POSTMODERN DISCOURSES IN THE

NEURONOVEL A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF I AN MCEWAN’S ENDURING LOVE

AND RICHARD POWERS’ THE ECHO MAKER

Aantal woorden: 23864

Emma Braeckman Studentennummer: 01304844

Promotor: Prof. dr. Marco Caracciolo

Masterproef voorgelegd voor het behalen van de graad master in de richting Taal- en Letterkunde

Academiejaar: 2016 – 2017

2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Marco Caracciolo for his almost

instantaneous responses to my emails and for taking the time to thoroughly discuss my thesis

with me. I would also like to thank him for challenging me and stimulating my writing with

critical comments and rightful remarks.

Secondly, I would also especially like to thank my father for taking the time to proofread my

entire dissertation and for suggesting spelling corrections where they were needed. I would like

to thank my family and friends for their support and for keeping me motivated during this

process.

3

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4

2 Background: De Clérambault syndrome and Capgras syndrome ........................................... 13

3 Enduring Love ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Two Cultures Debate in Enduring Love.......................................................................... 19

3.1.1 Literature and Science ............................................................................................. 19

3.1.2 Divide Within the Mind Sciences ............................................................................ 22

3.1.3 Vocabularic Representation of the Two Cultures Debate ....................................... 25

3.2 Two Cultures Debate: Joe, Jed and Clarissa ................................................................... 28

3.2.1 Joe Rose ................................................................................................................... 28

3.2.2 Clarissa .................................................................................................................... 31

3.2.3 Jed Parry .................................................................................................................. 33

3.3 Postmodern Discourse in Enduring Love: Postmodern Madness ................................... 35

3.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 39

4 The Echo Maker ..................................................................................................................... 41

4.1 Conflicting Discourses of Nature and Culture ................................................................ 43

4.2 Divide Within the Mind Sciences ................................................................................... 47

4.3 Vocabularic Representation of the Two Cultures Debate ............................................... 50

4.4 Dichotomies Represented by the Characters ................................................................... 53

4.4.1 Divide Within the Mind Sciences: Dr Weber and Dr Hayes ................................... 53

4.4.2 Conflicting Discourses of Nature and Culture: Daniel Riegel and Robert Karsh ... 59

4.5 Postmodern Discourse in The Echo Maker: Postmodern Madness ................................ 61

4.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 66

5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 68

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 71

(23864 words)

4

1 Introduction

In 1959, C. P. Snow argued, that there are two poles in the intellectual society: the first is

embodied by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists. However, Snow already mentions,

somewhat like a prediction, that there is a need for a third culture and that the polarisation is

over-simplified. Moreover, he argues that this clash of these two cultures could lead to multiple

new creative opportunities (Snow 1, 8, 16). In the last decade or so, a new literary trend has

emerged that could be said to stage and explore this clash of the two cultures: the neuronovel.

This “new strain within the Anglo-American novel” has often been referred to as “the novel of

consciousness or the psychological or confessional novel” (Roth). Roth attributes this new way

of writing to a change in society in which we have “gone beyond the loss of society and religion

to the loss of the self, an object whose intricacies can only be described by future science”.

Moreover, he believes that it is not the concept of self-hood that has been lost but rather the

ability to possess it. He claims that it is now the property of specialists (Roth). This neurological

shift in novel writing dates back to the late 20th century as an end of millennium phenomenon.

However, this neurological turn in literature is not entirely ‘new’. It can be described as “the

most recent development of cognitive literary studies […], as the newest way of fictionally

elaborating brain-related issues” (Ortega and Vidal 333). Dennett and Pinker also suggest that

there has been a focus on the mind and consciousness in literature many years before the ‘rise

of the neuronovel’ (Burn 213). The theme of consciousness and mental content was already

present in literature by Virginia Woolf as well as George Elliot and Walt Whitman, among

many others (Ortega and Vidal 330). Despite the long tradition of representing mind and

consciousness in literature, this new genre moves away from theories of personality and focuses

on the brain rather than the mind in general. The scientific content has become a literary tool

for the writer, a tool that is not only used on the level of the story world but also used as stylistic

innovation in the narrative (Ortega and Vidal 328), for example through the use of scientific

5

vocabulary. During the first half of the twentieth century psychoanalysis was the dominant

paradigm for treating mental defects. Moreover, it has “irrevocably influenced intellectual life

and culture in the twentieth century (Dufresne 2). The analyst was thought to be the authorial

figure and was meant to make sense of the symptoms (dreams, fantasies) that the patient

experienced (Mitchell and Black xxxi-xxxii). It was the analyst’s responsibility to “decode the

true meaning” of the patient’s thoughts and actions (Mitchell and Black xxviii). “Of course it’s

not as if mid-century novels were case studies written in Freudian jargon. But an era in which

analysis, rather than neurology, was taken to offer the most authoritative account of personality

was an era more friendly to the informal psychological explorations of novelists” (Roth).

As discussed, in late 20th century science becomes more incorporated in the novel.

Conversely, in addition to the introduction of the new literary genre: neuronovel, the late 20th

century also brings forth a subgenre within science that includes a more narrative approach. In

the 20th century, scientist have increasingly distanced themselves from the field of

psychoanalysis as a treatment for neurological defects. Moreover, the focus shifted towards a

“more efficient symptom-focused” form of treatment (Mitchell and Black xxv). However, in

more recent years, there has been a return to the field of psychoanalysis in the sense that the

focus on the internal experience has returned and the treatment is now looked at as an act of co-

creation, in which patient and analyst collaborate (Mitchell and Black xxxi). This return to the

field of psychoanalysis, can be seen as a result of the “therapy culture” of the late 20th century

(Dufresne viii).

Similar to the field of literature there is a merging of two different ‘cultures’, the

scientific and the narrative. In this case, it is not the novel that becomes scientifically flavoured

but science that becomes increasingly narrative and merges with the literary genre. Brockman

claims that this third culture does not necessarily imply a communication between literature

and science, but rather a communication with the public. He claims that “what traditionally has

6

been called science has today become public culture” (Brockman 18). One could argue that

towards the end of the 20th century, the two approaches to the discipline of neuropsychology

experienced a clash. The romantic approach to neuropsychology, in which the psychologist

focuses on the individual narrative of the patient, places the illness within its social environment

and includes the subjectivity of the experience, and the more “classical neuropsychology”, in

which the focus lies on physiological and neurological processes, have become coexistent

(Draaisma 429). Brockman describes this clash as the introduction of a third culture, namely

popular science (18).

As a consequence of all this, I will research how Enduring Love by Ian McEwan and

The Echo Maker by Richard Powers, can be seen as case studies in which the aforementioned

tensions are thematised. I shall research how both novels are products of a postmodern society

in which different discourses, such as the narrative, the natural and the rational have become

merged. I will look at how the different discourses at play in this postmodern society take form

in both novels and how they compare to each other. I aim to do this by focusing on the

oppositions that can be found in the novels. Additionally, I shall focus on the different

characters – Joe Rose, Jed Parry and Clarissa in Enduring Love, and Dr Weber, Dr Hayes,

Daniel and Robert in The Echo Maker. Furthermore, I shall discuss how the diseases – De

Clérambault syndrome and Capgras syndrome – and consciousness itself are approached by

these characters.

Ian McEwan participated in this change in literature and has often been regarded as one

of the debut novelist to write within the genre of the neuronovel. As Roth claims “Ian McEwan’s

Enduring Love (1997) effectively inaugurates the genre of the neuronovel, and remains one of

its more nuanced treatments” (Roth). McEwan chose to further explore the field of science in

his later novels, for example in Saturday where the scientific content is represented through a

character with Huntington’s disease, and McEwan chose for a more radical approach with a

7

focus on biological determinism (Roth). Novelist Richard Powers also entered the genre of the

neuronovel with his novel Galatea 2.2 and later with The Echo Maker, which features Capgras’

syndrome (Ortega and Vidal 333-337). Powers describes The Echo Maker as an attempt to write

a dialogical novel in which the newest views on the brain from the last decades are discussed

(An Interview with Richard Powers 175). According to Burn, Powers' novels become

“interdependent systems where, rather than focusing on one kind of exposition, different

discourses work together to create aesthetic effects” (An Interview with Richard Powers 175).

It becomes clear that both novelists can be categorised as writers of this new genre of the

neuronovel. As mentioned before, the neuronovel is not about foregrounding science but about

softening the lines between two different fields of study. Hence, Ortega and Vidal argue that

“the very project of writing a neuronovel and communicating scientific information may be an

attempt at bridging the two cultures” (339).

I chose these novels as case studies for my argument because I believe they offer

different perspectives on mental illness by combining different discourses of the postmodern

age. Moreover, I believe that these novels do not offer a straightforward view on these

conflicting discourses but rather challenge the opposition between literature and science, and

as argued by C.P. Snow, tend to introduce a third element, such as popular science but also

religion and natural phenomena. The conflicting discourses that are important for the sake of

this dissertation, are the opposition between the two cultures as described by C.P. Snow:

literature and science, and the more recent opposition within science: popular science and the

hard sciences. Additionally, I shall also discuss the importance of religion as a conflicting

factor. Both of these discourse conflicts are present in the novels, however in The Echo Maker,

the two cultures debate from C.P. Snow demands some rephrasing, because the most prominent

opposition is not so much between literature and science, but rather nature and neuroscience.

8

The two cultures debate is present in both novels but represented in a different way.

Both Enduring Love and The Echo Maker involve a large presence of science, specifically

neuroscience and the mind sciences. Neuroscience is introduced in both novels via a character

suffering from a neurological disease, De Clérambault syndrome and Capgras syndrome. A

difference between the two novels could be the degree in which neuroscience is present and the

degree in which popular science is confronted with the hard sciences, such as neuroscience. In

Enduring Love, Jed Parry’s syndrome is never truly diagnosed by a practicing neurologist but

merely assumed by protagonist Joe Rose. In The Echo Maker, on the other hand, Mark’s

condition is diagnosed by neurologist Dr Hayes and confirmed by popular science writer Dr

Weber. Because of this, it could be said that neuroscience plays a smaller part in Enduring Love

than in The Echo Maker due to the lack of a ‘real scientist’ as Dr Hayes, but nevertheless the

open problems concerning how to approach mental illness and science in general, are very

present in Enduring Love.

Neuroscience or the mind sciences in general are only one half of the two cultures

debate. The second half can also be found in both novels. In Enduring Love, the mind sciences

are countered by a presence of literature and religion, which could be regarded as science’s

strongest opponents. The relationship between these three discourses is mainly represented

through the relationship between the three characters in the novel: Joe, Clarissa and Jed.

Clarissa opposes Joe’s rationality and objectivity through her interest in literature. She remains

quite sceptical about Joe’s approach to Jed’s illness throughout the novel. Similarly, Jed, who

is a very religious character, also expresses a lot of doubt and scepticism towards Joe’s

unwavering belief in rationality and science. Both of these characters tend to seek explanations

and meaning in literature and religion, rather than seek a causal reason based on rationality as

Joe does.

9

The two cultures debate is also present in The Echo Maker, but in a different way than

in Enduring Love. It could be argued that the opposition between science and literature is

represented in The Echo Maker because it is a novel that adopts scientific content. However,

unlike Enduring Love, the two cultures debate is not reflected on a more thematic level or

represented by the characters. Nevertheless, The Echo Maker does contain a certain dualism.

Science is not so much alternated with literature rather than natural phenomena. I will argue

that the natural phenomena tend to distance themselves from science in the novel and can even

be said to be indifferent to the characters.

A more critical element that is present in both novels is scientific and cultural arrogance.

In Enduring Love as well as The Echo Maker, this arrogance is usually pointed out by the

characters. In both novels, multiple claims are made against scientific innovation and rational

thinking. In Enduring Love, Jed and Clarissa have a sceptical attitude towards Joe’s claims

against Jed. Jed points out that Joe’s obsession with rationality and objective science will make

him arrogant. In The Echo Maker, arrogance is present in the characters Robert, who believes

that people can do anything and are practically gods, and Dr Weber, who realises his own

arrogance towards his patients when he realises his sessions with Mark are not helping him but

are aiding his own profits. In The Echo Maker, Dr Weber points out his own arrogance in terms

of his own profession as a popular science writer but additionally also points to the arrogance

of neurology in the novel. In Enduring Love, on the other hand, Joe is never critical about his

own rational perspective on the world or about the hard sciences, and the arrogance is only

exposed by other characters. In addition to the two cultures debate that is present in the two

novels, there is also a clear presence of the more recent divide within science that was described

by Brockman as “the third culture”, namely popular science (18). In addition to neuroscience,

both novels involve popular science and contain references to Freud and psychoanalysis. These

elements of ‘alternative’ science can be seen as parts of a conflict between the discourse of

10

narrative and neuroscience that has reoccurred in the late 20th century. In both novels, it is

clearly expressed that popular science and psychoanalysis are not the dominant approaches to

medicine of the late 20th century. In Enduring Love, the so-called talking cure and other

Freudian methods are mentioned, but they are described as outdated. This is also the case for

The Echo Maker. Psychoanalysis is mostly present in the novel because popular science writer

Dr Weber still uses it in order to examine his patients; yet he appears to be aware of the fact

that his methods are no longer common practice within the world of medicine. In addition to

the hints of criticism of the hard sciences there is also criticism of popular science and

psychoanalysis in both novels. The criticism of these outdated practices is present in various

ways. Joe and Dr Weber tend to be very critical of themselves and their profession, but,

especially in The Echo Maker, the criticism of popular science is also provided by Dr Hayes,

the neurologist, and the people that review Weber’s books. However, I will argue that there is

more lenience towards popular science in The Echo Maker than there is in Enduring Love, and

that hence the conflict between neuroscience and popular science is more nuanced.

These two ‘debates’ (between science and the humanities and within science) are not

only expressed on a thematic level in both novels but also on a stylistic level, namely in terms

of vocabulary use. As stated, novelists are able to use scientific discourse as a writing tool in

their novels (Ortega and Vidal 328). I will show that Ian McEwan and Richard Powers do not

only incorporate scientific discourse on a stylistic level but also manage to incorporate religious

language and language that refers to natural phenomena. This particular language use can also

be seen as an element that indicates the nuance that is present in The Echo Maker. Powers could

be said to employ language as a way to combine nature and culture in the novel.

In terms of the representation of the postmodern condition in the novel, I will argue the

concepts of truth and an ‘enduring’ love are consistently undermined and problematized. This

causes the characters to go on a quest for universal truth and that perfect love. In Enduring

11

Love, this search for truth is represented by Joe’s wish to distance himself from his current

profession as popular science writer and return to the hard sciences, which from his perspective

is where truth lies. The search for love is very prominent in the novel due to the character Jed

Parry, who pursues Joe Rose to no end and endlessly claims that their ‘love’ is meant to be. The

search for love is less prominent in The Echo Maker, but it could be said that the search for an

absolute truth is expressed through Mark’s relentless investigation to find out what happened

on the night of his car accident. Additionally, I will argue that the madness in both novels – De

Clérambault syndrome in Enduring Love and Capgras syndrome in The Echo Maker – is a

consequence of the loss of these absolute values and can thus be read as a consequence of the

characters’ postmodern setting rather than a physiological deficit per se.

