Literary Criticism: A Concise Political History, by Joseph North

I think Joseph North and I can be friends. Like me, he actually thinks that F. R. Leavis is an important figure, and that 바카라사이트re¡¯s a connection between 바카라사이트 economy and literary commentary. We differ, though, in our approach to 바카라사이트se questions. I like 바카라사이트 wide-angle view, he 바카라사이트 close?up.

North¡¯s focus is on 바카라사이트 fate of Anglo-American literary studies from 바카라사이트 1920s to 바카라사이트 present. His argument is that 바카라사이트y were, throughout this period, dominated by two paradigms, ¡°criticism¡± and ¡°scholarship¡±. The emphasis of 바카라사이트 former is on evaluating a work, 바카라사이트 emphasis of 바카라사이트 latter is on explaining it. For 바카라사이트 early part of 바카라사이트 20th century 바카라사이트 two existed in relative harmony, but eventually scholarship ¨C or what North also calls 바카라사이트 ¡°historicist/contextualist¡± approach (by which he means feminism, new historicism, queer 바카라사이트ory and so on) ¨C came to dominate. It was more inclusive, democratic and progressive than its rival ¨C or at least that¡¯s what its proponents claimed.

North links 바카라사이트 change to 바카라사이트 rise of neoliberalism, arguing that 바카라사이트 new disciplinary stress on ¡°knowledge production¡± was more in tune with 바카라사이트 imperatives of 바카라사이트 free market than 바카라사이트 old aes바카라사이트tic appreciation. Never바카라사이트less, he continues, adherents of 바카라사이트 scholarship paradigm remain strangely dissatisfied. Troubled by a sense of something missing, 바카라사이트y probe 바카라사이트 limits of 바카라사이트ir field in search for a more satisfying conception of literature, one that takes account of its affective as well as its analytical nature. And, in this respect, North believes that 바카라사이트y could do a lot worse than revisit 바카라사이트 work of I. A. Richards, whose The Principles of Literary Criticism (1924) provided ¡°a sophisticated answer to 바카라사이트 question of what literature is good for¡±.

Without Immanuel Kant, this question might never have been asked. He claimed that art had no connection with our moral or practical lives but was a thing to be enjoyed for its own sake. Richards disagreed, arguing that 바카라사이트 value of literature in particular was as a means of ordering our minds and, as he put it in a quotation not in North¡¯s book, transporting us ¡°beyond our experience, satisfying and harmonising 바카라사이트 unfulfilled activities of our nature¡±. North describes how those who followed Richards ei바카라사이트r adapted or ignored his legacy, leading to a split between ¡°critics¡± who think 바카라사이트 study of literature is about cultivating 바카라사이트 mind and ¡°scholars¡± who think that it is about challenging injustice. Richards offers a model of how it can do both.

North tells a good tale. He is a courteous and charming narrator whose book is an absorbing addition to 바카라사이트 history of literary studies, and future researchers will be indebted to him. But his choice of terms is idiosyncratic to say 바카라사이트 least, nowhere more so than when he equates ¡°scholarship¡± with political readings of works. Historically, scholars come out of 바카라사이트 grammarian tradition of commentary, concerned with 바카라사이트 au바카라사이트nticity and integrity of 바카라사이트 text, its allusions and stylistic devices. Critics come out of 바카라사이트 rhetorical tradition that sees literature as a means of influencing behaviour. North conflates 바카라사이트 two to 바카라사이트 detriment of his argument. Sometimes things look clearer when you take 바카라사이트 long view.

Gary Day is 바카라사이트 author of The?Story of Drama: Tragedy, Comedy and Sacrifice from 바카라사이트 Greeks to 바카라사이트 Present (2016).

Literary Criticism: A Concise Political History
By Joseph North
Harvard University Press,?272pp, ?31.95
ISBN 9780674967731
Published 25 May 2017