American Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic by Daniel Diez Couch (review)

IF 0.3 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1353/eal.2024.a918927
Ezra Tawil
{"title":"American Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic by Daniel Diez Couch (review)","authors":"Ezra Tawil","doi":"10.1353/eal.2024.a918927","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 Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic</em> by Daniel Diez Couch <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Ezra Tawil (bio) </li> </ul> <em>American Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic</em><br/> <small>daniel diez couch</small><br/> University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022<br/> 282 pp. <p>How is it possible that no one before now has written a literary history of the \"fragment\" in early US literature, or one which focuses on this form as important to a more broadly targeted literary history? The fact that such a question can even form itself in a reader's mind is usually a concrete sign of an author's success. In the present case, that success rests, in my view, on the combination of the argument's novelty and the obviousness of its importance to the field. Granted, the \"fragment\" is an intrinsically minor literary mode—indeed, it rather baldly advertises itself as such. But as any student of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century transatlantic culture can attest, such openly \"unfinished literary forms\" (3) abound in print, as stand-alone pieces in periodicals, interpolated texts in larger works, entries in miscellanies, and so on. Interestingly, as Couch observes, the relative neglect of the subject in American literary history is not matched in transatlantic scholarship, where, for example, work on both British and German Romanticism have zeroed in on the \"fragment\" as a preeminent Romantic form. In bringing American Romanticism into a zone of contact with these transatlantic traditions, Couch carves out space for his critical project in a couple of ways. First, he shows that the \"fragment\" is not in any way an American invention or formal innovation. On the contrary, the fever for <strong>[End Page 220]</strong> fragments was an observable inclination of the Romantic literary marketplace—what Couch calls a \"tradition of eighteenth-century partial writing\" (2)—on both sides of the Atlantic. Second, he argues that when this interest in \"unfinished forms\" did cross the Atlantic, it took on a distinctly cisatlantic spin. It was not just that the public fascination with \"artfully contrived fragments\" (2) was observable here as part of a general transatlantic fad but also that it merged with particular streams of cultural, political, philosophical, and aesthetic thought to become an essential literary mode whose formal \"minorness\" belies its importance and power.</p> <p>What, then, does it mean to call \"unfinished forms\"—and not, say, poetic epics, long prose fiction, political treatises, or other genres which seem instantly to claim more national importance—the mark of a \"political aesthetic\" in the early Republic, as the book's title does? Or, as Couch puts it early on: \"What kind of artistic creation was a fragment, and how did deliberately unfinished writing play into an America that was itself still unfinished?\" (3). If the correlation here asserted, between a literary form and a national project both \"unfinished,\" might at first seem a glib way of making the connection, we should note that this is emphatically not where the book's argument leads; it is merely the question that calls it forth. Couch offers two kinds of answers to this question. The first is thematic. It is not that literary fragments necessarily \"overtly scrutinize the array of political problems facing the nation\" in the closing decades of the eighteenth century (3). On the contrary, these were \"minor\" forms that tended to come filled with a social content equally defined as lacking in significance, centrality, or importance to the body politic. Couch gives a set of examples from Matthew Carey's first issue of the <em>American Museum</em> in January 1787, which includes \"three curious essays subtitled 'fragments': 'The prostitute.—A Fragment,' 'The Slave.—A Fragment,' and 'Negro trade.—A fragment'\" (1–2). In this way, the fragment's claim on the reader's imagination seems implicitly connected to a kind of demotic turn in the social and cultural politics of this particular time and place. Fragments tended to turn \"away from the center and toward the periphery to look at the private lives of those whom the middling and elite classes called the 'lower sort'\" (2). There was thus a particular politics to this peculiar aesthetic, which became a way of representing particular social types...</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.a918927","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 Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic by Daniel Diez Couch
  • Ezra Tawil (bio)
American Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic
daniel diez couch
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022
282 pp.

How is it possible that no one before now has written a literary history of the "fragment" in early US literature, or one which focuses on this form as important to a more broadly targeted literary history? The fact that such a question can even form itself in a reader's mind is usually a concrete sign of an author's success. In the present case, that success rests, in my view, on the combination of the argument's novelty and the obviousness of its importance to the field. Granted, the "fragment" is an intrinsically minor literary mode—indeed, it rather baldly advertises itself as such. But as any student of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century transatlantic culture can attest, such openly "unfinished literary forms" (3) abound in print, as stand-alone pieces in periodicals, interpolated texts in larger works, entries in miscellanies, and so on. Interestingly, as Couch observes, the relative neglect of the subject in American literary history is not matched in transatlantic scholarship, where, for example, work on both British and German Romanticism have zeroed in on the "fragment" as a preeminent Romantic form. In bringing American Romanticism into a zone of contact with these transatlantic traditions, Couch carves out space for his critical project in a couple of ways. First, he shows that the "fragment" is not in any way an American invention or formal innovation. On the contrary, the fever for [End Page 220] fragments was an observable inclination of the Romantic literary marketplace—what Couch calls a "tradition of eighteenth-century partial writing" (2)—on both sides of the Atlantic. Second, he argues that when this interest in "unfinished forms" did cross the Atlantic, it took on a distinctly cisatlantic spin. It was not just that the public fascination with "artfully contrived fragments" (2) was observable here as part of a general transatlantic fad but also that it merged with particular streams of cultural, political, philosophical, and aesthetic thought to become an essential literary mode whose formal "minorness" belies its importance and power.