After this brief discussion of the concept of the neuronovel, the two cultures and the return

of popular science, I shall continue my thesis by giving a brief overview of the illnesses that

are thematised in Enduring Love and The Echo Maker, respectively De Clérambault syndrome

and Capgras syndrome. I shall discuss a short history of both syndromes and continue with a

diagnosis of the patients in the novel. After this short overview of relevant information, I shall

move on to my analysis of Ian McEwan’s Enduring Love. First, I will focus on how the two

cultures debate is represented in the novel on a general thematic level, specifically focusing on

the presence of mind sciences and literature. Second, I will move on to a description of the

conflict between the hard sciences of the late 20th century and 19th century popular science and

psychoanalysis in the novel. In addition, I will discuss how these two oppositions are reflected

in the use of vocabulary in the novel. Next, I shall focus on the characters. Firstly, I will look

at the character Joe Rose in more detail and discuss his conflicted personality. I shall then

discuss how Clarissa, Joe’s partner, and Jed Parry go against Joe’s belief in rationality and how

they challenge this belief. Furthermore, I shall discuss how Clarissa represents the world of

literature and how Jed Parry’s religious beliefs are present in the novel. Lastly, I shall focus on

12

how the postmodern condition is represented in the novel, specifically on how the grand

narratives of love and truth are no longer attainable and how the characters handle that loss. In

addition, I shall look at how Jed’s illness in the novel can be seen as a consequence of this

postmodern environment. Following my analysis of Enduring Love I will move on to my

analysis of Richard Powers’ The Echo Maker. Similar to my analysis of Enduring Love, I shall

start with a discussion of the opposition between nature and culture in the novel mainly on a

thematic level. I shall then discuss the presence of neuroscience, popular science and outdated

scientific practices such as psychoanalysis in the novel, thus looking at the thematic

representation of the different discourses within the postmodern society. Thirdly, I will move

on to a discussion of the vocabulary in The Echo Maker, looking at how neuroscience and nature

are represented on a stylistic level. Next, I will discuss the characters in more detail, specifically

Dr Hayes and Dr Weber in relation to the neuroscience and popular science debate, and Daniel

and Robert, in term of the natural and cultural discourse. Lastly, I shall discuss the presence of

the postmodern condition in the novel, and focus on the lacking presence of the grand narratives

of love and truth. Additionally, I shall look at how madness in the novel can be seen as a result

of this postmodern epoch in which the characters live.

13

2 Background: De Clérambault syndrome and Capgras syndrome

Before starting my analysis, I thought it was important to give some background information

on the diseases featured in the novels that will be discussed. Firstly, De Clérambault syndrome,

or erotomania, is a disease in which the patient fabricates a reciprocated love. The subject is

convinced that he or she is passionately in love with a certain person and that the object of his

or her affection constantly confirms that love by sending out signals (McEwan 233-234).

Additionally, the patient believes that he or she was simply seduced and that the romance was

initiated by the object of his or her affection (Lovett Doust and Christie 99). In the 1920’s, it

was thought that De Clérambault’s was a disease only found among women, and that it only

presented itself through heterosexual attractions. Later on, those assumptions were revisited

and altered, seeing that they discovered cases with male patients and cases dealing with

homosexual attractions as well (McEwan 235). De Clérambault syndrome has often been paired

with other illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia and more recently with organic brain

diseases such as Alzheimer’s dementia. The syndrome surfaces in different ways, depending

on the gender of the patient. There has been observed that male patients have a tendency to stalk

their presumed lover and become violent out of jealousy (Brüne 409-410).

Capgras syndrome is an illness in which the patient negatively identifies people to whom

he or she is closely related (Christodoulou 556). The patient believes their loved one to be an

imposter and exact doppelganger, despite evidence that proves the contrary (Hayman and

Abrams 68). Capgras syndrome is often connected to a specific form of visual agnosia called

prosopagnosia which entails the inability to recognise familiar faces (Hayman and Abrams 70).

Similar to De Clérambault syndrome, Capgras has been discovered in the early 1920’s. As

appeared from observation, the syndrome could often be related to the psychosis of

schizophrenia, and was thought to be a side effect. Later on, multiple cases presented

themselves in which patients had not been diagnosed as schizophrenic but had an organic

14

dysfunction which had presumably lead to the development of Capgras syndrome. This resulted

in the observation that Capgras could very well be a manifestation of organic brain disease, in

with lesions are usually found in the right hemisphere (Hayman and Abrams 68). Another

disease that is often connected to Capgras, is the Frégoli syndrome. A patient suffering from

Frégoli’s believes that different people are the same person but with an intentional change of

appearance such as a disguise (O'Sullivan and Dean 276). Rather than falsely identifying a

person like a Capgras patient, the patient suffering from Frégoli syndrome over-identifies.

Within this comparison, the two syndromes are often labelled with the terms: hypo-

identification (Capgras) and hyper-identification (Frégoli) (Christodoulou 556).

What is interesting about these two diseases is that they can been seen as each other’s

opposite, not only in how they emerge and what they entail but also in terms of brain location.

First of all, the two syndromes are located in different hemispheres; De Clérambault syndrome

is a defect of the left hemisphere, whereas Capgras syndrome is caused by a lesion in the right

hemisphere (El Gaddal 715). Even more interesting is how the two syndromes are actualised.

As claimed by W. Hirstein and V. S. Ramachandran there are two crucial elements for a

successful visual recognition. The first is responsible for the “conscious recognition of the face

and the recall of associated semantic information”, the second is responsible for the feeling of

familiarity and thus “emotional arousal” (337). In Capgras, the latter element has been

compromised and thus leaves the patient with “recognition without familiarity” (Hirstein and

Ramachandra 337). As mentioned by Hirstein and Ramachandran, there is also the possibility

of “familiarity without recognition” (337). It might be possible to connect this to De

Clérambault syndrome. More specifically, De Clérambault’s can easily be seen as a dysfunction

with an excess of familiarity as its consequence, because the subjects believe themselves to be

in love with someone whom they are not intimately related to. Capgras patients, on the other

hand, struggle with a lack of familiarity with the people whom they are most intimate with.

15

As a writer within the genre of the neuronovel, McEwan has taken interest in De

Clérambault syndrome as the subject of his novel Enduring Love. In the novel, the protagonist,

Joe, has become the victim of Jed Parry’s imagined love. However, Joe, who is already in a

committed relationship with Clarissa, does not return Jed’s feelings. The moment of infatuation

occurs immediately after the dramatic opening of the novel, which involves a balloon accident.

Both Joe and Jed take initiative when witnessing a hot air balloon lose control. Despite their

efforts to keep the balloon grounded, the wind hauls the balloon back in the air with John Logan,

another volunteer, still attached. Only moments later, Joe and Jed are bystanders of Logan

plummeting to his death. As a consequence of this dramatic event Jed and Joe get acquainted,

and Jed expresses his love for the first time. Despite all efforts by Joe to remove Jed from his

life, Jed is reluctant to abandon his presumed lover. As a result, the novel concludes in a climax

of Jed holding a knife to Clarissa’s throat, an example of violent jealousy found in male patients

as mentioned above. By using a male subject as the sufferer of De Clérambault’s (Jed) and a

male object of affection (Joe), McEwan taps into the more recent discourse around the

syndrome, rather than using the more common female heterosexual cases as a basis for his

novel.

In The Echo Maker, Capgras syndrome is represented by the character Mark, who has

suffered brain injuries from a car accident. After he awakes from his coma, he is unable to

correctly identify his sister Karin as a result of the accident. He firmly believes that she has

been replaced by an imposter and despite multiple efforts to prove the opposite, he fails to

rectify his recognition. As the novel progresses Mark also fails to identify his own house, his

dog and eventually his entire town. Mark becomes increasingly paranoid and at one point seems

to suffer from Frégoli syndrome as well, as established by his sister Karin. The novel concludes

with the restoration of Mark’s ability to recognise his sister, as a result of prescribed

psychoactives.

16

In both novels there is a clear moment of diagnosis. In the case of Enduring Love the

process of diagnosis is rather unofficial and largely based on Joe’s intuition that allows him to

research the situation further. His diagnosis is triggered by a scene with a curtain, a reoccurring

motif in the novel and in De Clérambault syndrome: “It all came at once, and it seemed

impossible that I could have forgotten” (McEwan 123). He recalls a case study of the first

patient to have been diagnosed with De Clérambault’s: “The one thing she knew for certain was

that the King loved her […] he sent her signals that she alone could read, and he let her know

that however inconvenient it was, however embarrassing and inappropriate, he loved her and

always would. […]De Clérambault’s syndrome. The name was like a fanfare. […] There was a

research to follow through now and I knew exactly where to start” (McEwan 124). The

diagnosis in The Echo Maker, on the other hand, is made by Dr Hayes, a professional

neurologist: “After many tests, Dr Hayes gave it a name. ‘Your brother is manifesting a

condition called Capgras syndrome. It’s one of a family of misidentification delusions. It can

occur in certain psychiatric conditions’” (Powers 75). As previously stated, accident-induced

Capgras cases are fairly uncommon seeing that multiple previous studies have shown a link to

other mental illnesses. Mark’s case is thus rather special.

Now that I have introduced De Clérambault syndrome and Capgras syndrome, and how

they are represented in Enduring Love and The Echo Maker in a superficial way, I shall move

on to a more focused and interpretive analysis of the novels.

17

3 Enduring Love

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty…” (McEwan 166) is one of the lines from chapter nineteen in

Enduring Love. The line is originally from Ode to a Grecian Urn by John Keats. It should be

made clear that these lines are read from the book that Clarissa receives as a present. In spite of

that, I would like to argue that these terms ‘beauty and truth’ are both loaded with meaning. For

many centuries, including the 19th century of Romanticism, it was believed that truth was

inherently connected to beauty, and hence whatever was beautiful, was also true and truthful.

This is also made clear in Keats’ Ode to a Grecian Urn “– Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that

is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Keats 224). As cited by Chaney,

Solzhenitsyn has claimed that “a true work of art carries its verification within itself” (1). A

possible interpretation of these lines from Keats’ poem is that beauty is true because it justifies

itself and does not rely on external justification. According to Solzhenitsyn, “it [beauty] also

evades the rational certainty” (Chaney 3). If beauty evades rational certainty, it could be said to

distance itself from science, which largely relies on rational certainty. Now, the concept of truth

is predominantly intertwined with science rather than the arts or the humanities, since scientific

research is bound to truth as a necessity (McAllister 28).

In this analysis, I argue that McEwan presents multiple perspectives on this subject. He

portrays the world in which beauty is truth, the world in which truth is now connected to science

and rationality, but also a world in which the two visions have been combined. This can be seen

not only through general elements in the novel but also in the characters. In addition, I believe

that McEwan also expresses the difficulties that have arisen concerning the terms “beauty” and

“truth” in the postmodern setting of the novel, and expresses how this postmodernity has

affected the characters.

The story opens with the tragic balloon accident. From the beginning of the novel it

becomes clear that the story is told in retrospect by the narrator and protagonist Joe. He and his

18

partner are having a picnic lunch in the park, when they see a hot air balloon drop. Joe rushes

to the scene, where he encounters Jed for the first time. The dramatic event ends with the death

of John Logan, who held on to the balloon while the other instinctively let go. When Joe goes

to find the body, Jed follows him and they have their first conversation. From this conversation

becomes clear that Jed is a very religious man. Late that night Joe receives a call from Jed in

which he declares his love for him. At that point in the novel neither the reader nor Joe is aware

of the fact that Jed is suffering from De Clérambault syndrome. Joe decides not to tell Clarissa

about the phone call. From this point on, Jed starts harassing Joe. He calls multiple times and

is camped out on the street outside of his apartment. Initially, Joe is willing to listen to him and

hear what he has to say, but when he realises that talking will do no good, he decides to inform

the police about this harassment. Unfortunately, they are not able to provide a solution because

Jed is not doing anything wrong according to the law. When Joe approaches Clarissa concerning

Jed, she has her doubts about whether Joe is telling the truth or whether he is exaggerating.

When Joe is visiting John Logan’s widow, his environment triggers his knowledge about De

Clérambault syndrome. He realises that Jed is suffering from a mental illness and starts to build

up evidence to offer to the police. In the meantime, his relationship with Clarissa is spiralling

down, due to her scepticism and Joe’s obsession with Jed. Jed has started writing letters to Joe.

As a result, Joe decides to present the police with the evidence he has collected, but despite the

evidence the police dismisses him a second time. Joe leaves the police station to join Clarissa

for her birthday lunch. At this point, the plot moves towards a second climax. Towards the end

of the lunch, two armed man walk in and shoot the man at the table next to Joe and Clarissa.

Joe is convinced that the attempted murder was set up by Jed and that the shot was intended for

him. After this second climax, Joe decides to buy a gun, in case a similar event should occur.

At that point in the novel, the relationship between Joe and Clarissa has almost entirely

deteriorated, due to their differing opinions about Jed. Only moments after he has collected his

19

gun, he receives a call from Jed saying that he has captured Clarissa and Joe needs to come to

the apartment immediately. Joe returns home and the story concludes in a final climax. Joe is

awaited by Jed and Clarissa and is eventually pushed towards injuring Jed with a gunshot. The

peace returns to the story and the reader learns that Joe and Clarissa are reunited, and Jed is

kept in an institution along with his undying love for Joe.

In this analysis I shall discuss how the two cultures debate is represented in Enduring

Love, specifically on a thematic level. Furthermore, I will look at how literature, science and

religion are included in the representation of the characters. Additionally, I will briefly discuss

how these two cultures and religion are incorporated on a stylistic level, specifically through

the use of vocabulary. Aside from the two cultures debate, I will also discuss the tension within

science, specifically between the contemporary hard sciences, psychoanalysis and popular

culture. Lastly, I shall look at how the postmodern condition is represented through the concepts

of love and truth, and additionally at how mental illness in the novel can be seen as a

consequence of the postmodern condition.

3.1 Two Cultures Debate in Enduring Love

Literature thrives on conflict (Ian McEwan Interview 01:20). In Enduring Love, McEwan

depicts the general conflict between the world of literature and the world of science, and hence

touches on the two cultures debate. Head has described McEwan as a novelist of the third

culture, in between the literary and the scientific (201). Hence, I argue that McEwan does not

favour either culture, but rather explores their complex intertwining, and respective limitations,

in the current cultural climate.

3.1.1 Literature and Science

In the 19th century there is a clear moment when a diverse group of science practitioners began

to develop a separate identity that divided them from “non-scientists” (Cooter 5). In the novel,

Joe describes this movement: “Then two things happened. Science became more difficult, and

20

it became professionalised […] parsonical narratives gave way to hard-edged theories”

(McEwan 48). Joe does not only describe a movement within science but also within the arts:

“At the same time, in literature and in other arts, a new-fangled modernism celebrated formal

structural qualities, inner coherence and self-reference” (McEwan 49).

In Enduring Love, the separation between the humanities and science is expressed: “In

the months after we met, and before we bought the apartment, she had written me some beauties,

passionately abstract in their exploration of the ways our love was different from and superior

to any that had ever existed. Perhaps that’s the essence of a love letter, to celebrate the unique.

I had tried to match hers, but all that sincerity would permit me were the facts, and they seemed

miraculous enough to me” (McEwan 7). In this excerpt, there is a positive evaluation of

subjectivity and objectivity. Because literature is usually connected to the subjective world

whereas science is usually connected to the objective world, it could be argued that there is also

a positive evaluation of both a literary and a scientific approach. The excerpt does not imply

criticism of Clarissa’s love letter, which is mostly constructed of and filled with her emotions

and her personal beliefs about their relationship. At the same time, there is also a positive

evaluation of Joe’s version of a love letter because the letter consists of ‘miraculous’ facts.

Neither of these perspectives is given a negative connotation. However, the novel does contain

some criticism of science – because of its focus on rationality – and on the humanities –

precisely due to its lack of rationality – which will become clearer in the discussion of the

characters.

