{"title":"American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828 ed. by William Huntting Howell and Greta Lafleur (review)","authors":"Patrick M. Erben","doi":"10.1353/eal.2024.a918916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828</em> ed. by William Huntting Howell and Greta Lafleur <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Patrick M. Erben (bio) </li> </ul> <em>American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828</em><br/> <small>edited by</small> <small>william huntting howell</small> and <small>greta lafleur</small><br/> Cambridge University Press, 2022<br/> 366 pp. <p>Reading <em>American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828</em> feels like attending a conference of the Society of Early Americanists or C19: Society of Nineteenth-Century Americanists: the variety of critical and scholarly approaches, diversity of contributors, and breadth of subjects demonstrate the vitality and maturation of the field of early American studies. Howell and LaFleur's collection should put to rest debates about whether our field suffers a theory deficit and neglects aesthetics and form. The volume's essays adroitly handle topics as wide-ranging as using queer crip theory and decolonizing Native literary aesthetics; they also sharpen our attention to genre with a scope of themes including paranoid style and revival hymn poetics. The volume's wealth of information, density of primary text references, and bibliographic coverage also equip anyone teaching early American literature courses with fresh pedagogical impulses and a wellspring of spin-off subjects to guide undergraduate and graduate research; as with good teaching, the essays assiduously note the greater amount of work remaining to be done on a variety of topics, texts, authors, and archives. Yet <strong>[End Page 167]</strong> herein also lies a bit of the crux: to achieve this coverage, individual essays perform a feat of scholarly <em>compression</em> that is sometimes difficult to unpack. As the volume is part of a larger anthological series, Nineteenth-Century American Literature in Transition (edited by Cody Marrs), this comes as no surprise; indeed, one can sense each writer's struggle to distill their knowledge into such compact servings. After reading this volume, one may crave the scholarly <em>expansion</em> found in the authors' longer-form work in journals and monographs, for which the essays collected here serve as a veritable amuse-bouche. My \"how to use this book\" advice is to sample from its rich menu according to critical taste, scholarly interest, and pedagogical demands.</p> <p>What I appreciate most about Howell and LaFleur's introduction is the way they foreground their personal motivations, the present political stakes of scholarly work on the US national founding period, and the dialoguing between \"cultural instability\" (15) in the present and the many transformations of the early national period. The volume understands its episodic approach (\"exposure and assemblage\") as a corrective to the \"consensus history\" that, especially in present-day right-wing ideological framing, endows the early Republic with a mythos of \"probity and clarity\" (1). The essays gathered under three sections (\"Form and Genre,\" \"Networks,\" and \"Methods for Living\") should thus be understood as \"a generative and deeply interesting cacophony instead of a triumphal march\" (1), especially by focusing \"on the quotidian and even the banal\" rather than \"the exceptional\" (13). I understand the rhetorical valency of such terms to signal the disruption of received political narratives and staid literary methodologies, but their hyperbolic tone actually belies a bit of what makes the volume strong—that bedfellows like a survey of foundational legal documents and a deep dive into early national cookbooks are not strange after all, for both tease out how texts seeking to create order actually mask power, inequality, and exploitation. But maybe if the editors promised a \"cacophony\" and my reading experience yielded through-threads among seemingly disparate essays, the volume's \"generative\" approach has simply achieved its purpose.</p> <p>The section on \"Form and Genre\" features the largest number of essays, contrasting contributions on mainstays of early Republican letters, such as the \"Genteel Novel\" and the \"Statesman's Address,\" with more commonly ignored forms, such as evangelical poetry and cookbooks. Matthew Garrett's \"The Law of Form and the Form of Law\" reveals the literary strategy <strong>[End Page 168]</strong> of documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as integral to the nation-building project: like literary synthesis, the state \"organizes the component parts into an imaginary whole on the basis of their simultaneous autonomy and collective functionality\" (25). Though becoming more inclusive in its \"expression of citizenry\" (22), the early national mode of social organization and rhetorical...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":44043,"journal":{"name":"EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eal.2024.a918916","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828 ed. by William Huntting Howell and Greta Lafleur
Patrick M. Erben (bio)
American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828 edited by william huntting howell and greta lafleur Cambridge University Press, 2022 366 pp.
Reading American Literature in Transition, 1770–1828 feels like attending a conference of the Society of Early Americanists or C19: Society of Nineteenth-Century Americanists: the variety of critical and scholarly approaches, diversity of contributors, and breadth of subjects demonstrate the vitality and maturation of the field of early American studies. Howell and LaFleur's collection should put to rest debates about whether our field suffers a theory deficit and neglects aesthetics and form. The volume's essays adroitly handle topics as wide-ranging as using queer crip theory and decolonizing Native literary aesthetics; they also sharpen our attention to genre with a scope of themes including paranoid style and revival hymn poetics. The volume's wealth of information, density of primary text references, and bibliographic coverage also equip anyone teaching early American literature courses with fresh pedagogical impulses and a wellspring of spin-off subjects to guide undergraduate and graduate research; as with good teaching, the essays assiduously note the greater amount of work remaining to be done on a variety of topics, texts, authors, and archives. Yet [End Page 167] herein also lies a bit of the crux: to achieve this coverage, individual essays perform a feat of scholarly compression that is sometimes difficult to unpack. As the volume is part of a larger anthological series, Nineteenth-Century American Literature in Transition (edited by Cody Marrs), this comes as no surprise; indeed, one can sense each writer's struggle to distill their knowledge into such compact servings. After reading this volume, one may crave the scholarly expansion found in the authors' longer-form work in journals and monographs, for which the essays collected here serve as a veritable amuse-bouche. My "how to use this book" advice is to sample from its rich menu according to critical taste, scholarly interest, and pedagogical demands.
