Since we are almost done the book, I’ve been giving some thought to the title. I was very excited to read the Monkeyluv chapter and was expecting something really great since, well, the entire book has its name. Honestly I was a bit disappointed. The chapter didn’t present anything new and exciting, just reviewed a lot of the previous chapters. Do you think that’s why Sapolsky chose it for the title? Because it was a good overview of a few of the themes? Or is there something more that I’m missing?
Maybe he just thought it was a cool word.
3 thoughts on “Monkeyluv?”
I totally agree Lauren, I was a bit dissapointed with the chapter that bears the same title as the book. I did feel like it was a bit repetitive, and not a very good summary of the whole book. I’m not sure if this is what Sapolsky was going for, but he did give this chapter the title Monkeyluv!
I agree with the two of you! Why title the chapter the exact same name as the book? Although the chapter was repetitive, I don’t think Sapolsky intended for it to be a summary of the book in its entirety… perhaps he wanted us to revisit
the preceding material and gain a richer understanding of the complexities of human and animal life. It was a way to provoke further questions or gain more insight into every facet of human condition. And yet, I’m still pondering… why the same title?
Maybe if we just sat down and read though the book it wouldn’t be quite as repetitive. I am sure that the fact that we have a class discussion making connections between chapters every week adds to the feeling that he presents things many times when actually, in an average read, he is just pointing out cool connections that might be missed otherwise.