Along with the new scientist identity discussed above, questions arose about what it

means to be an intellectual and whether being an intellectual is intrinsically connected to science

or could also be applied to other fields of study such as literature (Snow 3-4). From the

following excerpt, it appears that novel-writing and philosophising was connected to

intellectualism: “The dominant artistic form was the novel, great sprawling narratives which

21

not only charted private fates, but made whole societies in mirror image and addressed the

public issues of the day. Most educated people read contemporary novels” (McEwan 48).

However, Joe does not share the idea when he gets acquainted with a group of people, who are

considered intellectuals by his friend Johnny: “‘Relative to the scene,’ Johnny said, ‘these

people are intellectuals.’ ‘Meaning what?’ ‘They got books all over the walls. They like to talk

about the big questions’” (McEwan 190). This excerpt clearly calls into question what it means

to be an intellectual. Moreover, it becomes clear that Joe is unable to grasp the concept of these

‘philosophers’ being intellectuals, so much so that it becomes laughable and he is unable to

control his emotions.

Aside from this rather negative view on the humanities, the novel also contains a critique

on science. Despite the fact that science makes a claim to truth (Atkins 97), it seems that the

characters in the novel are not always prone to accepting rational explanations or science’s

claim to the truth. As previously mentioned, the arts “carry verification within itself” (Chaney

1), and thus have no need for rationality. From a literary point of view, it may appear that

science has gotten lost in its own arrogance and might have reached the end of its abilities. This

is made clear by Jed Parry: “Or that you yourself could make life in a laboratory flask, given a

handful of chemicals and a few million years. It’s not only that you deny there’s a God – you

want to take His place” (McEwan 136-137). In this excerpt it becomes clear that science, having

taken over the task of religion (Cooter 2), has become overly confident, and believes that

everything in life can be explained through rational thinking and scientific research. Similarly,

Snow claimed that science is remarkably optimistic, moreover “shallowly optimistic” (5).

However, Atkins argues that science’s confidence is justified and that its competence appears

boundless (97). These conflicting opinions again reflect the two cultures debate.

22

3.1.2 Divide Within the Mind Sciences

As mentioned in the introduction, there is not only a distinction between the two cultures –

literature and science – but also a dichotomy within the field of the mind sciences. First, there

is the more recent neurological focus in scientific methodology that is used to explain mental

dysfunctions. Second, there is the older methodology of psychoanalysis, a practice which is still

used but is no longer dominant, and the subgenre of popular science. I shall start by discussing

those elements in the novel that are clear examples of a more modern ‘neurological’ attitude.

Second, I shall focus on psycho-analytical practices that are mentioned and the subgenre of

popular science.

Throughout the novel there are multiple ways in which characters search for

explanations for their emotions and different ways in which they manage them. The following

quote provides a clear example of how Joe founds his suppressed feeling of fear: “Wasn’t it an

elemental emotion, along with disgust, surprise, anger and elation, in Ekman’s celebrated cross-

cultural study? Was not fear and the recognition of it in others associated with neural activity

in the amygdala, sunk deep in the old mammalian part of our brains from where it fired its

instant responses?” (McEwan 43). What is relevant here, is the fact that Joe dismantles his

emotion of fear to neural activity in a lower, more primitive part of the brain called “the proto-

reptilian brain” or “R-complex” (Ploog 489). Joe realises that he is unable to identify the feeling

of fear, and looks for an explanation in the brain. Furthermore, as a way of understanding why

he was unable to identify his emotions, he again looks for possible explanations in the brain:

“It may have been an illusion caused by visual persistence, or a neutrally tripped delay of

perception, [...] (McEwan 44).

In addition to the neurological methodology, there are other scientific practices that can

be found in the novel: “Their shock was a mere shadow of our own, […], and for this reason it

was a temptation to exaggerate, to throw a rope of superlatives across the abyss that divided

23

experience from its representation by anecdote. Over the days and weeks, Clarissa and I told

our story many times to friends, colleagues and relatives” (McEwan 36). As a result of the

dramatic balloon accident, Joe and Clarissa feel the need to talk about the traumatic experience,

in order to make sense of what they witnessed. This need to talk, in order to cure themselves of

their trauma, can easily be compared to a method used in Freudian psychoanalysis, referred to

as ‘the talking cure’ (MacCabe 1). It is a term that would later on be used for all forms of

psychotherapy and counselling (Launer 465). ‘The talking cure’ is a practice that dates back to

the beginning of the 20th century, which is made clear by the following excerpt: “Talking the

events over with friends no longer seems to help because, she thinks, she has reached a core of

senselessness” (McEwan 80). This suggests that in these modern times, the ‘talking cure’ is no

longer a helpful way of overcoming trauma and mental illness. The method is outdated and

hence there is a need for a new way of treatment. Not only the ‘talking cure’ method is

mentioned, but other psychoanalytical concepts are mentioned as well, for example Freud’s

principle of tracing mental health issues back to traumatic events that happened in the past

(Mitchell and Black 4). This concept is introduced when Joe encounters a groups of supposed

intellectuals and is unable to control his laughter:

“As my lungs filled I knew there was still more laughter to come. I hid behind a

yodelling shouting sneeze […] ‘It’s the bleach,’ I heard Johnny say. […] ‘Sorry!

Ammonia! Allergy!’ […] ‘Basically,’ he [Xan] said, looking at me, ‘your allergy is a

form of imbalance.’ When I said this was unfalsifiable, he looked pleased. […]

‘Basically,’ he went on, ‘there has to be a reason for an allergy, and research has shown

that in over seventy per cent of cases the roots can be traced back basically to frustrated

needs in early childhood’” (McEwan 196-197)

24

According to Breuer and Freud, symptoms had to be traced back to their origins in order to

reveal their true meaning, and make them disappear (Mitchell and Black 4). Xan clearly shares

this idea and implies that Joe’s allergies need to be traced back to their source.

In addition to the criticism of old scientific methods, there is also a strong critique on a

subcategory of science, which is called popular science (Brockman 18): “What I had written

wasn’t true. It wasn’t written in pursuit of truth, it wasn’t science. It was journalism, magazine

journalism, whose ultimate standard was readability” (McEwan 50). According to Joe, popular

science is not viewed as something positive and respectable due to the lack of truth it contains

and its focus on the narrative. In the excerpt, the genre is compared to journalism, which, from

a scientific perspective, is not the sphere of intellectuals nor the field that proclaims the truth,

but rather an area that aims at public entertainment (Broks 24). This idea dates back to mid-19th

century, where popular science was seen as a danger to the natural order of science. Anecdotal

science was seen as an occupation for amateurs, which is how Joe expresses it: “It was the

nineteenth-century culture of the amateur that nourished the anecdotal scientist” (McEwan 48).

Science was not supposed to arise from “drawing rooms and dinner parties, newspapers and

lecturers” (Broks 23). Ironically, Joe has become a popular science writer – something I will

elaborate on in the next section. Moreover, he decides to write an article about the disappearance

of narrative in science: “I wanted to write about the death of anecdote and narrative in science,

my idea being that Darwin’s generation was the last to permit itself the luxury of storytelling in

published articles” (McEwan 41). This excerpt indicates that the narrative genre of science,

which was so often used during the 19th century, can no longer be seen as the dominant genre.

Joe argues that “storytelling was deep in the nineteenth-century soul” (McEwan 48). In the late

19th century, ‘popular science’ was seen as an acceptable form of science writing – although

not always received well by elite scientists (Broks 23). After the Second World War, science

started to fuse with other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and so on. Due to this

25

merge, “science’s claim to be the truth” was undermined (Broks 110). Because of the loss of

the truth-claim it appears that in the late 20th century, the popularity of popular science began

to decrease.

To summarise, by combining different discourses, McEwan is able to address the

tensions between these discourses – the scientific and the narrative – and thus places himself

and his novel in the two cultures debate.

3.1.3 Vocabularic Representation of the Two Cultures Debate

As mentioned before in the introduction, authors of the neuronovel often use science as a tool

for novel-writing (Ortega and Vidal 330). However, I argue that McEwan does not only use

scientific vocabulary as a tool for writing the novel Enduring Love, but uses other specific

vocabularies as well, specifically religious and poetic. This use of various vocabularies stresses

the presence of the two cultures; science on the one hand and literature on the other. In addition

to Snow’s two cultures, the language use also points out the presence of religion in the novel.

More generally, it can be said that by the use of specific vocabulary, McEwan is able to combine

different discourses of the postmodern world.

First, there is what Ortega and Vidal call “neurobiologizing vocabulary” (340). A first

example of this can be found when Joe is visiting Logan’s wife. While she is expressing her

grief and her confusion about her husband’s possible affair, Joe has the following thought:

“What I saw in Jean’s grief reduced my own situation to uncomplicated elements, to a periodic

table of simple good sense” (McEwan 112). In this excerpt, Joe, the rational scientist, compares

his own tangled situation with Jed Parry to the periodic table of Dmitri Mendelejev. As claimed

by Ortega and Vidal, McEwan manages to incorporate scientific language in a context where

that use is not expected and stands out (342). Because Joe is a very rational character, this

comparison is not entirely unexpected. However, a similar occurrence can be found in an

utterance by Clarissa: “He’s not the cause of your agitation, he’s a symptom” (McEwan 84).

26

Clarissa is referring to Jed as a symptom of Joe’s discontent with his work. By doing so, she

steps out of her role as the romantic – which will be elaborated on later – who does not easily

adopt science vocabulary. Throughout the novel, there are other occurrences that are less clear

and less prominent, for example: “He was in a paralysis of will, a state known as learned

helplessness, often noted in laboratory animals subjected to unusual stress” (McEwan 11). In

this excerpt, the reader is confronted with a rather emotionless description of Harry, the boy

who is stuck in the hot air balloon. The scientific language use appears subtler than in the

previous example, but it does give the impression that Joe is observing the boy as a scientific

laboratory technician would. From this we can say that neuronovels have the ability to combine

“neurological vocabulary with phenomenological descriptions” (Ortega and Vidal 346). This

presence of scientific vocabulary highlights the presence of science in contemporary novels.

Aside from science related vocabulary, there is also a presence of religious vocabulary.

Religious references are to be expected from Jed, who is an adamant believer, but as a reader

you would not expect Joe, the rationalist, to appropriate such language. In spite of this, there

are occurrences where Joe adopts religious vocabulary: “But his rage was compelling and I was

forced to look on, amazed, although I never quite lost faith in the redeeming possibility of a bus

crushing him as he stood there, twenty-five feet away, pleading as he damned me” (McEwan

91). The words “faith”, “redeeming” and “damned” can be used in any type of context but

because all three are placed within one sentence their religious connotation becomes more

prominent. Another conspicuous religious reference can be found towards the end of the novel:

“We were no longer in the great chain. It was our own complexity that had expelled us from

the Garden” (McEwan 207). As mentioned by Head, McEwan refers to the Fall, the expulsion

from Paradise (Head 136), which is very clearly a religious reference. The use of religious

vocabulary pulls the readers away from the scientific centre of the novel, which is Jed’s illness,

27

and draws them towards the ‘old world’ where the inexplicable was accounted for through

religion (Lustig 135).

In addition to the science vocabulary and the religious language use, there are also

examples of poetic language present in the novel. Throughout the novel there are multiple

letters inserted, written by Jed. These letters often contain rather poetic sentences, for example:

“The rain has stopped, the birds have taken up their song again and the air is even brighter.

Ending this letter is like a parting” (McEwan 98). At first, the sentence seems like a very classic

motif of nature awakening, that can be found in 18th century poetry and in poetry from 19th

century Romanticism (Deane 63). More importantly, the excerpt strongly resembles a line from

the Bible, specifically from Songs of Solomon: “For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and

gone; The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice

of the turtle is heard in our land;”(New King James Bible, Songs of Solomon 2.11-.12). Despite

the fact that this line is part of a Song of Solomon, I argue that it has a poetic allure. This seems

to be relevant within the context of the novel because only two pages further Joe refers to the

letter saying: “I thought I knew what was bothering her. It was Parry’s artful technique of

suggesting a past, a pact, a collusion, a secret life of glances and gestures, […]” (McEwan 100).

Joe is talking about how Clarissa, who is passionate about poetry and literature, is charmed by

Jed’s way of phrasing his feelings. As mentioned before, literature and poetry used to be

considered as proclaimers of the truth. Unlike Joe, Clarissa tends to put more faith into literature

and poetry than in scientific rationality. Because of that, it can be said that Clarissa is prone to

believing Jed’s letter over Joe’s rational thinking.

A final important way in which McEwan uses language is through combining the world

of poetry, or more generally the humanities, and the postmodern world, for example: “As we

walked into the wood the wind began to get up and the branches creaked like rusted machinery”

(McEwan 5). The start of the sentence constructs the expectation of a poetic sentence, due to

28

the description of nature that is often found in 18th century poetry1 (Keegan 2). However, at the

end of the sentence where one would expect a romantic metaphor for the creaking branches,

the reader is presented with an industrial image of machinery. By combining the natural world

of classic poetry and the modern world of machinery, McEwan unites the narrative discourse

with the scientific discourse.

3.2 Two Cultures Debate: Joe, Jed and Clarissa

In Enduring Love there is a clear conflict between “reason and faith, and rationality and

madness” (Malcolm 159). According to Seaman, as cited in Malcolm, these conflicts arise from

“the struggle between Joe and Jed” (159). More generally, this entails a battle between

literature, religion and science but also an internal battle within science, more specifically

between the hard sciences and the more narrative popular science. I have already discussed how

these different dichotomies are represented in the novel on a more superficial level by looking

at language use and general utterances by the characters. Now, I shall focus specifically on the

main characters’ personality, respectively Joe, Clarissa and Jed.

3.2.1 Joe Rose

First, the protagonist of the novel, Joe Rose. He is depicted as a strong defender of science and

rational thinking. His rationalism does not only appear when he is harassed by Jed, but arises

in his relationship with Clarissa and other events in his life as well. He is unable to leave

rationality behind and result to intentional irrational behaviour: “Nor can he break the habit of

responding to an accusation with a detailed, reasoned answer, instead of coming back with an

accusation of his own” (McEwan 86). Joe, Clarissa and Jed, all seek comfort in their own world,

respectively the world of science, literature and religion, in order to make sense of what happens

1 Although nature had been present in poetry before the 18th century, Keegan points out that in the 18th century,

due to the growth of “the Enlightenment empiricism and scientific experimentation”, questions about how nature

should be represented started to arise within poetic circles and nature became more foregrounded.

29

around them. Joe is unable to grasp the incontrollable situation of Jed’s love for him. The point

when he realises Jed’s behaviour must be due to De Clérambault syndrome, he is able to find

peace because he has found a reason for the uncommon situation he finds himself in. The ability

to put a scientific label on Jed’s strange behaviour causes a great relief for Joe (Palmer 297).

However, despite Joe’s extreme rational behaviour he is not always perceived as being right or

telling the truth. This becomes very clear when he is talking to the police about his trouble with

Jed Parry. In spite of his efforts to collect evidence and tell his story in a coherent fashion, the

police remains reluctant to believe him. The first time Joe tells his story at the police station,

they do not believe him due to insufficient evidence: “‘I’d like to report a case of harassment,

systematic harassment.’ […] ‘Has he inflicted any physical harm on you?’ ‘No, but he …’”

(McEwan 73). After another series of questions the police officers believe that there is no real

threat: “‘I’m sorry caller. This is not a police matter. Unless he harms you, or your property, or

threatens the same he’s committing no offence’” (McEwan 74). After this unsuccessful meeting

at the police station, he realises that he needs evidence to prove his case, but it appears that the

evidence that he eventually provides does not seem sufficient either. The police are not the only

ones who are sceptical of Joe’s account of his harassment. Initially, Clarissa refuses to believe

that Jed is a mad man: “I really don’t understand what’s upsetting you. Some poor fellow has a

crush on you and is trailing you about. Come on, it’s a joke, Joe!” (McEwan 57-58). After other

occurrences of harassment, Joe decides to present Clarissa with a letter sent by Jed to convince

her that he is really crazy. Despite his attempts to convince her, she only comments that Jed’s

writing resembles that of Joe, suggesting that the letter might not be real (McEwan 100).

