{"title":"19世纪美国期刊文学","authors":"Gib Prettyman","doi":"10.5860/choice.33-5593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Kenneth M. Price and Susan Belasco Smith (UP of Virginia, 1995), vi + 292 pp., $45.00 cloth, $17.50 paper. Nineteenth-century American periodical literature, the editors of this volume assert, constitutes \"a social text\" woven of \"complex relationships among writers, readers, editors, publishers, printers, and distributors\" (3). The importance of this claim is amply indicated by the collected essays, which immerse the reader in fascinating historical cross-currents. The subjects of these essays clearly are social texts; rather than a discrete \"work\" or an individual author, the essays move naturally and necessarily between examination of the editors, contributors, audiences, geographical regions, demographic profiles, marketing strategies, and other elements that go together, literally, to make a periodical \"text.\" In exploring these social texts, the essayists purposely raise more issues and questions than can be readily resolved. For example, when Larry J. Reynolds examines Margaret Fuller's revision of the Dial essay \"The Great Lawsuit: Man versus Men. Woman versus Women\" into the book Woman in the Nineteenth Century, he identifies Fuller's vacillation between intellectual elitism and democratic idealism as a central tension. However, Reynolds points out, her success at fusing these tensions \"remains an open question\" (17). Such openness is virtually mandated by Reynolds's methodological assumptions: He is not examining an individual text or an isolated author, but rather the revision of a periodical article into a book and the related transition of Fuller from editor of the exclusive Dial into a correspondent for the popular New York Tribune. Margaret Fuller's fluctuating ideas of authorship during this period are intertwined with the two periodicals, which in turn must struggle to survive (or, preferably, thrive) amidst changing conceptions of audience, changing practices of authorship, and changing distribution of intellectual commodities. Because the import of these cultural currents is so manifestly nonlinear--revealing the swirl of commercial successes and failures, more so than traditional, academic authorial intentions--Reynolds performs an invaluable service by examining Fuller's expressed hopes and fears from within the ad hoc material conditions of her literary marketplaces. Does Fuller change, or do marketplaces change her? Is a mass audience the same thing as increased democracy? Is mass circulation more effective than private circulation of manuscripts and ideas? Does commerce necessarily corrupt even our culture's most intellectual efforts--and if so, how? Such questions, still so vital in late-twentieth-century culture, are uncovered in rich fossil form by Reynolds's study of periodical literature. Despite radical implications, the book is strikingly modest in theoretical claims. Editors Price and Smith position their approach to periodicals primarily as an under-explored version of \"history of the book\" criticism, developed over the past fifteen years in such ambitious books as Cathy N. Davidson's Reading in America: Literature and Social History (1989) and Richard H. Brodhead's Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth-Century America (1993). They choose not to attack scholars' privileging of books or to detail the questionable assumptions such privileging entails. Clearly the absence of elaborate theoretical posturing is strategic: The volume's purpose is to stimulate study and raise questions, rather than to stake intellectual territory and construct firm conclusions. Still, I believe the editors undersell the importance of studying periodical literature as a primary subject, rather than as secondary to the study of books. \"Periodicals,\" their Introduction claims, \"once seen as the reflection of a culture and mined for background detail, are now recognized as central components of culture ... …","PeriodicalId":39582,"journal":{"name":"Nineteenth Century Prose","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America\",\"authors\":\"Gib Prettyman\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.33-5593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Kenneth M. Price and Susan Belasco Smith (UP of Virginia, 1995), vi + 292 pp., $45.00 cloth, $17.50 paper. Nineteenth-century American periodical literature, the editors of this volume assert, constitutes \\\"a social text\\\" woven of \\\"complex relationships among writers, readers, editors, publishers, printers, and distributors\\\" (3). The importance of this claim is amply indicated by the collected essays, which immerse the reader in fascinating historical cross-currents. The subjects of these essays clearly are social texts; rather than a discrete \\\"work\\\" or an individual author, the essays move naturally and necessarily between examination of the editors, contributors, audiences, geographical regions, demographic profiles, marketing strategies, and other elements that go together, literally, to make a periodical \\\"text.