nonsense.

I do not know whether any one has paid attention to Zola at this _aut
aut_! It is sure that he never thought of it himself. Probably it
would not have had any influence, as the criticisms had no influence
on his theory of heredity. Critics and physiologists attacked him
ofttimes with an arsenal of irrefutable arguments. It did not do any
good. They affirmed in vain that the theory of heredity is not proved
by any science, and above all it is difficult to grasp it and show it
by facts; they pointed in vain that physiology cannot be fantastical
and its laws cannot depend on the free conception of an author.
Zola listened, continued to write, and in the last volume he gave
a genealogical tree of the family of Rougon-Macquart, with such a
serenity as if no one ever doubted his theory.

At any rate, this tree has one advantage. It is so pretentious, so
ridiculous that it takes away from the theory the seriousness which it
would have given to less individual minds. We learn from it that from
a nervously sick great-grandmother grows a sick family. But the one
who would think that her nervousness is seen in descendants as it is
in the physical field, in a certain similar way, in some inclination
or passion for something, will be greatly mistaken. On the contrary,
the marvellous tree produces different kinds of fruit. You can find
on it red apples, pears, plums, cherries, and everything you might
desire. And all that on account of great-grandmother's nervousness. Is
it the same way in nature? We do not know. Zola himself does not have
any other proofs than clippings from newspapers, describing different
crimes; he preserved these clippings carefully as "human documents,"
and which he uses according to his fancy.