Moreover, she suggests that Jed’s obsession might be not real and that Jed is simply a fragment

of Joe’s imagination: “You were so intense about him as soon as you met him. It’s like you

invented him” (McEwan 86). Similar to the police, she claims that she needs to see evidence

before she can be persuaded: “‘Why did you wipe the messages off the tape?’ This throws him.

30

‘What are you saying?’ ‘It’s a simple question. Thirty messages would be evidence of

harassment you could take to the police.’ ‘The police aren’t…’ ‘All right. I could listen to them.

They’d be evidence for me’” (McEwan 85). Part of the reason why Clarissa is unable to believe

Joe, is because he is initially not honest with her and has erased the messages. In addition, Joe

fails to mention that Jed had called him the night of the accident to confess his love. As argued

by Palmer, the fact that Clarissa and the police are reluctant to believe Joe’s story creates irony.

Joe is supposedly the rational character who has diagnosed Jed with a mental illness.

However, it appears that not Jed but Joe is perceived as the paranoid mad man (302). Despite

the fact that Joe believes his life is controlled by other people’s obsessions (McEwan 121), it is

not Jed’s obsession that becomes troubling in the novel but rather Joe’s obsession with Jed. It

could even be argued that Joe rather than Jed is in fact the neurological patient in the novel.

This is confirmed during Joe’s second hearing at the police station, where they suspect him to

suffer from a mental illness: “‘Any history of psychiatric illness, Mr Rose?’” (McEwan 156).

Inspector Linley expresses his doubts about Joe’s story, which eventually leads him to think

that Joe might be the mad one instead of Jed. So much so that due to the uncertainties in the

novel, the reader is able to read the story in different ways. First, the reader can chose to believe

Joe, but at the same time the novel suggests that Joe might be lying, and that maybe Clarissa

and Jed are the ones telling the truth (Malcolm 179). Clarissa and Jed’s scepticism of Joe could

be interpreted as scepticism of Joe’s rational approach to mental illness, or in general the more

neuroscientific approach to mental illness.

In addition to Joe’s rational personality, he also reflects the separation within the mind

sciences, due to his degree in hard sciences and his profession within popular science. Burnham,

as cited in Broks, claims that in the late 19th century even “the popularization was developing

into a ‘two-tiered’ activity”. This ‘two-tiered’ activity was on one part “engendered by the ‘men

of science’”, who saw popular science as an opportunity to educate their lay audience, and the

31

other by a “typically more commercial ‘newspaper science’”, which had lost its educational

purpose and aimed for entertainment (61). In the novel, it is unclear whether Joe should be

considered as part of the ‘men of science’ or ‘newspaper science’. However, it appears that Joe

sees himself as part of the latter rather than the former: “I was a journalist, a commentator, an

outsider to my own profession. […] Now, no scientist, not even a lab technician or college

porter, would ever take me seriously again” (McEwan 77). In this excerpt, we can see that Joe

does not respect his own profession and considers himself a ‘newspaper scientist’ rather than

an educator. This also explains why, after the balloon accident, he feels the need to go back into

the hard sciences. Joe even results to calling himself a parasite: “In my bad moments the thought

returns that I’m a parasite, and I probably would not feel this way if I did not have a good

physics degree and a doctorate on quantum electrodynamics” (McEwan 75). In the late 19th

century, “excluding the public became a defining feature of what it meant to be scientific”

(Broks 24), which could explain Joe’s disregard for his own profession. Other than his

disapproval of his own profession, he also expresses his loss of faith in the so-called ‘talking

cure’: “My sense of failure in science, of being parasitic and marginal, did not quite leave me.

It never had really. […] Twenty years ago I might have hired a professional listener, but

somewhere along the way I had lost faith in the talking cure. A genteel fraud, in my view”

(McEwan 99). This indicates that Joe does not only distance himself from popular science but

also from the methodology of psychoanalysis. To summarise, one can say that Joe is a rational

scientist in theory, but in practice he embodies the role of a popular scientist who is not taken

seriously by science itself, nor by Clarissa or his surroundings.

3.2.2 Clarissa

Next, I will take a closer look at Clarissa’s character. She is Joe’s partner but looking at their

interests, it could also be said that they are each other’s opposites. As argued by Head, Ian

McEwan was “swift to incorporate the counterpoint of Clarissa’s own antagonistic response to

32

Joe” (129). Opposite to Joe, Clarissa is a representation of the world of literature and poetry.

She is not driven by reason but she is completely driven by her emotions and undying love for

19th century poet John Keats (Malcolm 162). As a result, Clarissa is very sceptical about Joe’s

story but also about science in general. She does not rely on science to explain the inexplicable,

as Joe claims in the novel: “But Clarissa does not hear reason” (McEwan 87). By creating the

character of Clarissa, McEwan stages conflicting responses of scientific and narrative nature to

Jed’s illness. Clarissa views Jed’s condition not as an illness but simply as a fleeting crush. She

offers a different, non-scientific and more subjective perspective on Jed. As argued by Ortega

and Vidal, humanists do not welcome science’s approach to consciousness. Because they are

not familiar with scientific practices, they experience it as a threat (Ortega and Vidal 337). This

idea applies to Clarissa because she is very defensive towards science. Her defensive behaviour

might be due to a traumatic event: “In her early twenties a routine surgical procedure had left

Clarissa unable to bear children” (McEwan 31). It becomes clear that science has failed her and

she is hence unable to trust it. She also believes that science changes so rapidly that it becomes

difficult to trust: “‘Twenty years ago you and your friends were all socialists and you blamed

the environment for everyone’s hard luck. Now you’ve got us trapped in our genes, and there’s

reason for everything’” (McEwan 70). This excerpt leads to a second characteristic of Clarissa:

her never-ending search for meaning. For her, it is not about finding a reason for everything

that happens but about finding a higher meaning behind it. According to her, science is in part

responsible for the loss of a larger meaning: “Everything was being stripped down, she said,

and in the process some larger meaning was lost” (McEwan 70). In the first few days after the

balloon accident, Clarissa is struggling with the event because she needs to be able to give

meaning to what happened in order to move on and is unable to do so: “She was aware of me

watching her and glanced up. ‘It must mean something,’ she said dully. I hesitated. I’d never

like this line of thinking. Logan’s death was pointless – that was part of the reason we were in

33

shock” (McEwan 32). The need for meaning is universal, it is known that being unable to give

life and events meaning could lead to a feeling of emptiness (Baumeister and Wilson 322).

However, what immediately becomes clear in the previous excerpt, is that Joe does not share

this universal feeling. Joe does not believe that there is a higher meaning behind everything.

Clarissa and Joe can be seen as a reflection or a representation of the dichotomy of literature

and science, due to their different opinions regarding science and Jed’s condition, and because

of their belief or disbelief in a larger meaning. However, from a more nuanced view, Clarissa

can also be interpreted as a representation of the combination of science and literature. At the

end of the novel, the reader learns that Clarissa and Joe have reconciled. This could indicate

that she has embraced Joe’s rational approach to the world. In this way, Clarissa could be seen

as a representation of the new genre within literature that incorporates science.

3.2.3 Jed Parry

The third, and last, character that I shall discuss is Jed Parry. Jed is the man who is suffering

from De Clérambault syndrome and who believes that Joe is passionately in love with him but

refuses to acknowledge it. On a certain level, Jed and Clarissa are quite similar due to their

interest in, respectively, religion and literature. Snow has claimed that “non-scientists tend to

think of scientists as brash and boastful” (4). The reason why Clarissa and Jed are quite similar

characters, could be because they can be categorised under the term ‘non-scientists’ and are

both quite sceptical towards science. Jed expresses his feelings about science in a letter to Joe.

Jed is a strong believer of the fact that science is overly confident: “I worry for what your

arrogance could bring down on you” (McEwan 135). After he has read all of Joe’s articles, he

feels bad for Joe because he is unable to believe and is stuck in his ‘narrow’ scientific mind:

“He needs my help, I told myself whenever I came close to giving up, he needs me to set him

free from his little cage of reason. I had moments when I wondered if I had truly understood

what God wanted from me” (McEwan 133). In this excerpt, it becomes clear that Jed wants to

34

free Joe from his narrow mindedness and introduce him to the world of religion because he

believes that is what God wants him to do. He believes that is his purpose. Consequently, this

means that Jed has put his faith into another culture. As previously mentioned, Jed is an adamant

believer. As a result of that he believes that truth is not connected to science or reason but is

undeniably connected to God and his will: “Through faith alone, Joe. Not through facts or

pretend facts, or intellectual arrogance, but by trusting in God’s wisdom and love as a living

presence in our lives, the kind of presence that no human, let alone literary character, could ever

have” (McEwan 134). In the Scriptures, Saint Paul has claimed that people should not result to

human wisdom when they are in search for the truth, but find it in the words of the Holy Spirit

(Chaney 6). In Jed’s world, truth is not intertwined with science but is irrevocably connected to

God’s word. It could be argued that Jed is unwilling to leave Joe alone due to the fact that God

has commanded him to save Joe. Disrespecting those wishes would be going against his faith

and what he believes is truthful.

Jed’s most prominent characteristic in the novel is his undying love for God and his

undeniable belief in God’s will. His religious attitude is introduced only moments after the

tragic balloon accident. When Joe runs down to find Logan’s body, Jed follows him and asks

him if he would like to pray: “‘What we could do,’ he said with a seriousness which warned

against mockery, ‘is to pray together?’” (McEwan 25). Unsurprisingly, Joe rejects Jed’s

proposal and starts to walk away, back to Clarissa. Jed is not defeated yet and suggests that God

has sent him to Joe: “‘Look, we don’t know each other and there’s no reason why you should

trust me. Except that God has brought us together in this tragedy and we have to, you know,

make whatever sense of it we can?’” (McEwan 25). His belief that God brought him to Joe for

a purpose is a major characteristic of Jed. Similar to Clarissa, he has a need to find a purpose

or a meaning for the things that happen in his life. The only way for Jed to make sense of the

situation he is in, is to know that there is a purpose for it. According to him, praying, not science

35

or rational thinking, will help them to find a meaning behind the tragic event and will help them

in overcoming their traumatic experience. The idea of needing meaning and a purpose is

expressed again later on when Joe encounters Jed in the street: “I said nothing. Parry drew

another deep breath. ‘I don’t know why you’ve chosen me. All I know is that I love you too

now, and that there’s a reason for it, a purpose’” (McEwan 63). He believes that there is a larger

meaning behind why God has paired him and Joe together, and is hence unwilling to give up

on him. To summarise, by employing the three characters as representations of the scientific,

literary and religious discourse, McEwan is able to incorporate the two cultures debate and the

tension within the mind sciences in his novel. In the next section, I will discuss how these three

characters are affected by the postmodern setting of the novel.

3.3 Postmodern Discourse in Enduring Love: Postmodern Madness

One of the assumptions of postmodern discourse is that “language constitutes, rather than

reflects, the world, and that knowledge is therefore always distorted by language, that is, by the

historical circumstances and the specific environment in which it arises” (Bertens 6). Lyotard

has discussed the effect the postmodern epoch has had on the nature of our knowledge in his

book The Postmodern Condition (Bertens 123). As Bertens states, “Lyotard’s point of departure

is the demise of what he terms ‘metanarratives’” (123-124). Metanarratives are “universal truths

that underpin western civilization” (Bertens 124). Similar to language, metanarratives have lost

their self-reflexity, and hence their ability to “represent anything outside [themselves]” (6).

Bertens points out that “if representations do not and cannot represent the world, then inevitably

all representations are political in that they cannot help reflecting the ideological frameworks

in which they arise” (7). Consequently, it could be said that metanarratives are no longer able

to function on a universal scale but are now forced to function more locally (Jameson xi). The

underlying ready-made structures are no longer attainable. According to Bertens, the

transcendent truth has become absent. As a result, Jameson claims that “the older master-

36

narratives of legitimation no longer function in the service of the scientific” (xi). This implies

that science has lost its claim to truth and is required to find validation elsewhere, for example

within a narrative approach (Bertens 125).

Similar to the loss of a transcendent truth, the postmodern epoch, specifically

postmodern romance, has witnessed the loss of the comfortable narrative of love (Illouz 175).

During the Victorian period, love was seen as an attraction between two unique lovers. This

‘grand amour’ was a life-long narrative, which meant that the number of partners throughout a

life time was largely restricted (Illouz 175). In postmodernism, however, this life-long narrative

of love collapsed and was compressed to shorter ‘affairs’ and hence more possible partners.

The Victorian ‘grand amour’ was supposed to be an enduring love, but in postmodern times,

people realised that this everlasting love usually resulted in either the parting or the death of the

lovers and was hence doomed (Illouz 175).

As discussed in the previous chapter, Joe, Clarissa and Jed are represented in the novel

through the culture they affiliate with. I argue that they use that culture as a way of escaping

reality, a reality that has become inexplicable and where master narratives such as truth and

love no longer function on the surface but could be considered as “buried” (Jameson xii). As

claimed by Head, McEwan cleverly plays off the desire for order and closure against the radical

uncertainty that haunts the novel (140). According to Head, the novel raises multiple questions

about “the difficulty of objective judgement” and hence also the degree of reliability of Joe as

narrator. The readers’ desire for closure is pressing, specifically the need to end up with the true

version of the story (140). In this section, I will explore how the characters seek order and

closure within this inevitable uncertainty of the postmodern epoch. I shall discuss how the

characters are affected by these discourses and specifically how the characters deal with the

confrontation of the postmodern condition. I shall thus look at how, mainly, the collapse of the

absolute love and truth is reflected in the novel. More specifically, I shall look at how this

37

collapse is reflected in the three characters and thus discuss how they are represented through

a postmodern lens.

Firstly, there is the character Joe Rose. As mentioned before, he is a rational scientist

who places all his trust in scientific truths. It could be argued that Joe’s obsession with science

and his return to the original hard sciences is in fact a search for the grand narrative of truth.

However, he is unable to return to the hard sciences and is hence unable to write or produce the

truth. He has ended up in a postmodern world of popular science, a new language game where

the narrative has entered the non-narrative science as a consequence of the loss of absolute truth

(Lyotard 27-28). Joe finds himself in an inexplicable situation due to Jed’s insistence of their

love. As Joe claims in the novel, he has “a talent for clarity” (McEwan 75). One could argue

that he is fleeing from a situation he cannot explain or clarify and tries to escape into science:

“Voids like these were familiar, and the only way across them was work. I went in to my study,

turned on the lights and the computer and spread out my library notes. […] Working was an

evasion – I didn’t even doubt it at the time. I had no answers to my questions and thinking

would get me no further” (McEwan 47-48). As can be seen from this excerpt, his reason has

failed him because he cannot make sense of the situation with Parry. Joe tries to escape the void

and thus reality by focusing on his work, specifically by writing a ‘scientific’ article.

Clarissa, on the other hand, falls back on reading and researching literature as a way of

ignoring the void and loss of grand narratives. For her, literature contains knowledge and as

Lyotard has argued, mourning the loss of meaning is a consequence of the realisation that

knowledge is no longer predominantly narrative (26). She is reluctant to accept science as the

basis of knowledge. As mentioned in the previous chapter, she needs there to be a higher

meaning behind everything in order to make sense of things she cannot explain. The idea that

literature can serve as a way to escape the postmodern reality is expressed in the novel: “‘But

do we trust this story?’ Jocelyn said. ‘Didn’t I read in Gittings that we shouldn’t?’ ‘We don’t’

38

Clarissa began to count off the reasons. […] ‘Yes,’ Jocelyn said eagerly. ‘It isn’t true, but we

need it. A kind of myth’” (McEwan 169). As expressed here by the character Jocelyn, similar

to the old world where literature and religion served to explain the inexplicable, in the

postmodern world we need stories and myths to ‘survive’, even if the stories are not necessarily

true or proven.