What I appreciate most about Howell and LaFleur's introduction is the way they foreground their personal motivations, the present political stakes of scholarly work on the US national founding period, and the dialoguing between "cultural instability" (15) in the present and the many transformations of the early national period. The volume understands its episodic approach ("exposure and assemblage") as a corrective to the "consensus history" that, especially in present-day right-wing ideological framing, endows the early Republic with a mythos of "probity and clarity" (1). The essays gathered under three sections ("Form and Genre," "Networks," and "Methods for Living") should thus be understood as "a generative and deeply interesting cacophony instead of a triumphal march" (1), especially by focusing "on the quotidian and even the banal" rather than "the exceptional" (13). I understand the rhetorical valency of such terms to signal the disruption of received political narratives and staid literary methodologies, but their hyperbolic tone actually belies a bit of what makes the volume strong—that bedfellows like a survey of foundational legal documents and a deep dive into early national cookbooks are not strange after all, for both tease out how texts seeking to create order actually mask power, inequality, and exploitation. But maybe if the editors promised a "cacophony" and my reading experience yielded through-threads among seemingly disparate essays, the volume's "generative" approach has simply achieved its purpose.
The section on "Form and Genre" features the largest number of essays, contrasting contributions on mainstays of early Republican letters, such as the "Genteel Novel" and the "Statesman's Address," with more commonly ignored forms, such as evangelical poetry and cookbooks. Matthew Garrett's "The Law of Form and the Form of Law" reveals the literary strategy [End Page 168] of documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as integral to the nation-building project: like literary synthesis, the state "organizes the component parts into an imaginary whole on the basis of their simultaneous autonomy and collective functionality" (25). Though becoming more inclusive in its "expression of citizenry" (22), the early national mode of social organization and rhetorical...
过渡时期的美国文学,1770-1828 年》,William Huntting Howell 和 Greta Lafleur 编辑(评论)
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者 过渡时期的美国文学,1770-1828》(American Literature in Transition, 1770-1828 ed. by William Huntting Howell and Greta Lafleur Patrick M. Erben (bio) 《过渡时期的美国文学,1770-1828》(American Literature in Transition, 1770-1828 edited by william Huntting Howell and Greta Lafleur Cambridge University Press, 2022 366 pp.阅读《过渡时期的美国文学,1770-1828》的感觉就像参加早期美国学家协会或 C19:19 世纪美国学家协会的会议:批评和学术方法的多样性、撰稿人的多样性以及主题的广泛性都显示了早期美国研究领域的活力和成熟。Howell 和 LaFleur 的文集应能平息关于我们的研究领域是否存在理论缺陷以及是否忽视美学和形式的争论。该文集的文章巧妙地处理了各种主题,如使用同性恋瘸子理论和非殖民化的土著文学美学;他们还通过偏执狂风格和复兴赞美诗诗学等主题,使我们对体裁的关注更加敏锐。该书丰富的信息、原始文本参考文献的密度和书目覆盖面也为教授早期美国文学课程的人提供了新的教学动力和丰富的衍生课题,为本科生和研究生的研究提供了指导;与优秀的教学一样,这些文章也孜孜不倦地指出,在各种主题、文本、作者和档案方面还有大量工作要做。然而 [尾页 167],这也是问题的关键所在:为了实现这种覆盖面,每篇文章都进行了学术压缩,有时甚至难以解读。由于本卷是大型选集《转型中的十九世纪美国文学》(由科迪-马尔斯编辑)的一部分,这并不令人意外;事实上,我们可以感受到每位作者都在努力将自己的知识提炼成如此紧凑的内容。读完这本书后,人们可能会渴望作者们在期刊和专著中发表的长篇作品所带来的学术拓展,而这里收集的文章则是名副其实的消遣之作。我对 "如何使用本书 "的建议是,根据批评家的口味、学术兴趣和教学要求,从本书丰富的菜单中品尝美味佳肴。我最欣赏豪厄尔和拉弗勒尔的引言,他们在引言中强调了个人动机、美国建国时期学术研究的当前政治利害关系,以及当前的 "文化不稳定性"(15)与建国初期的诸多变革之间的对话。特别是在当今右翼意识形态的框架下,"共识史 "赋予早期共和国以 "正直和清晰"(1)的神话,本卷将其情节性方法("暴露和组合")理解为对 "共识史 "的一种纠正。因此,我们应将三个部分("形式与体裁"、"网络 "和 "生活方法")中的文章理解为 "具有生成性和深刻趣味性的杂音,而不是胜利的进军"(1),尤其是通过关注 "庸常甚至平庸 "而不是 "特殊"(13)。我理解这些术语的修辞效果,它们预示着对既有政治叙事和呆板文学方法论的颠覆,但它们夸张的语气实际上掩盖了该书的一点特色--对基础性法律文件的调查和对早期国家烹饪书的深入研究并不奇怪,因为两者都揭示了寻求建立秩序的文本如何掩盖权力、不平等和剥削。不过,如果编者承诺 "喧闹",而我的阅读体验在看似不同的文章中发现了贯穿的线索,那么也许这本书的 "生成 "方法已经达到了目的。在 "形式与体裁 "部分,收录的文章数量最多,将 "风雅小说 "和 "政治家演说 "等早期共和党书信的主要形式与福音派诗歌和烹饪书等更常被忽视的形式进行了对比。马修-加勒特(Matthew Garrett)的 "形式的法律与法律的形式 "一文揭示了《独立宣言》和《宪法》等文件的文学策略 [尾页 168],认为它是建国计划不可或缺的一部分:就像文学合成一样,国家 "在同时具有自主性和集体功能性的基础上,将各组成部分组织成一个想象的整体"(25)。虽然在 "公民表达"(22)方面变得更具包容性,但早期国家的社会组织模式和修辞手法仍在不断变化。