Eva. Ed. 2012. Thomas King: Works and impact. Rochester, NY: Camden House.Zsizsmann, Éva. 2014. “In-between Western and Indigeneous [Indigenous]: Thomas King's The

Truth about Stories.” In Indigenous Perspectives of North America: A Collection of Studies, ed. Sepsi, Eniko et al. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars, 160-169.

Andrews, Jennifer, and Walton Priscilla L. 2006. “Rethinking Canadian and American nationality: Indigeneity and the 49th parallel in Thomas King.” American Literary History 18 (3): 600-17.

Hirsch, Bud. 2004. “‘Stay Calm, Be Brave, Wait for the Signs:’ Sign-Offs and Send-Ups in the Fiction of Thomas King.” Western American Literature 39 (2): 145-75.

Miller, Carol. 2013. “Thomas King: Shifting Shapes to Tell Another Story.” In The Native American Renaissance: Literary Imagination and Achievement, ed. Alan R. Velie and A. Robert Lee. Norman, OK: U of Oklahoma Press, 161-173.

Ridington, Robin. 1998. “Coyote's cannon: Sharing stories with Thomas King.” American Indian Quarterly 22 (3): 343-62.

Bechtel, Greg. 2008. “The word for world is story: Syncretic fantasy as healing ritual in Thomas King's ‘Green grass, Running water’.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 19.2 (73): 204-23.

October 12

5

Required Reading:Lopez, Barry. 1981. Winter count. New York: Avon Books.

Further Reading:Lopez, Barry, 2004. “Landscape and narrative from Crossing Open Ground.” In Vintage Lopez.

Random House Digital.Newell, Mike. 2008. No bottom: In conversation with Barry Lopez. XOXOX Press.Martin, C. 2006. “On Resistance: An Interview with Barry Lopez.” The Georgia Review 60: 13-

30.Payne, D.G. 2007. “Barry Lopez.” In American short-story writers since World War II: Fifth

series, ed. R.E. Lee, P. Meanor, and G. Crane. Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale, 187-97.Grewe-Volpp, C. 2006. “How to speak the unspeakable: The aesthetics of the voice of nature.”

Anglia: Zeitschrift für Englische Philologie 124: 122-43. Buell, Lawrence, 1995. “Representing the environment.” in The environmental imagination:

Thoreau, nature writing, and the formation of American culture. Harvard University Press, 83-114.

O' Connell, Nicholas. 2000. “At one with the natural world - Barry Lopez's adventure with the word & the wild.” Commonweal 127(6).

Paul, Sherman. 1989. “Making the turn: Rereading Barry Lopez.” in Hewing to Experience: Essays and reviews on recent American poetry and poetics. University of Iowa Press, 343-386.

Bowerbank, S. 1995. “Towards the greening of literary studies.” Canadian review of comparative literature September: 443-454.

Branch, M.P. Ed. 2003. The ISLE reader: Ecocriticism. University of Georgia Press. Philo C. and Wilbert, C. Eds. 2000. Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-

animal relations. New York: Routledge.Wolch, J. and Emel, J. Eds. 1998. Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the

nature-culture borderlands. New York: Verso.

October 19

Required Reading:Martel, Yann. 2001. Life of Pi. Toronto: Harvest.

Further Reading:Daston, Lorraine and Gregg Mitman, eds. 2005. Thinking with animals. New perspectives on

anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press.Robinson, Jack. 2007. “Yann Martel's Life of Pi: Back in the world, or 'The story with animals is

the better story.” In Other selves: Animals in the Canadian literary imagination, ed. by Janice Fiamengo. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 125-144.

McFarland, Sarah E. 2014. “Animal studies, literary animals, and Yann Martel's Life of Pi.” In The Cambridge Companion to Literature and the Environment, ed. Louise Westling. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 152-65.

6

Wright, Laura. 2010. “Safari, zoo, and dog pound: Vegetarianism, extinction, and the place of animals in the postcolonial environment.” In Wilderness into civilized shapes: Reading the postcolonial environment. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 56-102.

Titlestad, Michael. 2014. “Wrecked in the shallows: Yann Martel's Life of Pi.” In Shipwreck in art and literature: Images and interpretations from antiquity to the present day, ed. Carl Thompson. New York, NY: Routledge, 204-235.

Dwyer, J. 2005. “Yann Martel’s Life of Pi and the evolution of the shipwreck narrative.” Modern language studies 35: 8-21.

Duncan, R. 2008. “‘Life of Pi’ as postmodern survivor narrative.” Mosaic: A Journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature 41: 167-183.