Lastly, Jed Parry is the most important character when discussing the effects of

postmodernism. In the novel, Jed appears to be a believer of the ‘grand amour’ concept. A love

that relies on revelation – “a sudden unforeseen conviction of the unique desirability of another

person” – and secular salvation – “a love that could redeem their entire existence even though

they might die of it” (Illouz 176). This description of love seems familiar when we think of how

Jed’s love for Joe started. They met during a tragic event and, according to Jed, instantly fell in

love. Jed strongly believes that their love will never die, which is expressed multiple times in

his letters to Joe. However, in the novel Jed is not represented as a romantic but as a De

Clérambault patient. Joe suggests that the syndrome functions as a mirror and reflects a world

in which love was still a life-long narrative: “De Clérambault’s syndrome was a dark, distorting

mirror that reflected and parodied a brighter world of lovers whose reckless abandon to their

cause was sane” (McEwan 128). By pointing out that Jed’s love is a parody of a brighter and

perfect love, he points out that, in the world in which they live, the perfect love is no longer

attainable. Moreover, Joe implies that the search for the perfect love used to be perceived as

sanity, whereas now Jed’s search for the ‘grand amour’ is perceived as insanity. In the excerpt,

Joe suggests the idea that De Clérambault syndrome as an illness is a consequence of the loss

of the ‘grand amour’ in the postmodern epoch. Jed’s illness could be seen as wishful thinking.

His persistence is a reflection of his longing for a Victorian love. He is chasing a dream, a love

that is no longer attainable in the postmodern world. As argued by Malcolm, Jed’s love is blind

and “immune to denial and disproof” (158). This suggests that in a postmodern world where

39

grand narratives are no longer sustainable, the need for love and truth can lead to madness. This

implies that madness is a symptom of a world that people no longer recognise and refuse to

accept. In a postmodern environment “the symptom is not the chaos but the first response to the

chaos”, chaos being postmodernism (Fleissner 389). This implies that Jed’s illness did not arise

isolated from its surroundings but is a product of its environment. Jed’s idea of their perfect

love is countered by Joe’s perception of the situation, because from his point of view, their

presumed love is not a fairy-tale but a diseased love (Malcolm 174). As much as Joe and Jed

are different, it could be argued that Jed and Clarissa are quite similar in certain ways, which

was already discussed in the previous section. However, one could also argue that it is perhaps

due to Clarissa’s reluctance to accept the new world that she is unable to recognise Parry as a

madman, because she also strives for love and truth and can thus empathise with his feelings.

3.4 Conclusion

In this analysis I have shown that Ian McEwan’s novel Enduring Love thrives on conflict. More

specifically, it thrives on the conflict between science, literature and religion but also the

conflict within science. The conflicts are expressed in the novel through general thematic

elements, different vocabulary choices and the representation of the characters. Firstly, I have

discussed the general thematic elements that represent literature and science. I argued that

McEwan does not present the different cultures in a negative or positive way, but rather that

they are approached from more or less neutral perspective. In addition to the opposition in

science and literature, I have also discussed the conflict within the field of science, namely the

conflict between scientific practices from the early 20th century such as psychoanalysis and

neurological practices from present time but also the controversial subject of popularisation

within science. The second way in which conflict was represented in the novel was through the

use of different vocabularies. I have argued that the Enduring Love contained multiple of

examples of scientific vocabulary, or more specifically neurologising vocabulary in non-

40

scientific contexts. Thirdly, there is a clear opposition among the three main characters. Joe can

be characterised as the rational scientist, Clarissa as the passionate poetry lover and Jed as the

adamant believer in God. It could be argued that they each represent the cultures mentioned

above and thus reflect the cultural conflict. The character Joe, however, is not as one-sided,

because, similar to the dichotomy within science, Joe is also divided between his passion of the

hard sciences, on the one hand, and his actual occupation in popular science on the other. Lastly,

the oppositions between the characters are also represented in the way they chose to accept or

rather reject their reality. All three characters are unable to accept the circumstances they find

themselves in. The world they live in has lost the master narratives of love and truth. I argued

that the characters flee into either science, literature or religion to escape that postmodern world

and use these cultures to try and restore universal truth and love.

41

4 The Echo Maker

“Yes, life is a fiction. But whatever it might mean, the fiction is steerable” (Powers 548). The

characters in The Echo Maker are surrounded by fictions. They are all in search for the truth

but are unable to find it, torn between the world of nature, outdated scientific practices and the

world of postmodernity. As stated by Zapf “there exists a constant tension not only between an

increasingly rationalised civilisation and the external natural environment, but between the

abstract, secondary forms of modern reality and the internal ‘nature of human beings’” (90).

This opposition between the rationalised civilisation and the external natural environment is

clearly depicted in Richard Powers’ The Echo Maker. As stated by Zaph, “literary texts gain

their particular explorative and semiotic energy by bringing to interaction […] what is otherwise

separated by cultural convention and practice” (91). I will argue that Powers succeeds in

combining what is otherwise separate and hence moves beyond this opposition, as well as

others.

In The Echo Maker, the reader is presented with a postmodern world where the focus

still lies on nature due to the absence of factories, on the one hand, but also encounters a fully

modernised world in which the focus on nature has decreased in significance and has had to

make room for cultural innovations. This age of science, cultural innovation and distant nature

is reflected in The Echo Maker. Similar to Enduring Love, The Echo Maker opens with a

dramatic scene. The reader is the witness of Mark Schluter crashing his car in the company of

cranes landing on the Platte. Karin, Mark’s sister, immediately returns to her home town when

she hears the news, only to find her brother unable to speak or tell her what happened. Shortly

after, his condition worsens due to increased intracranial pressure. When Karin returns to the

hospital, her brother has fallen into a coma. Karin consults Mark’s neurologist Dr Hayes, but it

appears that there is not much more he can do. When Mark awakens he is initially unable to

speak or move in a controlled way. After a period of rehabilitation he regains his speech and

42

motor function. However, he is unable to correctly identify Karin as his sister. Dr Hayes informs

Karin that her brother is suffering from Capgras syndrome. According to Dr Hayes, there have

been occurrences in which accident induced Capgras patients have shown improvement on their

own. However, after some time, Mark has shown no improvement and Karin decides to start

looking outside of classic neuroscience. Daniel, her partner and Mark’s childhood friend, gives

her one of Dr Weber’s books as a present. Karin decides to call in the help of popular scientist

Dr Weber to provide a different approach to Mark’s illness. Weber travels to Kearney,

Nebraska, but despite his efforts to cure Mark using a more psychoanalytical approach, he fails

as well. Upon this failure he decides to return to New York. In the meanwhile back in Kearney,

Mark fails to improve. Moreover, his paranoia increases, he fails to recognise his dog, his house

and his entire town. He becomes obsessed with finding out what has happened to him that night

and increasingly believes he is the victim of a government conspiracy. He eventually develops

Frégoli syndrome as well, when he believes that Daniel is following him in various disguises.

Karin wonders whether her brother will ever get better and contacts Dr Weber again. After

being informed that the behavioural therapy is not working, Dr Weber decides to return to

Kearney out of guilt. He has been accused of being a neurological opportunist because he uses

patient’s stories as case studies for his books, and hence makes a profit out of them. He meets

with Mark and eventually recommends antipsychotics. This recommendation places Karin in a

dilemma because the drugs can have a few side effects. She eventually decides to let Mark take

the drugs and hopes for the best. However, Mark overdoses and is admitted in the hospital. In

the meanwhile, Weber discovers what really happened to Mark the night of his accident. His

caregiver Barbara was out in the street that night and caused Mark to spin his car and end up

off the road. Everything is eventually cleared up in the novel and the drugs start to take. They

are able to restore Mark to his old self and he regains his ability to recognise his sister.

43

In this analysis I shall discuss how Richard Powers combines the natural world with the

world of culture, and how this combination of discourses offers different perspectives on

Mark’s condition. In The Echo Maker, Powers alternates nature and culture on a thematic level

as well as a stylistic level. I shall discuss how the world of nature as well as the world of culture,

mostly science, is represented in the novel. Additionally, I shall also look at how the different

characters fit into these discourses, and specifically at how the characters approach Mark’s

condition. Similar to my analysis of Enduring Love, I shall discuss the conflict within science.

Lastly, I shall also look at how in The Echo Maker the postmodern condition is represented

within that nature versus nurture or rather culture debate. More specifically, I will look at how

Capgras syndrome is a disease evoked by the postmodern epoch in which the story is situated.

Additionally, I will suggest a more symbolic reading in which Mark’s estrangement can be seen

as a result of the events of 9/11.

4.1 Conflicting Discourse of Nature and Culture

Similar to Enduring Love, The Echo Maker also contains a version of the two cultures debate.

However, instead of an opposition between literature and science as in C.P. Snow’s two cultures

debate, The Echo Maker implies a more prominent opposition between nature and culture2. As

a result, the novel is filled with conflicting descriptions. On the one hand, the reader is often

confronted with lengthy descriptions of the natural environment in which the story is set, but at

the same time the reader is also confronted with long stretches of scientific discourse between

the characters and is of course confronted with neuroscience and other mind sciences due to

Mark’s illness: Capgras syndrome. As stated by Lustig, Powers incorporates multiple

oppositions in The Echo Maker and claims that his novel is “forever contrapuntal” (130).

Moreover, Lustig argues that in Powers’ novel everything is ‘bidirectional’ and that Powers

2 Note that in this discussion, neuroscience and other mind sciences are considered as part of ‘culture’. These will

also be the cultural areas that will be discussed in more detail.

44

attempts to synthesise the two sides of the oppositions, for example art and science (130). Aside

from the oppositions mentioned by Lustig, the most prominent opposition in the novel is that

of nature and culture. Similar to the oppositions mentioned by Lustig, I argue that Powers is

also able to synthesise nature and culture in the novel.

The Echo Maker is situated in Kearney, Nebraska. As becomes clear in the novel, this

part of the state is famous for the annual migration and nesting of cranes. The presence of these

birds can be seen as a part of nature’s cyclical structure. At the very start of the novel, the

moment of Mark’s car accident, the cranes enter Kearney and land on the Platte: “Cranes keep

landing as night falls. Ribbons of them roll down, slack against the sky. They float in from all

compass points, in kettles of a dozen, dropping with dusk” (Powers 3). At the start of the second

part of the novel, when Weber enters the story, the cranes begin to travel again and leave

Nebraska: “Birds by the thousands thread away, taking their memory of the Platte with them.

Half a million cranes disperse across the continent” (Powers 123). In this excerpt, it is important

to note that the birds take their memory with them. This is relevant for the plot of the novel,

because “their memory of the Platte” refers to their memory of Mark’s accident, which I will

come back to later. Towards the end of the novel the birds return: “He looks at the thicket of

birds a hundred yards from them, then back at her. This is it? The mythic spectacle? […] The

sky slips from peach to garnet to blood. A thread ripples across the light: a kettle of cranes home

in from nowhere” (Powers 534). This final return of the cranes can be seen as the end of their

annual migration cycle. These intrusive passages about the cranes are rather unexpected within

the context of the novel and its rather neurological focus. Zapf has stated that “human

civilisation has developed in such a way that it has begun to threaten this overall balance of

life” (90). According to Zaph, the discourse of literature is one of the forms “in which the

tension between cultural rationality and precultural life processes is articulated and explored”

(90). Bearing this in mind, it could be argued that Powers incorporates nature in his novel,

45

similar to 19th century author Henry David Thoreau who’s writing did not only represent a

“romantic-primitivist ‘return to nature’”, but also used nature as a way to counter the cultural

crisis in America (Zapf 87). By incorporating nature in The Echo Maker, Richard Powers

counters the presence of cultural life, specifically the mind sciences and the capitalist attitude

towards nature in the novel.

The cyclical structure of nature gives the impression that nature is indifferent towards

culture. Despite the despair in Mark and Karin’s lives, the birds continue the way they have

always done. The cycle of nature does not pause for civilisation: “Faster than they gathered, the

only witnesses disappear. They crowd together on the river for a few weeks, fattening; then

they’re gone” (Powers 123).When Mark has had his accident, he is told that there were no

witnesses. There was no one that could truly tell him what happened on the North Line Road,

except for the cranes that were nested along the road: “He needs a witness, but nobody saw

what happened that night except the birds” (Powers 252). Not only the birds are indifferent to

Mark’s situation, nature in general grows over the evidence from the accident, leaving nothing

for Mark to see when he visits the scene: “There’s nothing left to see. It’s all been washed away

or grown over” (Powers 314). As previously mentioned, these descriptions of the natural world

appear quite intrusive, because the novel includes a large presence of neuroscience due to Mark

Schluter’s situation as a Capgras patient. One could argue that the novel has two main subjects:

saving the birds and the refuge, hence saving nature and second, curing Mark from Capgras

syndrome. Due to Mark’s illness the mind sciences are omnipresent in the novel. Throughout

the novel there are several references that refer to the presence of science unconnected to Mark’s

situation. It appears that neuroscience has infiltrated everyday life. As becomes clear in the

novel, neuroscience has become part of popular culture and is now featured on television shows:

“She looked at the man. With proper grooming, he could be the advice doctor on breakfast

television” (Powers 22). This indicates that it would not be uncommon for a neurologist such

46

as Dr Hayes to appear on breakfast television and help people with their ailments. Another way

in which science is present on a daily basis is through the presence of medication: “Half the

people in the U.S. are on something psychoactive” (Powers 413). This excerpt indicates that,

according to the character Robert, taking medication has become a very common solution for

mental issues. Despite the presence of neuroscience in everyday life, its presence is not always

valued positively. This is due to the arrogance that is often associated with culture and

neuroscience in the novel: “People could do anything. They don’t know they’re gods, that they

live through even death” (Powers 41). As can be seen, people have become over-confident

about their abilities and about the abilities of cultural innovation. It appears that this hubris is

also present in the world of medicine: “People might make a hospital where they could keep

every possible life alive. And then someday life might return the favour” (Powers 41-42).

According to Robert, human innovation, in this case medicine, does not appear to have limits

or restrictions and eventually will fully control life and death, a power that is generally

attributed to God. As claimed by Broks “science had once looked to religion for legitimisation

but now that the scientific community was more firmly established many scientists saw religion

as a rival” (31).

In the novel, religion also features as an important aspect, although it stays mostly in the

background. In the novel, it is made clear multiple times that none of the characters except for

Bonnie, Mark’s girlfriend, are religious. Despite their lack of belief, religion often appears as a

possible solution to a problem. As mentioned before, science has replaced religion in explaining

the inexplicable (Lustig 135). But despite the confidence that lies behind science, it is not able

to cure or mend everything. As a result of the limits of medicine, religion enters the novel:

“Back in the waiting room, she witnessed eight middle-aged men in flannel standing in a ring,

their slow eyes scanning the floor. A murmur issued from them, wind teasing the lonely screens

of a farmhouse. The sound rose and fell in waves. It took her a moment to realize: a prayer

47

circle, for another victim who’d come in just after Mark. A makeshift Pentecostal service,

covering anything that scalpels, drugs, and lasers couldn’t” (Powers 9). As can be seen here,

Karin sees a prayer circle in the hospital when visiting her brother. As she claims, the people

are praying in order to make sure that their loved one survives. They do not let science decide

over life or death but try to support the medical care by praying, “covering” what science is

unable to do.

