Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature by Claudia Stokes (review)

IF 0.3 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
Geoffrey Sanborn
{"title":"Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature by Claudia Stokes (review)","authors":"Geoffrey Sanborn","doi":"10.1353/eal.2024.a934216","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>Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature</em> by Claudia Stokes <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Geoffrey Sanborn (bio) </li> </ul> <em>Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature</em><br/> <small>claudia stokes</small><br/> University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022<br/> 272 pp. <p>Powerful cultural concepts sometimes slow the forward motion of one's thinking as one approaches them. When I try to explain to other people what I think about plagiarism—that it is the flip side of a cultural fetishization of originality, that it is not always criminal or indecent, that the ban on it in academic settings has productive value but the fierceness of the banning does not—everything seems to turn into wet, thick sand. I have trouble holding on to my thoughts. The thickness of the opprobrium that the concept of plagiarism generates makes it extremely difficult to speak, listen, and speak more. So when I get the chance to read a book like Claudia Stokes's <em>Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature</em>, I'm grateful not only for what it adds to my knowledge but also for the thinking environment it makes available to me. Along with books like Robert Macfarlane's <em>Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature</em> (2007) and Paul Saint-Amour's <em>The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination</em> (2003), Stokes's <em>Old Style</em> unfolds a space in which counterintuitive, countercultural thoughts about (un)originality can roam and mingle a bit more freely.</p> <p>One of the appealing aspects of <em>Old Style</em> is that Stokes seems to <em>enjoy</em> certain kinds of unoriginal writing—not plagiarism, which she describes as \"outright fraud\" (62), but writing that stays close to approved examples, writing that echoes the sound and sense of the literary past. When she describes what she means by unoriginality—\"the enlistment of time-honored topics and narratives handed down through the generations; the deliberate invocation of signature styles and forms; quotation and allusion; and even the overt reconstruction of familiar texts or earlier literary periods\" <strong>[End Page 500]</strong> (3)—she does so with the fondness and precision of a connoisseur. It is a compelling way of easing readers into a more intimate experience of works whose aesthetics are not our own. Before we pass judgment on a conventionally written work from the nineteenth century, Stokes argues, we should try to get closer to it, to sense the value of once-popular modes of expression.</p> <p>Throughout <em>Old Style</em>, Stokes models that process of understanding for us, moving from writer to writer (Lucretia Davidson, Catherine Sedgwick, James Fenimore Cooper, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, etc.) and practice to practice (copying text into commonplace books, using epigraphs, writing sequels, etc.) in an effort to evoke what it was like to live in the midst of a widespread prioritization of the familiar. In her first chapter, she presents Davidson, who died at seventeen, as a young woman who sought maturity by way of \"time-honored topics and narratives\" (3). According to Stokes, \"compliance with literary convention provided Davidson with a route by which she could assume the persona of an adult authority figure,\" thereby enabling her to \"serv[e] as a decisive arbiter of morality and supervise[e] the well-being of others\" (30). Instead of rebelling against respectability, Davidson, whose mother, Margaret Miller Davidson, was a poet, \"use[d] poetry to grasp and prepare for greater authority\" (30). Interestingly, Stokes makes no effort to argue that the imitativeness of Davidson's poems destabilizes the conventions on which they are based. She argues, instead, that Davidson's \"skilled literary imitation\" gives her access to \"familial and social authority\" by \"contributing and attesting to the author's character, loyalty, and reliability\" (43–44).</p> <p>The second chapter, a reprint of Stokes's 2018 <em>American Literary History</em> (vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 201–21) essay on commonplacing, puts that argument in a broader cultural context. As Stokes observes, the epigraphs that headed chapters in many nineteenth-century novels and memoirs owed a great deal to the popularity of commonplace books, in which choice quotations were preserved as a signifier of one's familiarity with \"culture\" and as a source of wisdom...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":44043,"journal":{"name":"EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","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.a934216","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:

  • Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature by Claudia Stokes
  • Geoffrey Sanborn (bio)
Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature
claudia stokes
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022
272 pp.

Powerful cultural concepts sometimes slow the forward motion of one's thinking as one approaches them. When I try to explain to other people what I think about plagiarism—that it is the flip side of a cultural fetishization of originality, that it is not always criminal or indecent, that the ban on it in academic settings has productive value but the fierceness of the banning does not—everything seems to turn into wet, thick sand. I have trouble holding on to my thoughts. The thickness of the opprobrium that the concept of plagiarism generates makes it extremely difficult to speak, listen, and speak more. So when I get the chance to read a book like Claudia Stokes's Old Style: Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature, I'm grateful not only for what it adds to my knowledge but also for the thinking environment it makes available to me. Along with books like Robert Macfarlane's Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature (2007) and Paul Saint-Amour's The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination (2003), Stokes's Old Style unfolds a space in which counterintuitive, countercultural thoughts about (un)originality can roam and mingle a bit more freely.