Díaz Dueñas, M. 2006. “The postmodern twist in Yann Martel’s Life of Pi.” In Figures of belatedness: Postmodernist fiction, ed. J. Gascueña Gahete and P. Martín Salván. Córdoba, Spain: Universidad de Córdoba, 247-57.

Georgis, D. 2006. “Hearing the better story: Learning and the aesthetics of loss and expulsion.”Review of education/pedagogy/cultural studies 28: 165-78.

Stephens, G. 2010. "Feeding tiger, finding God: Science, religion, and ‘the better story’ in Life of Pi.” Intertexts 14: 41-59.

Lu, Li-an. 2006. “Life of Pi: Rewrite of Robinson Crusoe in the inter-faith third millennium.” Fudan journal of the humanities and social sciences 3: 76-92.

Cloete, Elsie. 2007. “Tigers, humans and animots”, Journal of Literary Studies 23 (3): 314-333.Mensch, J. 2007. “The intertwining of incommensurables: Yann Martel's Life of Pi.” In

Phenomenology and the non-human animal: At the limits of experience, ed. Corinne Painter and Christian Lotz. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 135-147.

Huggan, G. 2007. “Postcolonialism, ecocriticism and the animal in recent Canadian fiction.” Nature, culture and literature 5: 161-180,

Cole, S. 2004. “Believing in tigers: Anthropomorphism and incredulity in Yann Martel’s Life of Pi.” Studies in Canadian literature 29: 22-36.

PART III: SCIENCE AS LITERATURE

October 26

Required Reading:Cronon, William. 1995. “The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong

nature.” In Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. New York: Norton, 69-90.Cronon, William. 1992. “A place for stories: Nature, history, and narrative.” Journal of

American history March: 1347-76.

Further reading:R. Williams, “Nature” and “History.” In Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society.

London: Fontana, 1983. Vileisis, Ann. 2010. “Are tomatoes natural?” In The illusory boundary: Environment and

technology in history, ed. Martin Reuss and Stepehen H. Cutliffe. Charottesville:

7

University of Virginia Press, 211-48.Cassidy, Rebecca and Molly Mulin, eds. 2005. Where the wild things are now: Domestication

reconsidered. Oxford: Berd.Raffles, Hugh. 2002. In amazonia: A natural history. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Smith Mick. 2001. An ethics of place: Radical ecology, postmodernity and social theory. New

York: State University of New York Press. Minteer, Ben A., and Manning, Robert E. Eds. 2003. Reconstructing conservation: Finding

common ground. Washington, DC: Island Press.Cole, David N. and Laurie Yung. 2010. Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness

stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington: Island Press.Schama, Simon. 1995. “Introduction.” In Landscape and memory. New York: Knopf, 3-20.Pyne, Stephen J. 2001. Fire: A Brief History. Washington: University of Washington Press.Rothman, Hal. 2002. “Conceptualizing the real: Environmental history and American Studies.”

American Quarterly 54 (3): 485-98. Henninger-Voss, Mary J. Ed. 2002. Animals in human histories: The mirror of nature and

culture. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Ritvo, Harriet. 1992. “At the edge of the garden: Nature and domestication in eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century Britain.” The Huntington library quarterly 55: 363-78. Roberts, G. Ed. 2001. The history and narrative reader. New York: Routledge.“A round table discussion.” Journal of American history, 76 (1990), pp. 1087-1147.

November 2

Required Reading:Beer, Gillian. 1986. “‘The face of nature’: Anthropomorphic elements in the language of

The origin of species”, in Languages of nature: Critical essays on science and literature, ed. L. Jordanova. London: Free Association Books, 212-243.

Darwin, C. 1986 [1859]. The origin of species. London: Penguin, 65-69, 114-39, 155- 63, and 452-60.

Further Reading:Campbell, J.A. 1995. “Topics, tropes, and tradition: Darwin’s reinvention and subversion of the

design argument.” In Science, reason, and rhetoric, ed. H. Krips, J.E. McGuire and T. Melia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Peterfreund, S. 1994. “Colonization by means of analogy, metaphor and allusion in Darwinian Discourse.” Configurations 2 (2): 237-55.

Bergmann, L.S. 1990. “Reshaping the roles of man, God, and nature: Darwin's rhetoric in The origin of species.” In Beyond the two cultures: Essays on science, technology, and literature, ed. J.W. Slade and J. Yaross Yee. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 79-98.

Young, R. 1985. “Darwin’s metaphor: Does nature select?” In Darwin’s metaphor: Nature’splace in Victorian society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burnett, D. Graham. 2009. “Savage selection: analogy and elision in On the Origin of Species.” Endeavour 33 (4): 121-126.