Eventually, it appears that in spite of their efforts neither neuroscience, nature nor religion

are able to help Mark heal. As discussed, nature, specifically the cranes, seems to be indifferent

to Mark’s situation. The birds continue their annual migration and nature covers up all evidence

of Mark’s accident, leaving him without answers. Mark attempts to find answers by going to

different religious congregations, in the hope that anyone might know what happened to him

on the night of his accident, but is unable to find the answers he is looking for. Lastly it appears

that neuroscience is not able to cure him either, because he does not seem to improve after his

surgery. At the end of the novel however, the medication prescribed by Dr Weber does seem to

cure his Capgras.

4.2 Divide Within the Mind Sciences

After this discussion of the opposition between nature and culture, I shall focus on the division

between neuroscience, popular science and other scientific practices. In addition to the

opposition between nature and culture in the novel, there is also a clear opposition between

what Alexander Luria calls “classical neuropsychology” and “romantic neuropsychology”, in

other words the hard sciences, specifically neuroscience, and popular science (Draaisma 429).

Classical neuropsychology aims at explaining mental deficits by “physiological and

neurological processes”, rather than explaining them as “psychological phenomena”, whereas

romantic neuropsychology, on the other hand, focuses on knowledge of individuals through

narrative accounts of their experiences, which are more respectful of their subjectivity

48

(Draaisma 429). In The Echo Maker, classical as well as romantic neuropsychology is

represented, not only on a general level but also through the representation of the characters,

Dr Weber and Dr Hayes, which I will elaborate on later.

In The Echo Maker, there are multiple references to alternative scientific methods, such

as popular science and Freudian psychoanalysis. The most prominent form of science in the

novel is neurology, due to the fact that Mark’s illness is neurological. However, by

incorporating Capgras syndrome in the novel, Powers also includes psychology. From the early

20th century until the 1980’s Capgras syndrome was considered a psychological disease instead

of a disease caused by a brain lesion (Draaisma 433). Still, because Mark’s disease is accident

induced and not linked to a history of mental illness, Mark is treated by a team of neurologists.

Despite the prominent position of neurology in the novel, it appears that neurology fails Mark

and his sister Karin because none of the recommended treatments seem to be working. As a

result, Karin decides to call in the help of popular science writer Dr Weber. The introduction of

popular science in the novel leads to an exhibition of the differences between the two scientific

branches: “The young neurologists saw only structure. Weber still saw the rarest of butterflies,

fluttering mind, its paired wings pinned to the film in obscene detail. Hayes traced of the surreal

art” (Powers 166). From this excerpt can be seen that Dr Hayes uses a much more objective

approach, whereas Dr Weber’s reading of the scans is rather subjective and narrative-based. I

will elaborate on these differences when describing the characters in detail.

Despite the large presence of popular science in the novel, it appears that it is not always

considered as a respectable branch within science, in this case neuroscience. In the 19th century,

“science was contested territory […] For many, including some of the scientific elite, the contest

revolved around whether science should be popular” (Secord 297). In the novel there are

multiple utterances that express discontent about popular science and attempt to expose its ‘non-

scientific’ nature: “These were scientists, researchers. He was feeding them armchair

49

descriptions, waiting-room stuff” (Powers 293). As can be seen from this excerpt, writer of

popular science Dr Weber is giving a lecture at a convention but realises while he is talking that

his speech is not suitable for his audience, the ‘real’ scientists. The citation refers to the fact

that some ‘real’ scientists did not believe that popular science sufficed to be called real science.

A reason for this could lie in the fact that “the term popular science was being used by the

dominant culture to signify bodies of literature and scientific activity that had little or no

interaction with science” (Secord 297). Dr Weber does not only demise his writings to waiting

room stuff, he describes himself as a “neurological opportunist” in the novel. This indicates that

not only the ‘scientists’ depreciate the genre of popular science, but also that Weber himself, as

a popular science writer, feels like he does not practice an honourable profession. As argued by

Luria, this could be because contemporary medicine is no longer dominated by the romantic

neuropsychology in which clinical observation and case histories are central. According to

Luria, as cited in Draaisma, “today’s medicine is being dominated by ‘classical science’ in

which clinical observations and convincing case studies have become something of a lost art”

(429). However, it would be too rash to describe Weber merely as a popular science writer. As

previously mentioned, popular science can be seen as a ‘two-tiered activity’, specifically as an

opposition between “men of science” and “newspaper science” (Broks 61). With regard to this

opposition, Dr Weber could be considered as a “man of science” rather than a newspaper

scientist.

Aside from the presence of popular culture, there are also several references to Freud in

the novel. Both practices are largely based on a narrative approach and rely on individual case

studies. Their narrative approach could be why they are considered as outdated practices, seeing

that the contemporary mind sciences have generally distanced themselves from the narrative

(Draaisma 429). After Weber has been informed of Mark’s illness he consults his wife: “‘A

man who recognizes his sister, but does not credit the recognition. Apparently otherwise

50

reasonable and cognitively unimpaired.’ She whistled low, even after a life time of hearing his

tales. ‘Sounds like something for Sigmund’” (Powers 133). Sylvie, Weber’s wife, does not

sound judgemental about psychoanalysis or Freud in general. In addition, this reference to

Freud in regard to Capgras can be seen as a reference to the belief that the syndrome used to be

a psychological issue rather than a neurological one. Later on in the novel, Freud is mentioned

again: “Freud might do more than an MRI. […] But what did the psychological mean anymore”

(Powers 380). In this excerpt it becomes clear that psychoanalysis is a scientific methodology

from the past. This idea was already present in the first half of the 20th century when

“experimentalists such as Miller, Boring, Stevens and Skinner did not believe [Freudian

psychoanalysis] was real science” (Crowther-Heyck 43). Weber clearly expresses in the novel

that the psychological methodology has lost its value and has had to make room for solely

objective neurological observations, despite the fact that it could add to neurological findings.

The fact that objective observation is the only valued method, is expressed throughout the

novel: “Well. If it’s not on a scan, it can’t really be trusted” (Powers 236). Now that I have

discussed the multiple scientific methods and genres that are present in The Echo Maker, I will

move on to a short discussion of the use of vocabulary in the novel.

4.3 Vocabularic Representation of the Two Cultures Debate

As previously mentioned, neuronovelists often include ‘neurologizing vocabulary’ in their

novels as a way to incorporate neuroscience (Ortega and Vidal 340). Richard Powers, however,

does not incorporate ‘neurologizing vocabulary’ as such, but incorporates “bio and computing

sciences” in his novel (Sielke 17). I argue that these sciences do not only surface on a thematic

level but also on the level of style, namely vocabulary. The storyline of The Echo Maker is

situated in the year 2002, and hence contains multiple references to the digital age in which

computers, cell phones and other technical inventions have become popular among the ordinary

men and women. This digital environment is also reflected in the language use: “The world is

51

just too wired” (Powers 413). However, it could also be argued that this type of vocabulary use

refers to the fact that brains are often compared to computers, a collection of neurons connected

by wires. The computer metaphor originated within the behaviourist framework. Clark Hull has

suggested that one should regard “the behaving organism as [a] completely self-maintaining

robot” (27). Sielke argues that, in The Echo Maker, we move away from “the trope of the

computer […] to that of the network” (18). The theme of the network is thus not only present

due to multiple scenes with computer games and television shows, but also because of the large

focus on the brain in the novel.

In relation to the computer metaphor, the characters are sometimes portrayed not only

with a computer for a brain but with a robot like body: “Her skin went metal” (Powers 74). In

this short sentence, the reader is presented with an unusual comparison between skin and metal.

One would not expect skin to feel like or become metal. As argued by Herman and Vervaeck,

The Echo Maker contains several ‘machine metaphors’ (325). Another example could be when

Mark is recovering from his comatose and describes himself as “old rebuilt machines” (Powers

53). In addition to these metaphorical neuroscientific references, more straightforward

references to neuroscience can be found as well: “She has destroyed him twice. In reptile panic,

she drops the note on the bedside table and vanishes” (Powers 556). In this citation, the word

‘reptile’ is used. This is a reference to Paul McLean’s theory of the triune brain. According to

McLean, there are three parts of a human brain: protoreptilian, paleomammalian and

neomammalian. The protoreptilian brain, also called R-Complex, is responsible for our most

natural behaviour, instinct if you will (Ploog 489).

As previously mentioned, neuroscience has intruded into everyday life in the novel, and

this is also the case in terms of vocabulary. A first example can be found when Daniel has given

Karin his information on Dr Weber and his books: “Of all the alien, damaged brain states this

writing doctor described, none was as strange as care” (Powers 119). From this excerpt can be

52

seen that Karin describes caring for someone as a disease. Through the use of words such as

“damaged”, and “brain state” she describes caring for someone and loving someone in terms of

mental illness, madness. This indicates that even the most natural behaviour can be linked to

mental illness or neurological diseases. A second example of scientific vocabulary is the

following citation: “She probed Barbara for anything from her professional experience that gave

hope of further improvement” (Powers 115). The verb “to probe” can be interpreted in two

ways here. First, to probe can mean “enquire into someone or something closely” (Oxford

Dictionary 1415), which seems like the most likely interpretation in this particular situation.

However, the second interpretation is “physically explore or examine (something) with the

hands or an instrument” (Oxford Dictionary 1415). Within the context of the excerpt it seems

rather unlikely that Karin is literally examining Barbara, however within the context of the

novel this second meaning is much more acceptable due to its medical and scientific focus.

In addition to the previous examples, the novel also contains vocabulary that can be

connected to biology and nature, for example: “even a nice little shared nervousness with a

friendly mammal in tech support that threatened to turn into a relationship any month now”

(Powers 16). In The Echo Maker, people are often described as animals. In this excerpt, Powers

takes this comparison one step further by using the term “mammal”. In the passage, Karin is

describing a man she knows back home. By using the term “mammal” there is a significant

emphasis on the fact that humans are merely mammals and thus no different from other animals.

This comparison between humans and animals is made multiple times, particularly when

describing Mark: “She looked away, anywhere but at his animal eyes” (Powers 8). A more

specific example can be found when Karin sees Mark for the first time after his accident and

compares him to a bird: “His fingers feathered at her, frantic, as if in this split second, she might

still keep his truck from wiping out” (Powers 9). One could argue that by combining animal

terminology with human descriptions, Powers is incorporating nature into civilisation. The

53

aforementioned conflict between nature and culture is hence also incorporated in the novel

through the use of biological, neuroscientific and metaphorical vocabulary. Zaph has argued

that literature and the arts is where the tension between “cultural rationality and precultural life”

is expressed (90). In The Echo Maker, there are multiple occasions in which nature and culture

merge, for example in the following description: “All around, answers sprang up – the

cottonwood and the Platte, the March breeze and rabbits in the undergrowth, something

downstream slapping the water in alarm, secrets and rumors, news and negotiation, all of

interlocked life talking at once” (Powers 70). This excerpts starts with a description of nature,

but towards the end of the citation the cultural world starts to infiltrate with terms such as

“secrets, rumors, news and negotiation”. Especially news and negotiation conjure an idea of

economy and commerce, elements of cultural life rather than natural life. All in all, it becomes

clear that Powers combines nature and culture on a more general level through broad

descriptions and passages about nature or science (as previously discussed) but also on a more

local level by combining natural and cultural elements into one sentence or short pieces of text.

4.4 Dichotomies Represented by the Characters

In addition to the thematic opposition between nature and culture, and neuroscience and popular

science, these oppositions are also present in relation to the characters of the novel. Moreover,

I shall look at how their different interests affect their approach to Mark’s condition. First, I

shall discuss the characters Dr Hayes and Dr Weber, who represent the tension within mind

sciences. Secondly, I shall focus on the characters Daniel Riegel and Robert Karsh. I will argue

that their conflicting interests, respectively the natural world and the cultural world, represent

the aforementioned opposition between nature and culture in the novel.

4.4.1 Divide Within the Mind Sciences: Dr Weber and Dr Hayes

Dr Weber is a writer of popular science, which entails that he writes books containing

neurological case studies. As a writer of popular science, his case studies rely on the individual

54

experience of the patient rather than “medical wisdom” (Draaisma 436). Throughout the novel,

it becomes clear that popular science is a controversial subject that is not always welcome due

to its aim at an audience of non-specialists. As stated by Broks: “Excluding the public became

a defining feature of what it meant to be scientific” (24). Weber’s books do not necessarily aim

to contribute to scientific research but rather are meant to be an entertaining piece of writing

for the public: “Cavanaugh perked up. ‘Alzheimer’s? That kind of thing? Aging population.

Declining abilities. Very hot topic’” (Powers 127). From this excerpt becomes clear that

Weber’s editor Canavaugh wants Weber’s books to meet the needs of his readers. His writing

is not expected to be innovative, it has to be ‘hot’. This focus on the public, could be why

Weber’s books are largely criticised in the novel. However, it seems that Weber is less focused

on which topics would sell the most books, but is inspired to write about memory out of genuine

interest rather than mere profit. Again, the fact that Weber’s focus does not lie on entertainment

but on education, indicates that he can be considered as a ‘man of science’ rather than a

‘newspaper scientist’. Despite this nuance, the critique of popular science writing is expressed

by many different characters and groups in the novel. Firstly, Dr Weber begins to doubt his

own profession after receiving a negative review of one of his books: “Another silence at the

other end. Cavanaugh, finessing. ‘Something about the case histories being too anecdotal. Too

much philosophy and not enough car chases. They may have used the word portentous’”

(Powers 216). In the review, Weber’s book is apparently criticised for being too anecdotal. The

fact that the book did not contain ‘enough car chases’, could again indicate that Weber’s success

depends on whether he meets the needs of the public, which apparently in this case he has failed

to do. As Weber claims: “The piece made his book out to be both inaccurate science and

irresponsible journalism, the pseudoempirical equivalent of reality television, profiting from

fad and pain” (Powers 280). This negative review prompts him to start thinking about his

responsibilities towards the patients he has examined, and whether he is truly helping them. As

55

a result, as pointed out by Herman and Vervaeck, “he starts to feel guilty and wants to get into

‘solid research’” (409). He wants to distance himself from the narrative and anecdotal: “He’d

wanted to get back to pure science, away from the fuzzy, mass-marketed world of science

popularization” (Powers 282). Weber’s indecisiveness indicates that, as claimed by Herman

and Vervaeck, he is torn between “clinical non-narrative, pure science” and “hermeneutic,

narrative popularization” (409). This inner struggle is not resolved in the novel. As mentioned

earlier, he eventually comes to think of himself as a neurological opportunist, because he

believes that he is abusing other people’s diseases to gain fame and wealth.

It becomes clear throughout the novel that Weber is very aware that his profession is

not appreciated by everyone. When he meets Mark’s neurologist, Dr Hayes, he immediately

expects to be criticised and treated with irony. To Weber’s surprise that is not what happens.

Against his expectations, Dr Hayes has copies of Weber’s last two books and would like him

to sign them: “‘Before I forget, would you mind…?’ He handed them to Weber, along with a

heavy Waterman pen. ‘Could you make them out: ‘to Chris Hayes, my Watson in the strange

case of the Man Who Doubled His Sister.’’ Weber searched the neurologist’s face for irony but

found only earnestness” (Powers 162). From this excerpt can be seen that although Weber’s

profession is not always respected by everyone, it is appreciated by some. However, this does

not mean that Dr Hayes supports Dr Weber’s approach to neuroscience. As will be made clear

below, Dr Hayes is not eager to use Weber’s narrative and psychological approaches to Mark’s

condition.

