Why Darwin's Doughnuts?

I should probably begin by explaining the title of this… actually, I’ll start by complaining about the word blog. I just don’t like it. It sounds like it belongs to the messier end of medical statistics (as something that might be measured, and not in a pretty way). It may be the reason why I’ve waited so long before having one of these things myself, until I realised there was no reason why my half-arsed news shouldn’t be publicised as well. But I still don’t like the word. So instead, if you’ll excuse the pretension… an e-journal. You like?

Right. Following that escaped footnote, we can begin again. I should probably begin by explaining the title of this e-journal, which requires a bit more personal information. I am a researcher, occasional lecturer, and fairly new PhD, in English, specifically in the field of Victorian Studies, which explains the Darwin bit. In keeping with the title, there will probably be some Victorian stuff on here. Maybe some reports on academic conferences, maybe some miniature book reviews. But usually just comments on whatever I’m reading and funny pictures. Oh, and bonus rants whenever I hear in the media that old joke about Victorian sexuality, i.e. they didn’t have any. Piano feet will be on flagrant display throughout.

Thus, one half of the title. I wish the other half constituted a fantastic expose of Charles’ dining habits, but it doesn’t. Instead, this splendidly alliterative title nicely sums up my equal interests in Victorian culture and too much sugar. I suppose on another level, it signals my investment in an evolutionary paradigm for explaining the universe. Dawkins’ Doughnuts might have been another title, but that comes a little too close to Dunkin’ Donuts (against which I have nothing; this year’s MLA convention in Philadelphia was held conveniently near to one of their shops). And it loses the Victorian context a little, as well. And the history of the doughnut as a model for scientific theory is a fascinating one… for now, however, I adopt it as having another symbolic potential. For (and stay with me here) is not the Darwinian model of the universe itself a doughnut, or depending on your perspective, a certain kind of doughnut? Some people find it delicious with a central core of jam (here standing in for reason, evidence, or ‘truth’ if you want to go that far). Others with slightly different tastes find it circular and with a hole at its centre (the sprinkles often found on these donuts are standing in for the devil’s work of misinformation, dinosaurs and the like). Now, whether I’m in an extended metaphor or not, I tend to prefer jam doughnuts. And I don’t really see cakes as theological indicators. Usually.

Finally, I’m getting in on intellectual fashion. Jay Clayton, in the marvellously titled Charles Dickens in Cyberspace (Oxford UP, 2003) points to a "Darwin Boom of the turn of the millennium" evident in titles of novels and non-fiction books which have all made Charlie the possessor of a wide range of stuff. This includes a Dangerous Idea, a Black Box, an Orchestra, a Shooter, a Spectre, a Radio, some Worms, and a Ghost (Clayton 170). And doughnuts seem as good as anything on this list. Admittedly, the turn of the millennium is itself on the turn, but at least the title sums up my general lateness in doing one of these things. And wait – isn’t it a bit parodic too? Cool.

One more disclaimer. If you’ve got this far, I really wouldn’t expect what follows to be the intellectual carnival I’ve so tiresomely suggested above. It might just turn out to be the television review column I’ve always wanted, or complaints about airports, or stuff about progressive rock (the most unfairly maligned of musical genres). But you can always search for the titillating bits. That’s what the internet is for, after all.