Brink-Roby, Heather. 2009. “Natural representation: Diagram and text in Darwin's On the Origin

8

of Species.” Victorian Studies 51(2): 247-74.Bono, J.J. 1990. “Science, discourse, and literature: The role/rule of metaphor in science.” In

Literature and science: Theory and practice, ed. S. Peterfreund. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 59-89.

Daston, Lorraine and Gregg Mitman, eds. 2005. Thinking with animals. New perspectives on anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bulhof, I.N. 1992. The language of science: A study of the relationship between literature and science in the perspective of a hermeneutical ontology, with a case study of Darwin's The origin of species. Leiden: Brill.

Levine, G. 1988. Darwin among the novelists: Patterns of science in Victorian fiction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hodge, J. and Radick, G. eds. 2003. The Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowler, P.J. 1989. Evolution: The history of an idea, revised edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

November 9

Required Reading:Myers, Greg. 1990. “Narrative and interpretation in the socio-biology controversy.” In

Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 193-246.

Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1-4 and 318-27.

Allen, Elizabeth et al. 1978 [1975]. “Against ‘sociobiology’”, in The sociobiology debate: Readings on ethical and scientific issues, ed. Arthur L, Caplan. New York: Harper & Row, 259-64.

Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People. 1978 [1976]. “Sociobiology –Another biological determinism.” In The sociobiology debate: Readings on ethical and scientific issues, ed. Arthur L, Caplan. New York: Harper & Row, 280-90.

Wilson, E.O. 1978 [1976]. “Academic vigilantism and the political significance of Sociobiology.” In The sociobiology debate: Readings on ethical and scientific issues, ed. Arthur L, Caplan. New York: Harper & Row, 291-303.

Further Reading:Wilson, E.O. 2010. “Sociobiology and ethics.” In Philosophy of biology: An anthology, eds.

Alex Rosenberg and Robert Arp. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 339-46.Caplan, Arthur L. Ed. 1978. The Sociobiology debate: Readings on ethical and scientific issues.

New York: Harper & Row.Jumonville, N. 2002. “The cultural politics of the sociobiology debate.” Journal of the history of

biology 35: 569-593.Segersträle, U.C.O. 2000. Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology

debate and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2010. The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham, NC:

9

Duke University Press.Dusek, V. 1999. “Sociobiology sanitized: Evolutionary psychology and gene selectionsim.”

Science as culture 8: 129-169.Lewontin, R.C. 1991. “Facts and the factitious in natural sciences.” Critical inquiry 18: 140-153.Ceccarelli, L. 2001. Shaping science with rhetoric: The Cases of Dobhansky, Schrödinger, and

Wilson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Lyne, J. 1990. “T he rhetoric of expertise: E.O. Wilson and sociobiology.” Quarterly journal of

speech 76: 134-151.Fahnestock, J. 1999. Rhetorical figures in science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gross, A.G. and W.M. Keith, eds. 1997. Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation

in the age of science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Maasen, S., Mendelsohn, E. and Weingart, P. 1995. Biology as society, society as biology:

Metaphors. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Latour, B. 1987. “Literature.” In Science in action: How to follow scientists and Engineers

through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

November 16

Required reading:Pollan, Michael. 2001. “Introduction” and “Desire: Intoxication/Plant: Marijuana.” In The

botany of desire: A plant’s eye view of the world. New York: Random House, xiii-xxv and 111-79.

Further reading:The botany of desire. 2009. Dir. Frances McDormand, and Michael Schwarz. PBS. Film. Booth, Martin. 2005. Cannabis: A History. Macmillan Publishers & Random House, Inc.Earleywine, Mitchell. 2005. Understanding marijuana: A new look at the scientific evidence.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Casteel, Sarah Phillips. 2007. “Jamaica Kincaid's and Michael Pollan's new world garden

Writing.” In Second arrivals: Landscape and belonging in contemporary writing of the Americas. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 109-131.

Saguaro, Shelley. 2009. “Telling trees: Eucalyptus, ‘Anon,’ and the growth of co-evolutionary histories”, Mosaic 42 (3): 39-57.

Hird, Myra J. 2010. “Coevolution, symbiosis and sociology.” Ecological economics 69 (4): 737-742.

Atkinson, Jennifer. 2007. “Seeds of change: The new place of gardens in contemporary Utopia.” Utopian Studies 18 (2): 237-61.

Heyd, Thomas. 2006. “Thinking through botanic gardens.” Environmental values 15 (2): 197-212.