In the novel, Weber comes to realise that his narrative approach to the mind is perhaps

an outdated practice, seeing that he describes himself as “an icon of a former decade” (Powers

343). This idea of Dr Weber being “an icon of a former decade”, could be correct, bearing in

mind that Luria pointed out: “Sadly, […] today’s medicine is being dominated by classical

science, in which clinical observation and convincing case histories have become something of

56

a lost art” (Draaisma 429). Weber is not only an icon of the past because of his narrative

approach to neuroscience but also because he relies on psychological theories to speculate about

his patients and their illnesses. The realisation that the methodology of psychoanalysis is no

longer dominant within the mind sciences is also expressed in the novel: “‘When I was your

age, the prevailing psychoanalytic bias had Capgras resulting from taboo feelings toward a

loved one. ‘I can’t be feeling lust for my sister, ergo, she’s not my sister’. The thermodynamic

model of cognition. Very popular in its day’” (Powers 168). In this excerpt, Weber clearly

stresses that although the psychoanalytic methodology is no longer dominant, it was the

preferred methodology only a few decades ago. Moreover, the idea that Mark’s reluctance to

recognise his sister could be traced back to sexual desire is also touched upon when Mark

describes the differences between his sister Karen and ‘Kopy Karin’. The tense relationship

between popular science and the mind sciences, specifically neuroscience, is most conspicuous

in the slightly tense relationship between Dr Weber and Dr Hayes, the assigned neurologist on

the case. When Weber meets Dr Hayes for the first time and discusses Mark’s condition and

treatment, their differences rise to the surface:

Weber felt himself turning reactionary. The odds against multiple lesions, all exactly in

the right place, had to be enormous. But the odds against recognition itself were even

greater. ‘You know he thinks his dog is a double? That seems like more than just a

rupture between the amygdala and the inferotemporal cortex. I don’t doubt the

contribution of lesions. Right hemisphere damage is no doubt implicated in the process.

I just think we need to look for a more comprehensive explanation. Hayes’s tiniest facial

muscles betrayed incredulity. ‘Something more than neurons, you mean?’ ‘Not at all.

But there’s a higher order component to all this, too. Whatever lesions he has suffered,

he’s also producing psychodynamic responses to trauma. Capgras may not be caused so

much by the lesion per se as by large-scale psychological reactions to disorientation.’

57

[…] ‘I’m … sure that’s all worth thinking about, if that interests you, Dr Weber.’

(Powers 167-168)

In this excerpt it becomes clear that Dr Weber and Dr Hayes adopt very different approaches to

medicine. From a neuroscientific point of view, Dr Hayes believes in the hard evidence, what

can be seen on a scan. He seeks answers in the “physiological aspects of the brain” (Herman

and Vervaeck 407). Dr Weber, on the other hand, believes that there is more to Mark’s situation

than can simply be seen on a scan. Weber has a more “romantic interpretive approach”

(Bernaerts, Herman and Vervaeck 288). He approaches medicine from a more psychological

point of view and hence looks for explanations in Mark’s history and surroundings. As argued

by Herman and Vervaeck, he focuses more on existential problems in order to understand the

syndrome (288). As can be seen from the following excerpt, Dr Hayes is not very enthusiastic

about Weber’s suggestion to look beyond the physiological symptoms, and more or less

dismisses Weber’s idea:

‘Well, Doctor, you’ve raised my appreciation for the case. I suppose that’s good science

for you. But what’s indicated now? How do we treat the condition and not just the

symptom?’ Weber grimaced. ‘I’m not sure I know the difference, here. The literature

has no systematic treatment studies. No real sample size to work with. Psychiatric

origins are rare enough. Trauma-induced cases are almost fiction. If you want my

opinion . . .’ The neurologist bared his palms: no sharp implements. ‘No turf in medicine.

You know that’ (Powers 219)

This excerpt shows that despite Weber’s efforts, Dr Hayes remains quite hesitant about Weber’s

approach. As is also pointed out by Dr Hayes, Weber has “no turf in medicine”. According to

Dr Hayes, Dr Weber is in no position to make recommendations for Mark’s treatment. As

argued by Draaisma, Hayes “is the man with all the answers” (435). However, it appears that,

even though Hayes is supposedly the man with all the answers, he fails to solve the mystery of

58

Marks illness and is unable to cure him. In spite of the controversy around popular science, Dr

Weber is called back to the case, after having left Mark with recommended cognitive

behavioural therapy. Because the therapy and all other attempts have failed to find a solution

for Mark’s Capgras, Weber decides to take a second look at Mark’s situation. As mentioned,

Dr Hayes is rather reluctant to distance himself from neurological tests and methods and enter

into the world of narrative scientist Dr Weber. Lyotard3 has argued that “scientific knowledge

sees itself as standing outside and above all language games, that is, outside and above

narration” (Bertens 125). Furthermore, Lyotard believed that the refusal to enter into narration

is an “untenable position” (125). This could indicate that at a certain point, neuroscience may

be obligated to turn to narrative in order to find a solution and thus look at the patient’s

individual experience as well, rather than solely the brain deficit on its own: “His accounts

revealed the brain’s mind-boggling plasticity and neurology’s endless ignorance. He wrote in a

modest voice and ordinary style that placed more faith in individuals’ stories than in prevailing

medical wisdom” (Powers 117). As can be seen here, Karin points out that Weber is able to

provide information about the human mind that neuroscience does not, hence pointing out

neuroscience’s ignorance. According to Lyotard, “science too can find its legitimation through

narrative” (Bertens 125). It could thus be argued that the criticism of Weber and his writings in

the novel is misplaced and should be reconsidered.

It would be too simple to call Weber merely a popular scientist. In the novel, it is made

clear that Weber also spends time in the laboratory and does not only spend his time writing

books. As a scientist Weber often adopts some scepticism towards neuroscience. On the one

hand, this could be because he has a psychological background, but at the same time it could

be that he believes neuroscience should not attempt to resolve everything with an objective

approach. As pointed out by Phillips, “objectivity is an idea many scientists also find

3 As cited by Bertens

59

questionable – some of them actually dismiss it, at least in its extreme forms, as unscientific”

(85). To summarise, Dr Weber’s profession is rather problematic in the novel, mostly in his

relationship with Dr Hayes. The profession of popular science writer has had a long history and

has had different receptions. In the novel, however, Dr Weber is eventually the one who

suggests antipsychotics for Mark and thereby restores Mark’s ability to recognise his sister and

his surroundings correctly. It could be argued here that the sudden help of these drugs fit into

the mysterious undertone of the novel. The uncertainty that haunts the novel – for example

whether Mark will get better, what really happened on the night of his accident, who is behind

the selling of the refuge – is drawn out until the end. Eventually, Karin decides to try the

antipsychotics, and they miraculously cure Mark. The novel has to wait for a kind of ‘deus ex

machina’ to restore their world, since both the narrative and neuroscientific approach to Mark’s

illness fall short. This could be seen as an example of how medication has become omnipresent

in the contemporary society and furthermore, how medication has become the only way to

function within the postmodern epoch.

4.4.2 Conflicting Discourses of Nature and Culture: Daniel Riegel and Robert Karsh

Similar to Dr Weber, Karin, Mark’s sister, also appears to be slightly indecisive. In the novel,

Karin is torn between two men that she has known for most of her life, Daniel and Robert. The

characters Daniel and Robert could be said to be each other’s opposite. Daniel works for the

crane refuge, is vegan and very nature-minded. Robert, on the other hand, works at a

development company and is largely focused on social advancement and economic success.

One could argue that Robert is a representation of “the new U.S. model” for capitalism. This

‘New Model’ entails “commercializing radically new products, and services […] even if they

cannibalize existing markets” (Whitley 15). Throughout the story it becomes clear that the

rivalry between Daniel and Robert does not have a lot to do with Karin but has more to do with

their conflicting interests. A central element in the novel, aside from Mark’s illness, is the

60

migration of the cranes and the crane refuge. Daniel, who works at the refuge, is very passionate

about saving the cranes and preserving nature. In the novel, Daniel is portrayed as an “untiring

idealist” who wants to protect the world from developments and capitalism (Powers 58).

Daniel’s idealism can be linked to a pre-postmodern age, where the grand narratives were still

accepted and taken for granted. Daniel still believes in the concept of an enduring love. This

can be seen through his undying affection for Karin, or, as is suggested by Karin in the novel,

his undying affection for Mark. In addition, one could argue that Daniel’s ability to see the

connection between humans and animals, an ability that the other characters have mostly lost,

is also a concept that supports culture as a whole. As Lyotard has argued “these metanarratives

have been replaced by a great number of language games. […] language games can never

underpin whole cultures” (Bertens 124). The idea that these narratives are no longer sustainable

could be seen as the reason why other characters have lost their bond with the natural world.

Opposite to Daniel, Robert represents a capitalist mentality and wants to replace the refuge with

a kind of bird zoo where they would keep the birds for entertainment purposes. As claimed by

Karin, Robert is not in the least an idealist: “At that moment she felt a deep appeal of Robert

Karsh, a man without a tenth of Daniel’s idealism” (Powers 340). The conflict between Daniel

and Robert can be seen as, respectively, the refusal to accept the uncertainty of these

metanarratives, on the one hand, and the uncritical acceptance of their fictitious nature on the

other. I will elaborate more on the presence of the postmodern condition in The Echo Maker in

the next section.

The difference between Daniel and Robert is not only that they, respectively, support

nature and culture, but they also oppose each other in their approach to medicine. It is made

clear in the novel that Robert supports organised medicine and thus tends to approach Mark’s

condition from an objective point of view: “To her anxiety over starting Mark on drugs, he said,

‘Figure out the costs. Count up the benefits. See which is bigger.’ ‘Listen to you. If only it were

61

that easy.’ […] ‘What’s to keep you from starting him on these antipsychotics and seeing what

happens?’” (Powers 430). Robert believes it would be a good idea to give Mark antipsychotics

as a solution to his paranoia and Capgras syndrome. He approaches the choice of antipsychotics

very pragmatically, borrowing the language of capitalism. According to him, all Karin needs to

do is list all the advantages and the disadvantages, and then do the math and see which option

is most beneficial. Daniel, on the other hand, has a completely different approach to medicine

and does not support the drugs that Dr Weber has recommended: “All of Daniel’s advice was

clouded in morality. Medication, Daniel said, would cause more problems than it solved”

(Powers 412). Daniel does not have the same capitalist mentality and is unable to look at the

situation objectively. Moreover, Daniel does not support organised medicine: “Daniel, I have

to say, I’m a little surprised. Since when have you defended organized medicine? I thought they

were all faith healers’ […] ‘If I knew a Native American with experience in close-head trauma,

I’d recommend him above anyone you’ve talked to’” (Powers 332). In this excerpt, it becomes

clear once again that Daniel has a more natural point of view towards the world and more

specifically towards illness and medicine.

To summarise, the oppositions as mentioned in the first part of my analysis of The Echo

Maker, namely the opposition of natural world and the cultural world, and the opposition

between neuroscience and popular science, are largely represented in the tensions between the

different characters in the novel. In the last part of my analysis, I shall discuss how the

postmodern condition is featured in The Echo Maker.

4.5 Postmodern Discourse in The Echo Maker: Postmodern Madness

In The Echo Maker, the characters live in a world in which metanarratives are hidden and almost

unreachable (Lyotard xii). The postmodern epoch is represented in the novel in various ways.

Firstly, the problematic nature of narratives, such as truth and love, is incorporated in the novel.

Secondly, the postmodern epoch could be seen as the cause of Capgras disease in the novel. I

62

shall discuss how the uncertainty surrounding grand narratives is portrayed in the novel,

specifically focusing on the failure of truth and love. Next, I shall look at how Capgras can be

seen as a consequence of the postmodern environment, focusing on the events of 9/11. Lastly,

I shall discuss how Capgras syndrome is not restricted to Mark but also spreads to other

characters.

Lyotard pointed out that “metanarratives have long been unmasked as fictions” (Bertens

125). This concept of fictions, returns in the novel: “Yes, life is a fiction. But whatever it might

mean, the fiction is steerable” (Powers 548). This indicates that, according to Weber, we are

living in a world without universal principles. As was claimed by Lyotard, the fact that the

metanarratives have been downgraded to fictions does not make them less desirable or popular.

As can be seen in the excerpt above, Weber does not dismiss the fictions as something negative

but as steerable, as something they can learn to live with. The characters in The Echo Maker

could be said to do the same. They are forced to live with uncertain fictions but are able to live

with them over time. For example, Mark eventually builds a relationship with his ‘fake’ sister,

accepting the fact that it is unlikely that he will come to know the truth about his situation.

Karin, on the other hand, seems to struggle with the uncertainty concerning her brother’s illness

and herself: “She wanted only to tear down everything, clear the landscape, escape somewhere

empty and true. But no true place existed; only brief mirage, followed by long, humiliating self-

justification” (Powers 340). From this excerpt it becomes clear that truth is no longer as self-

evident as it once was. Karin realises that the concept of truth has become difficult to grasp. In

the novel, the loss of truth can also be seen when looking at Mark. He is no longer able to tell

what is true in his life and what is not, due to the lesion in his brain. In addition to the complexity

of truth, there appear to be some difficulties with the metanarrative of love as well. In The Echo

Maker, love is not a salvation or a solution but a disease like Capgras: “Pointlessness flooded

her, the futility of all exchange. Nobody really cared how the world looked to anyone else. She

63

felt a deep need to break everything that pretended to connection. To live in this hollowness,

where loyalty always led. Love was not the antidote to Capgras. Love was a form of it, making

and denying others, at random” (Powers 339). Love is not able to cure the world from disease

or the failure of recognition, moreover, it appears to be aiding it. The hollowness as described

by Karin might refer to the inability to grasp the metanarratives, again indicating that the story

is situated in a postmodern environment, in which meaning, truth and love have become

problematic.

It could be argued that the novel is set in a postmodern epoch. Moreover, it can be

suggested that, on a symbolic level, the madness in the novel, Capgras syndrome, is a result of

the cultural environment rather than Mark’s accident. For the case of my argument, it is

important to examine the setting of the novel in more detail. The beginning of the novel can be

is situated in the year 2002, precisely the 20th of September of that year. Mark’s crash thus

happens only a year after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. With that in

mind, Lustig argues that Capgras syndrome in The Echo Maker might not be a consequence of

a postmodern environment in general but rather a consequence of the events from September

11 in 2001. Throughout the novel there are multiple references to Afghanistan and the events

of 9/11 that indicate the importance of the terrorist attack in the novel. The idea that 9/11 may

be a cause of Capgras in the novel becomes more clear when looking at Mark’s accident in

detail. Seconds before his accident, Mark claims to have seen a white column in the streets,

causing him to swerve: “He spots it first, but she identifies. ‘My God. A whooper.’ […] Neither

can breathe. He grasps at a last hope. ‘That was it. What was in the road. He said he saw a

column of white …” (Powers 544). In this excerpt, Weber believes to have solved the mystery

behind Mark’s car accident. He believes that a big white bird, had been on the North Line Road

that night. However, I would like to suggest a second possible interpretation, namely that the

column of white could also be interpreted as a symbolic reference to the Twin Towers, due to

64

the multiple references to the events of 9/11. All in all, Mark’s condition could be linked to the

postmodern condition in general, and more specifically to the events of 9/11.

