My friend found this book intriguing. Couldn’t put it down, he says. I could’ve probably put it down, but I promised him I would read it and read it IMy friend found this book intriguing. Couldn’t put it down, he says. I could’ve probably put it down, but I promised him I would read it and read it I did. In Sex at Dawn, Christopher Ryan lays down a slew of what he believes to be persuasive arguments for our prehistoric ancestors being sexually promiscuous. Considering that we are most closely related to the bonobo (a ‘pygmy chimp’) in the evolutionary sense, he draws parallels between the bonobo’s behavior and anatomical particularities to those of humans in order to suggest that our two species are sociosexually similar, as well. (Not to give anything away, but apparently bonobos are insatiable whores!) The point of Ryan’s point, I guess, is to point out that we humans—as a general rule—commit to monogamous relationships because doing so is socially accepted and expected, but that we may in fact be damaging ourselves and our loved ones by acting in discordance with our innate, biologically-programmed sexual needs.
There wasn’t anything I inherently disliked about this book—though the casual language likely meant to foster a ‘connection’ with lay readers leaves something to be desired—I wasn’t interested enough in the subject matter to be swayed by Ryan’s arguments. Even if our prehistoric ancestors were polygamous, what does it matter? Somewhere along the line it became more worthwhile for humans to live in committed, monogamous relationships (whether for social, economic, or perhaps other reasons entirely), and as with any choice made by anyone anywhere ever, it will always be at the expense of something. Perhaps this does leave us more sexually frustrated at times than our ancestors were, but I’d like to believe that the return on this investment provides us a reward that is greater than the sum of our frustrations.
It’s weird that this book seems to be among people’s least favorite Steinbeck novels. What gives? In The Winter of our Discontent, Steinbeck once agaiIt’s weird that this book seems to be among people’s least favorite Steinbeck novels. What gives? In The Winter of our Discontent, Steinbeck once again proves himself a master at the craft of characterization, but whereas in prior novels his protagonists find themselves up against a litany of circumstances beyond their control (but which ultimately dictate their fate), his star character here is a little more sinister. Not to say that this isn’t a fatalistic novel, because it is, but certainly Ethan Allen Hawley takes matters into his own hands a bit more than his Steinbeckian counterparts. Though, maybe that’s the point—that the circumstances of Ethan’s existence are so stacked against him that taking matters into his own hands is Steinbeck’s version of ‘but he had no choice’.
I’m not going to write a lot here because it’s my first time reviewing in a while and my fingers hurt but I did just want to say that I thought this was a really beautiful novel, and I found myself (not surprisingly) drawn to these characters in a way that’s fairly typical of John Steinbeck novels. Ethan’s self-rationalizations after (view spoiler)[exploiting Danny and duping Marullo (hide spoiler)] and the subsequent realizations of his own complicity in Allen’s moral upbringing were themes I found especially poignant....more
Loading...