Schama, S. 1996. “Arcadia redesigned.” In Landscape and memory. London: Harper Collins. Cunningham, A. 1996. “The culture of gardens.” In Cultures of natural history, eds. N. Jardine,

J.A. Secord and E.C. Spary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritvo, H. 1992. “At the edge of the garden: Nature and domestication in eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century Britain.” The Huntington library quarterly, 55, 363-78.

10

Wrede, S. and Adams, W.H. eds. 2003 Denatured visions: Landscape and culture in the Twentieth Century. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

Pollan, M. 1991. Second nature: A gardener’s education. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. PART IV: MODERN NATURES

November 23

Required Reading:Pynchon, Thomas. 1966. Crying of lot 49! New York: Harper and Row.

Further Reading:Abbas, N. Ed. 2003. Thomas Pynchon: Reading from the margins. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh

Dickinson University Press.Schachterle, L. 1996. “Information theory and entropy in Thomas Pynchon’s fiction.”

Configurations 4 (2): 185-214.Clarke, B. 1996. “Allegories of Victorian thermodynamics.” Configurations 4 (1): 67-90.Decker, M.T. 2000-2001. “A proliferation of bad shit: Informational entropy, politics and The

crying of lot 49!” Pynchon notes 46-49:142-56.Welsh, C. 1997. “Metaphors, method, and entropy in Thomas Pynchon.” In Metaphor and

rational discourse. ed. Debatin, B., Jackson, T.R., and Steuer, D. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer, 125-36.

McKenna, C.J. 2000. “‘A kiss of cosmic pool balls’: Technological paradigms and narrative expectations collide in The crying of lot 49”, Cultural critique 44: 30-42.

Ferrero, David J. 1999.  “Echoes of narcissus: Classical mythology and postmodern pessimism in The Crying of Lot 49”, Pynchon Notes Spring-Fall (44-45): 82-97.

Simons, J. 2000. “Postmodern paranoia? Pynchon and Jameson”, Paragraph: A journal of modern critical theory 23 (2): 207-21.

Flaxman, G. 1997. “Oedipa crisis: Paranoia and prohibition in The crying of lot 49!” Pynchon notes 40-41: 41-60.

Gleason, William. 1993. “The postmodern labyrinths of ‘Lot 49’,” CRITIQUE: Studies in contemporary fiction 34 (2): 83-100.

Brownlie, A.W. 2000. Thomas Pynchon's narratives: Subjectivity and problems of knowing. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

O'Donnell, Patrick. Ed. 1991. New essays on The crying of lot 49, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, H. Ed. 1986. Thomas Pynchon. New York: Chelsea House Publishing.

11

November 30

Required Reading:Frayn, Michael. 2000. Copenhagen. New York: Anchor Books.

Further Reading:Frayn, M. 2002. “Copenhagen revisited.” New York review of books 49 (5): 22-24.Frayn, M. 2000. “Postscript.” In Copenhagen. New York: Anchor Books, 95-131. Dörries, M. Ed. 2005. Michael Frayn's ‘Copenhagen’ in debate: Historical essays and

documents on the 1941 Meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Berkeley: Office for History of Science and Technology.

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press, 4-23.

Antonsen, Katrine. 2013. “Ethical force of fictionalization in Michael Frayn's Copenhagen.” In Narrative ethics, ed. Jakob Lothe and Jeremy Hawthorn. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 121-135.

Barnett, D. 2005. “Reading and performing uncertainty: Michael Frayn's ‘Copenhagen’ and the postdramatic theatre.” Theatre Research International 30: 139-49.

Dasenbrock, R.W. 2004. “Copenhagen: The drama of history.” Contemporary literature 45 (2): 218-28.

Hentschel, Klaus. 2002. “What history of science can learn from Michael Frayn's ‘Copenhagen’.” Interdisciplinary science reviews 27 (3): 211-216.

Klemm, D.E. 2004. “‘The Darkness inside the human soul’: Uncertainty in theological humanism and Michael Frayn's play Copenhagen.” Literature & theology: An international journal of religion, theory, and culture 18 (3): 292-307.

Stewart, V. 1999. “A theatre of uncertainties: Science and history in Michael Frayn's ‘Copenhagen’.” New Theatre Quarterly 15: 301-7.

Posner, M. 2003. “The uncertainty about Heisenberg.” Queen's quarterly 110(1): 87-92.Powers, T. 2002. “What Bohr remembered.” New York review of books 49 (5): 25-26.http://www.aip.org/history/heisenbergAlso see the bibliography compiled by Frayn on pp. 130-31.

12