It appears that Mark is not the only character who seems to be suffering from Capgras

syndrome in the novel. As Lustig claims, there is a large feeling of estrangement that dawns

over the novel. This feeling of estrangement is not reserved for Mark but also for other

characters. Similar to Mark, Karin and Barbara, Mark’s caregiver, eventually struggle to

recognise the world in which they live: “Human ingenuity might accomplish anything. Name a

material constraint, and we’re halfway to transcending it. Get out of our way and watch the

miracles roll in’ ‘Oh my god, Robert. I can’t believe you’re saying that. Look around! We’ve

trashed the place’ […] ‘That’s because you’re an animal. I mean: that’s because you’re not an

animal’” (Powers 433). In this excerpt, it can be seen that Karin is shocked by Karsh’s

indifference toward nature. She is unable to align with his feelings about economic development

and innovation. As argued by Lustig, collective Capgras is an indication of human alienation

from the natural world (138). Robert has lost his connection to nature. He fails to recognise

animals, specifically the cranes, as his equals. According to Lustig, there “is as immediate

failure of recognition” (138). Multiple characters thus appear to suffer a loss of recognition and

are hence suffering from something similar to Capgras syndrome. Towards the end of the novel,

even Mark’s caregiver Barbara starts to understand Mark’s point of view: “Her voice catches a

little when she talks. ‘Mark is right, you know. The whole place, a substitute. I mean: Is this

country anyplace you recognize?’” (Powers 548). As a result, Weber feels as though he is no

longer writing a case study on Capgras syndrome but is writing about the first case of contagious

Capgras: “Everything will be panic, from now on. Strange as birth. He would write it up – first

case ever of contagious Capgras – if he could still write” (Powers 544). Because multiple

characters fail to recognise the world they live in or fail to recognise their surroundings, he

believes that multiple characters might be suffering from Capgras.

65

In addition, one could argue that Mark reconnects with nature as a consequence of

Capgras syndrome. Because of his paranoia, he believes that the government might have

transplanted parts of the brain from crane birds into human brains. According to him, it would

explain the inexplicable elements in his life and why all the cranes have a red mark on their

heads – according to him these marks are surgical scars. He believes that ‘they’ are trying to

save the species, whether that means the birds or humans is not clear according to Mark. He

believes they are trying to unite cranes and humans, which could again be seen as a unison

between nature and culture (Powers 528).

As mentioned before, science, specifically the mind sciences, are omnipresent in the

novel. As a result of the unrecognizable world the characters live in, they appear to have no

other alternative than to take medicine as a way to cope with their postmodern environment. As

previously mentioned, the antipsychotics that restore Mark’s ability to recognise his sister could

be seen as an example of the inevitable need for medication, and the incompetence of

neuroscience and psychology. As claimed by Mark: “The whole world’s on crack” (Powers

104). This indicates that the use of drugs can be seen as a coping mechanism. As pointed out

by Robert in the novel, taking medication is the only way to function in this new world:

“‘Almost even odds. Forty-five percent of America, on something behaviour-modifying.

Antianxieties. Antidepressants. Name your brew. Couldn’t function otherwise. The world is

just too wired. I’m on a couple of things myself, in fact’” (Powers 413).

In conclusion, The Echo Maker can be seen as a story that engages with the anxieties that

arise from this new postmodernist environment, such as the haunting uncertainty as a result of

the loss of truth. Moreover, the novel engages with how the characters deal with and react to

this new environment and these anxieties. As discussed, one of the reactions to the new

environment is Capgras syndrome. In the novel, Capgras is represented in multiple forms. The

reader is, in a sense, the first victim of the contagion: she experiences the first case of contagious

66

Capgras in the form of an environment without absolute certainties. As discussed, the characters

each deal with these uncertainties in their own way, but mostly their need to escape from reality

leads them to mental sciences and medication.

4.6 Conclusion

I have argued that in The Echo Maker, the reader is confronted with different discourses that

are present in the postmodern environment. On the one hand, there is an affiliation with the

natural world and a past in which outdated scientific practices are still used. On the other hand,

The Echo Maker also depicts a world, where nature has disappeared into the background, the

concepts of absolute truth and enduring love have become fictitious, and neuroscience has

become the dominant practice within the mind sciences. These approaches to the contemporary

world are placed opposite of each other, both on a thematic level as well as on a stylistic level,

but at the same time often converge. The first opposition that I have discussed was the

opposition between nature and culture. Richard Powers chose to alternate neuroscientific

sequences, mostly concerning Mark’s illness, with passages filled with natural descriptions.

The cranes are a major presence in the novel and their reoccurrence could be said to represent

the cyclical structure of nature. The birds could represent the indifference of nature towards

Mark’s accident, as the only real witnesses. The cultural side of the opposition is also

inescapable in the novel. Due to Mark’s condition, neuroscience and popular science are very

important for the story. Additionally, the cultural aspect is also represented through the presence

of medication and the case of contagious Capgras in the novel. In terms of characters, the

opposition between nature and culture is represented by Daniel and Robert, who, due to their

difference in interest, each have a different approach to Mark’s syndrome and a different

approach towards medication. In addition to thematic representation and the representation

through the characters, the opposition is also represented through vocabulary, which I briefly

discussed.

67

My second claim was that there is a dichotomy between popular science and

neuroscience in the novel. The novel contains a clear opposition between “classical

neuropsychology”, meaning a more standard objective approach, and “romantic

neuropsychology”, meaning a more subjective approach with a focus on the individual. As

discussed, this opposition is present on a thematic level and is mainly represented through the

characters, specifically Dr Hayes and Dr Weber. The rivalry between the two doctors is a

representation of the tension between the dominant neuroscience and controversial popular

science. The opposition is mostly staged through their approach to Mark’s disease. As a popular

science writer, Dr Weber is repeatedly criticised in the novel, either by other scientists, his

books’ reviewers, Dr Hayes, but also by himself. In addition to his profession as popular science

writer, he also uses psychoanalytical methodology in his sessions with Mark, making him an

icon of the past. Lastly, I argued that the novel is set in a postmodern time, in which the grand

narratives of truth and love have become surrounded by uncertainty. As a result, Capgras is

represented as a consequence of Mark’s environment, and particularly, as argued by Lustig, the

events of 9/11. In addition, Lustig has argued that most of the characters adopt the feeling of

estrangement as well. This contagious form of Capgras can be linked to a loss of touch with

their environment. This contagion can be seen as a consequence of the loss of grand narratives

in the postmodern society. The characters fail to recognise their world, due to the absence of

truth, love and their connection with nature.

68

5 Conclusion

In this dissertation I have argued that, in Ian McEwan’s Enduring Love and Richard Powers’

The Echo Maker, different discourses are employed and integrated. In Enduring Love, I have

discussed the presence of the two cultures debate in relation to a general presence of literature

and science, but I have also discussed a more specific opposition between Clarissa, as a

representation of literature, and Joe, as a representation of science. As an addition to the two

cultures from the two cultures debate, religion can be seen as a third culture in the novel,

represented by Jed Parry. I have discussed how the conflict between these three cultures is

played out in the novel, mainly by looking at the three main characters. I have concluded that

Joe has to deal with quite a lot of criticism and scepticism from the other two characters, mainly

because of his unwavering belief in rationality and objectivity. However, I have also claimed

that the other two characters are slightly criticised as well, although not as literally as Joe,

because of their refusal of rationality and objectivity.

It can be said that The Echo Maker by Richard Powers also implies a version of the two

cultures debate, as discussed by C.P. Snow. Instead of the opposition between literature and

science, the most prominent opposition in The Echo Maker is between natural phenomena and

neuroscience or mind sciences in general. Contrary to Enduring Love, this opposition is not

largely represented by the characters but by more general passages in the novel. I discussed

how neither the natural phenomena nor neuroscience were able to improve Mark’s situation

due to indifference and incompetence. I discussed that the appearance of religion in the novel

offers an alternative to scientific healing, but is also unable to help Mark. The opposition

between nature and culture is reflected in the characters Daniel and Robert. This opposition

between the characters is mostly expressed in their approach to Mark and their approach to the

bird refuge.

69

In addition to the presence of the two cultures in the novels, I have also discussed the

tension within the mind sciences, a prominent element within the postmodern environment in

which the novels take place. Despite Joe’s fierce rationality and objectivity his profession relies

rather on subjectivity. Enduring Love opposes these two approaches to science and represents

them through Joe’s inner conflict about his profession. He wants to distance himself from the

popular narrative science writing and wants to move back into the hard sciences. In The Echo

Maker, the opposition between the narrative and psychological approach and the objective

physiological approach is represented through a conflicting relationship between Dr Weber and

Dr Hayes, but also through Dr Weber’s inner conflict about his own profession as a popular

science writer.

Lastly I claimed that De Clérambault syndrome in Enduring Love and Capgras in The

Echo Maker are both results of a postmodern world in which universal truth and a ‘grand amour’

have become hidden and no longer hold up. Jed’s love for Joe can be read as a reluctance to let

go of the ideal of love. Joe’s wish to return to the hard sciences could also be read as a part of

his search for truth. In The Echo Maker, Mark’s illness could be read symbolically as a

consequence of the events of 9/11. Similarly the other characters in the novel were also affected

with Mark’s feeling of estrangement and were therefore also looking for the concept of truth

and what is true.

Within this research it might be interesting to explore in what way neuronovels

thematise different postmodern discourses and how they reflect our current society. Moreover,

it might be worth examining how madness in neuronovels can be read as a consequence of

environment instead of a physiological or psychological issues. More generally, it might be

interesting to analyse how madness in neuronovels, published after 2001, is not only evoked by

a postmodern environment but more specifically by a post 9/11 environment. Furthermore, it

70

might be interesting examine the symbolic reading of 9/11 in The Echo Maker in more detail,

and see whether more evidence can be found.

71

Works Cited

Atkins, Peter. “Science as Truth.” History of Human Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, 1995, pp. 97-102.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Brenda Wilson. “Life Stories and the Four Needs for Meaning.”

Psychological Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 4, 1996, pp. 322-377.

Bernaerts, Lars, Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck. “Narrative Threads of Madness.” Style, vol.

43, no. 3, 2009, pp. 283-290.

Bertens, Hans. The Idea of the Postmodern. London: Routledge, 1995.

The Bible. New King James Version. Nashville: Nelson, 2010.

Brockman, John. The Third Culture. London: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Broks, Peter. Understanding Popular Science. Berkshire: Open Universtity Press, 2006.

Brüne, Martin. “De Clérambault’s syndrome (erotomania) in an evolutionary perspective.”

Evolution and Behaviour, vol. 22, 2001, pp. 409-415.

Burn, Stephen J. "Neuroscience and Modern Fiction", MFS Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 61,

no. 2, 2015, pp. 210-225.

—. “An Interview with Richard Powers.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 49, no. 2, 2008, pp.

163-179.

Chaney, Christine. “Beauty and Truth.” The Cresset, vol. LXXIII, no. 4, 2009, pp. 16-20.

Christodoulou, G. N. “The Syndrome of Capgras.” British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 130,

1977, pp. 556-564.

Cooter, Roger. The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of

Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

72

Crowther-Heyck, Hunter. “George A. Miller, Language, and the Computer Metaphor of Mind.”

History of Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp. 37-64.

Deane, Cecil V. Aspects of Eighteenth Century Poetry. London: Frank Cass and Company

Limited, 1967.

Draaisma, Douwe. "Echos, Doubles and Delusions: Capgras Syndrome in Science and

Literature.” Style, vol. 43, no. 3, 2009, pp. 429-441.

Dufresne, Todd. Killing Freud: 20th Century Culture and the Death of Psychoanalysis.

London: Continuum, 2005.

El Gaddal, Y. Y. "De Clérambault's Syndrome (Erotomania) in Organic Delusional Syndrome.”

British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 154, 1989, pp. 714-716.

Fleissner, Jennifer L. "Symptomatology and the Novel.” NOVEL: a Forum on Fiction, vol. 42,

no. 3, 2009, pp. 387-392.

Hayman, Martin A. and Richard Abrams. “Capgras' Syndrome and cerebral dysfunction.”

British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 130, 1977, pp. 68-71.

Head, Dominic. Ian McEwan. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

Herman, Luc and Bart Vervaeck. “Capturing Capgras: The Echo Maker by Richard Powers.”

Style, vol. 43, no. 3, 2009, pp. 407-428.

Hirstein, William and V.S. Ramachandra. “Capgras syndrome: a novel probe for understanding

the neural representation of the identity and familiarity of persons.” Proceedings of the

Royal Society London, vol. 264, 1997, pp. 437-444.

Hull, Clark L. Principles of Behaviour. New Haven, Conneticut: Yale University Press, 1940.

73

“Ian McEwan Interview: On Making Love Work in Fiction” YouTube, uploaded by Louisiana

Channel, 20 September 2013,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzIABiyiPI&t=374s

Illouz, Eva. “The Lost Innocence of Love: Romance as a Postmodern Condition.” Theory

Culture and Society, vol. 15, no. 3-4, 1998, pp. 161-186.

Jameson, Frederic. Foreword. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. by Lyotard

Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. pp. viii-xxi.

Keats, John. The Poetical Works of John Keats. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Keegan, Bridget. British Labouring-Class Nature Poetry, 1730–1837. New York: PALGRAVE

MACMILLAN, 2008.

Launer, John. “Anna O and 'the talking cure'.” QJM, vol. 98, 2005, pp. 465-466. Web.

Lovett Doust, J.W. and H. Christie. “The Pathology of Love: Some Clinical Variants of De

Clérambault's Syndrome.” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 12, 1978, pp. 99-106.

Lustig, T. J. “"Two way traffic?" Syndrome as Symbol in Richard Powers’ The Echo Maker.”

Lustig, T. J.,Peacock, James. Diseases and Disorders In Contemporary Fiction: the

Syndrome Syndrome. New York: NY: Routledge, 2013. 130-143.

Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by

Geoff Bennington and Brain Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

MacCabe, Colin. The Talking Cure : Essays In Psychoanalysis and Language. London:

MacMillan, 1981.

Malcolm, David. Understanding Ian McEwan. Columbia (S.C.): University of South Carolina

press, 2002.

74

McAllister, James W. “Truth and Beauty in Scientific Reason.” Synthese, vol. 78, no. 1, 1989,

pp. 25-51.

McEwan, Ian. Enduring Love. London: Vintage, 1997.

Mitchell, Stephen A. and Margaret Black. Freud and Beyond: A History of Modern

Psychoanalytic Thought. 2016 ed., New York: Basic Books, 2016.

Ortega, Francisco and Fernando Vidal. “Brains in Literature/Literature in the Brain.” Poetics

Today, vol. 34, no. 3, 2013, pp. 327-360.

O'Sullivan, Derek and Christine Dean. “The Fregoli Syndrome and Puerperal Psychosis.”

British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 159, 1991, pp. 274-277.

Palmer, Alan. “Attributions of Madness.” Style, vol. 43, no. 3, 2009, pp. 291-308.

Phillips, Dana. The Truth of Ecology: Nature, Culture, and Literature in America. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2003.

Ploog, Detlev W. “The Place of the Triune Brain in Psychiatry.” Psychology and Behaviour,

vol. 79, 2003, pp. 487-493.

Powers, Richard. The Echo Maker. London: Vintage Random House, 2006.

Roth, Marco. "Rise of the Neuronovel.” nPlusOne Magazine, issue 8, Fall, 2009,

https://nplusonemag.com/issue-8/essays/the-rise-of-the-neuronovel/. Accessed 25

September 2016.

Secord, Anne. “Science in the pub: artisan botanists in early nineteenth century London.”

History of Science, vol. 32, 1994, pp. 269-315.

Sielke, Sabine. “Science Studies and Literature.” Anglia, vol. 133, no. 1, 2015, pp. 9-21.

75

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge university

press, 1962.

"Probe." Concise Oxford Dictionary of English. 3rd ed., 2010.

Whitley, Richard. “U.S. Capitalism: A Tarnished Model?” The Academy of Management

Perspectives (2009): 11-22.

Zapf, Hubert. Literature as Cultural Ecology. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.