\\\" In exploring these social texts, the essayists purposely raise more issues and questions than can be readily resolved. For example, when Larry J. Reynolds examines Margaret Fuller's revision of the Dial essay \\\"The Great Lawsuit: Man versus Men. Woman versus Women\\\" into the book Woman in the Nineteenth Century, he identifies Fuller's vacillation between intellectual elitism and democratic idealism as a central tension. However, Reynolds points out, her success at fusing these tensions \\\"remains an open question\\\" (17). Such openness is virtually mandated by Reynolds's methodological assumptions: He is not examining an individual text or an isolated author, but rather the revision of a periodical article into a book and the related transition of Fuller from editor of the exclusive Dial into a correspondent for the popular New York Tribune. Margaret Fuller's fluctuating ideas of authorship during this period are intertwined with the two periodicals, which in turn must struggle to survive (or, preferably, thrive) amidst changing conceptions of audience, changing practices of authorship, and changing distribution of intellectual commodities. Because the import of these cultural currents is so manifestly nonlinear--revealing the swirl of commercial successes and failures, more so than traditional, academic authorial intentions--Reynolds performs an invaluable service by examining Fuller's expressed hopes and fears from within the ad hoc material conditions of her literary marketplaces. Does Fuller change, or do marketplaces change her? Is a mass audience the same thing as increased democracy? Is mass circulation more effective than private circulation of manuscripts and ideas? Does commerce necessarily corrupt even our culture's most intellectual efforts--and if so, how? Such questions, still so vital in late-twentieth-century culture, are uncovered in rich fossil form by Reynolds's study of periodical literature. Despite radical implications, the book is strikingly modest in theoretical claims. Editors Price and Smith position their approach to periodicals primarily as an under-explored version of \\\"history of the book\\\" criticism, developed over the past fifteen years in such ambitious books as Cathy N. Davidson's Reading in America: Literature and Social History (1989) and Richard H. Brodhead's Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth-Century America (1993). They choose not to attack scholars' privileging of books or to detail the questionable assumptions such privileging entails. Clearly the absence of elaborate theoretical posturing is strategic: The volume's purpose is to stimulate study and raise questions, rather than to stake intellectual territory and construct firm conclusions. Still, I believe the editors undersell the importance of studying periodical literature as a primary subject, rather than as secondary to the study of books. \\\"Periodicals,\\\" their Introduction claims, \\\"once seen as the reflection of a culture and mined for background detail, are now recognized as central components of culture ... …\",\"PeriodicalId\":39582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nineteenth Century Prose\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nineteenth Century Prose\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-5593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nineteenth Century Prose","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-5593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
期刊《19世纪美国文学》,Kenneth M. Price和Susan Belasco Smith主编(弗吉尼亚大学出版社,1995年),共292页,布价45.00美元,纸价17.50美元。本书的编辑断言,19世纪的美国期刊文学构成了“一种社会文本”,由“作者、读者、编辑、出版商、印刷商和分销商之间的复杂关系”编织而成(3)。这一主张的重要性在文集中得到充分体现,这些文集使读者沉浸在迷人的历史潮流中。这些文章的主题显然是社会文本;这些文章不是一个独立的“作品”或一个单独的作者,而是自然而必然地在对编辑、撰稿人、读者、地理区域、人口统计概况、营销策略和其他因素的审查之间移动,这些因素结合在一起,从字面上看,构成了期刊的“文本”。在探讨这些社会文本时,散文家故意提出了更多的问题,而不是容易解决的问题。例如,当拉里·j·雷诺兹(Larry J. Reynolds)研究玛格丽特·富勒(Margaret Fuller)对Dial论文《大诉讼:男人对男人》(the Great litigation: Man versus Men)的修订时。在《19世纪的女人》一书中,他认为富勒在知识精英主义和民主理想主义之间的摇摆是一种中心张力。然而,雷诺兹指出,她在融合这些紧张关系方面的成功“仍然是一个悬而未决的问题”(17)。这种开放性实际上是由雷诺兹的方法论假设所决定的:他不是在研究一篇单独的文本或一个孤立的作者,而是在研究将一篇期刊文章修改成一本书,以及富勒从独家版《Dial》的编辑转变为流行的《纽约论坛报》的记者。玛格丽特·富勒在这一时期对作者身份的摇摆不定的想法与这两种期刊交织在一起,而这两种期刊反过来又必须在不断变化的读者观念、不断变化的作者身份实践和不断变化的知识商品分配中挣扎求生(或者最好是茁壮成长)。因为这些文化潮流的输入是如此明显的非线性——揭示了商业成功与失败的漩涡,而不是传统的学术作者的意图——雷诺兹通过从她的文学市场的特殊物质条件中审视富勒所表达的希望和恐惧,提供了宝贵的服务。是富勒改变了,还是市场改变了她?大众受众等同于民主的增加吗?手稿和思想的大规模流通是否比私人流通更有效?商业是否一定会腐蚀我们文化中最具智慧的努力?如果是,又是如何腐蚀的?这些问题在20世纪晚期的文化中仍然如此重要,雷诺兹对期刊文学的研究以丰富的化石形式揭示了这些问题。尽管有激进的暗示,这本书在理论主张上却出奇地谦虚。编辑普赖斯和史密斯把他们对期刊的研究定位为一种未被充分探索的“书的历史”批评,在过去15年里,这种批评在凯茜·n·戴维森的《美国的阅读:文学和社会历史》(1989)和理查德·h·布罗德黑德的《文学文化:19世纪美国的阅读和写作场景》(1993)等雄心勃勃的著作中得到了发展。他们选择不攻击学者对书籍的特权,也不详细说明这种特权所带来的可疑假设。显然,缺乏详尽的理论姿态是战略性的:卷的目的是刺激研究和提出问题,而不是赌注知识领域和构建坚定的结论。不过,我认为编辑们低估了期刊文学作为一门主要学科的重要性,而不是作为书籍研究的次要学科。“期刊,”他们的引言称,“曾经被视为文化的反映和背景细节的挖掘,现在被认为是文化的核心组成部分………
Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America
Periodical Literature in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Kenneth M. Price and Susan Belasco Smith (UP of Virginia, 1995), vi + 292 pp., $45.00 cloth, $17.50 paper. Nineteenth-century American periodical literature, the editors of this volume assert, constitutes "a social text" woven of "complex relationships among writers, readers, editors, publishers, printers, and distributors" (3). The importance of this claim is amply indicated by the collected essays, which immerse the reader in fascinating historical cross-currents. The subjects of these essays clearly are social texts; rather than a discrete "work" or an individual author, the essays move naturally and necessarily between examination of the editors, contributors, audiences, geographical regions, demographic profiles, marketing strategies, and other elements that go together, literally, to make a periodical "text." In exploring these social texts, the essayists purposely raise more issues and questions than can be readily resolved. For example, when Larry J. Reynolds examines Margaret Fuller's revision of the Dial essay "The Great Lawsuit: Man versus Men. Woman versus Women" into the book Woman in the Nineteenth Century, he identifies Fuller's vacillation between intellectual elitism and democratic idealism as a central tension. However, Reynolds points out, her success at fusing these tensions "remains an open question" (17). Such openness is virtually mandated by Reynolds's methodological assumptions: He is not examining an individual text or an isolated author, but rather the revision of a periodical article into a book and the related transition of Fuller from editor of the exclusive Dial into a correspondent for the popular New York Tribune. Margaret Fuller's fluctuating ideas of authorship during this period are intertwined with the two periodicals, which in turn must struggle to survive (or, preferably, thrive) amidst changing conceptions of audience, changing practices of authorship, and changing distribution of intellectual commodities. Because the import of these cultural currents is so manifestly nonlinear--revealing the swirl of commercial successes and failures, more so than traditional, academic authorial intentions--Reynolds performs an invaluable service by examining Fuller's expressed hopes and fears from within the ad hoc material conditions of her literary marketplaces. Does Fuller change, or do marketplaces change her? Is a mass audience the same thing as increased democracy? Is mass circulation more effective than private circulation of manuscripts and ideas? Does commerce necessarily corrupt even our culture's most intellectual efforts--and if so, how? Such questions, still so vital in late-twentieth-century culture, are uncovered in rich fossil form by Reynolds's study of periodical literature. Despite radical implications, the book is strikingly modest in theoretical claims. Editors Price and Smith position their approach to periodicals primarily as an under-explored version of "history of the book" criticism, developed over the past fifteen years in such ambitious books as Cathy N. Davidson's Reading in America: Literature and Social History (1989) and Richard H. Brodhead's Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth-Century America (1993). They choose not to attack scholars' privileging of books or to detail the questionable assumptions such privileging entails. Clearly the absence of elaborate theoretical posturing is strategic: The volume's purpose is to stimulate study and raise questions, rather than to stake intellectual territory and construct firm conclusions. Still, I believe the editors undersell the importance of studying periodical literature as a primary subject, rather than as secondary to the study of books. "Periodicals," their Introduction claims, "once seen as the reflection of a culture and mined for background detail, are now recognized as central components of culture ... …
期刊介绍:
"Nineteenth-Century Prose" invites submissions for a special issue on the picturesque for Fall 2002. The picturesque is, arguably, the most pervasive and familiar aesthetic term of the nineteenth century, as well as its most controversial. It demarcates the limits of nineteenth century sympathy and designates the terms of cosmopolitan, national and regional inclusion.