What, then, does it mean to call "unfinished forms"—and not, say, poetic epics, long prose fiction, political treatises, or other genres which seem instantly to claim more national importance—the mark of a "political aesthetic" in the early Republic, as the book's title does? Or, as Couch puts it early on: "What kind of artistic creation was a fragment, and how did deliberately unfinished writing play into an America that was itself still unfinished?" (3). If the correlation here asserted, between a literary form and a national project both "unfinished," might at first seem a glib way of making the connection, we should note that this is emphatically not where the book's argument leads; it is merely the question that calls it forth. Couch offers two kinds of answers to this question. The first is thematic. It is not that literary fragments necessarily "overtly scrutinize the array of political problems facing the nation" in the closing decades of the eighteenth century (3). On the contrary, these were "minor" forms that tended to come filled with a social content equally defined as lacking in significance, centrality, or importance to the body politic. Couch gives a set of examples from Matthew Carey's first issue of the American Museum in January 1787, which includes "three curious essays subtitled 'fragments': 'The prostitute.—A Fragment,' 'The Slave.—A Fragment,' and 'Negro trade.—A fragment'" (1–2). In this way, the fragment's claim on the reader's imagination seems implicitly connected to a kind of demotic turn in the social and cultural politics of this particular time and place. Fragments tended to turn "away from the center and toward the periphery to look at the private lives of those whom the middling and elite classes called the 'lower sort'" (2). There was thus a particular politics to this peculiar aesthetic, which became a way of representing particular social types...

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国的碎片:共和国早期未完成形式的政治美学》,作者 Daniel Diez Couch(评论)
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者: 美国的碎片:丹尼尔-迪兹-库奇(Daniel Diez Couch)著,埃兹拉-塔维尔(Ezra Tawil)(简历)译,《美国碎片:共和国早期未完成形式的政治美学》(American Fragments:美国的碎片:共和国早期未完成形式的政治美学》(American Fragments: The Political Aesthetic of Unfinished Forms in the Early Republic),丹尼尔-迪兹-库奇 著,宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2022 年,282 页。在此之前,怎么可能没有人撰写过关于美国早期文学中 "片段 "的文学史,或者将这种形式作为更广泛的文学史的重要内容?这样的问题能够在读者的脑海中形成,通常是作者成功的具体标志。在我看来,本案的成功在于论点的新颖性及其对该领域的重要性。诚然,"片段 "本质上是一种次要的文学模式--事实上,它相当直白地标榜自己是次要的。但任何研究十八世纪和十九世纪早期跨大西洋文化的学生都可以证明,这种公开的 "未完成的文学形式"(3)在印刷品中比比皆是,如期刊中的独立作品、大型作品中的插叙文本、杂记中的条目等等。有趣的是,正如库奇所观察到的,美国文学史对这一主题的相对忽视在跨大西洋的学术研究中并不鲜见,例如,研究英国和德国浪漫主义的著作都将 "片段 "作为浪漫主义的杰出形式。库奇将美国浪漫主义带入了与这些跨大西洋传统的接触区域,以多种方式为他的批评项目开辟了空间。首先,他表明 "片段 "绝不是美国的发明或形式创新。恰恰相反,片段热是大西洋两岸浪漫主义文学市场--库奇称之为 "18 世纪局部写作传统"(2) --的一种明显倾向。其次,他认为,当这种对 "未完成形式 "的兴趣确实跨越大西洋时,它明显带有大西洋两岸的色彩。公众对 "巧妙构思的片段"(2) 的迷恋在这里不仅仅是作为一种普遍的跨大西洋时尚的一部分,而且还与特定的文化、政治、哲学和美学思想流派融合在一起,成为一种重要的文学模式,其形式上的 "微小 "掩盖了它的重要性和力量。那么,将 "未完成的形式"--而不是诗歌史诗、长篇散文小说、政治论文或其他似乎立即就能宣称具有更重要国家意义的体裁--称为共和国早期 "政治美学 "的标志,正如本书的标题所做的那样,这意味着什么?或者,正如库奇一开始所说的那样:"片段是一种什么样的艺术创作?"蓄意未完成的写作是如何融入一个本身仍未完成的美国的?(3).如果说这里所断言的文学形式与 "未完成 "的国家项目之间的相关性乍看起来似乎是一种巧妙的联系,那么我们应该注意到,这显然不是本书论证的方向,而只是提出了一个问题。库奇对这个问题给出了两种答案。第一种是主题性的。文学片段并不一定 "公开审视 "十八世纪最后几十年 "国家面临的一系列政治问题"(3)。相反,这些都是 "次要 "形式,往往充满了同样被定义为对政治体制缺乏意义、中心性或重要性的社会内容。库奇列举了马修-凯里(Matthew Carey)于 1787 年 1 月出版的《美国博物馆》创刊号上的一组例子,其中包括 "三篇标题为'片段'的奇文:妓女片段》、《奴隶片段》和《黑人贸易片段》"(1-2)。这样,片段对读者想象力的要求似乎与这一特定时间和地点的社会和文化政治中的一种去殖民化转向暗合。片段倾向于 "从中心转向边缘,观察那些被中产阶级和精英阶级称为'下层'的人的私人生活"(2)。因此,这种奇特的美学具有特殊的政治性,成为表现特定社会类型的一种方式......
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
62
期刊最新文献
Black Enlightenment by Surya Parekh (review) Editors' Note Reconciliation in John Winthrop's History of New England Early American Literature Book Prize for 2023 John Marrant's Nova Scotia Journal Writes Displaced Communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1