One of the appealing aspects of Old Style is that Stokes seems to enjoy certain kinds of unoriginal writing—not plagiarism, which she describes as "outright fraud" (62), but writing that stays close to approved examples, writing that echoes the sound and sense of the literary past. When she describes what she means by unoriginality—"the enlistment of time-honored topics and narratives handed down through the generations; the deliberate invocation of signature styles and forms; quotation and allusion; and even the overt reconstruction of familiar texts or earlier literary periods" [End Page 500] (3)—she does so with the fondness and precision of a connoisseur. It is a compelling way of easing readers into a more intimate experience of works whose aesthetics are not our own. Before we pass judgment on a conventionally written work from the nineteenth century, Stokes argues, we should try to get closer to it, to sense the value of once-popular modes of expression.

Throughout Old Style, Stokes models that process of understanding for us, moving from writer to writer (Lucretia Davidson, Catherine Sedgwick, James Fenimore Cooper, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, etc.) and practice to practice (copying text into commonplace books, using epigraphs, writing sequels, etc.) in an effort to evoke what it was like to live in the midst of a widespread prioritization of the familiar. In her first chapter, she presents Davidson, who died at seventeen, as a young woman who sought maturity by way of "time-honored topics and narratives" (3). According to Stokes, "compliance with literary convention provided Davidson with a route by which she could assume the persona of an adult authority figure," thereby enabling her to "serv[e] as a decisive arbiter of morality and supervise[e] the well-being of others" (30). Instead of rebelling against respectability, Davidson, whose mother, Margaret Miller Davidson, was a poet, "use[d] poetry to grasp and prepare for greater authority" (30). Interestingly, Stokes makes no effort to argue that the imitativeness of Davidson's poems destabilizes the conventions on which they are based. She argues, instead, that Davidson's "skilled literary imitation" gives her access to "familial and social authority" by "contributing and attesting to the author's character, loyalty, and reliability" (43–44).

The second chapter, a reprint of Stokes's 2018 American Literary History (vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 201–21) essay on commonplacing, puts that argument in a broader cultural context. As Stokes observes, the epigraphs that headed chapters in many nineteenth-century novels and memoirs owed a great deal to the popularity of commonplace books, in which choice quotations were preserved as a signifier of one's familiarity with "culture" and as a source of wisdom...

旧风格:克劳迪娅-斯托克斯(Claudia Stokes)所著《十九世纪美国文学中的非原创性及其用途》(评论
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:审稿人: 旧风格:克劳迪娅-斯托克斯(Claudia Stokes)著,杰弗里-桑伯恩(Geoffrey Sanborn)(简历):《旧风格:十九世纪美国文学中的非原创性及其运用》(Old Style:Claudia Stokes 宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2022 年,272 页。强大的文化概念有时会在人们接近它们时减缓思维的前进速度。当我试图向他人解释我对剽窃的看法时--剽窃是对原创性的文化迷信的反面,剽窃并不总是犯罪或不雅的,在学术环境中禁止剽窃具有生产价值,但禁止的激烈程度并不具有生产价值--一切似乎都变成了又湿又厚的沙子。我很难坚持自己的想法。剽窃这一概念所引发的强烈反感,让我极难开口、倾听、再开口。因此,当我有机会阅读克劳迪娅-斯托克斯(Claudia Stokes)的《旧风格》(Old Style:Unoriginality and Its Uses in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature》这样的书时,我不仅感谢它为我增添了知识,还感谢它为我提供了思考的环境。除了罗伯特-麦克法兰(Robert Macfarlane)的《原版》(Original Copy)等书,我还喜欢《十九世纪美国文学中的剽窃与原创》(Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth Sury U.L.):十九世纪文学中的剽窃与原创》(2007 年)和保罗-圣阿莫尔(Paul Saint-Amour)的《版权:斯托克斯的《旧风格》为关于(非)原创性的反直觉、反文化思想提供了一个可以更自由地徜徉和交融的空间。旧风格》的一个吸引人之处在于,斯托克斯似乎喜欢某些类型的非原创写作--不是她所说的 "赤裸裸的欺诈"(62)的剽窃,而是贴近经认可的范例、呼应文学过去的声音和感觉的写作。当她描述她所说的 "非原创 "的含义时--"利用历代流传下来的久负盛名的题材和叙事;刻意引用标志性的风格和形式;引用和典故;甚至公开重建熟悉的文本或更早的文学时期"[尾页 500] (3)--她是以一个鉴赏家的喜爱和精确来描述的。这是一种令人信服的方式,可以让读者更亲切地体验那些审美观不属于我们自己的作品。斯托克斯认为,在我们对十九世纪的传统作品作出评判之前,我们应该试着走近它,感受曾经流行的表达方式的价值。在《旧风格》一书中,斯托克斯为我们展示了这一理解过程,从一位作家(露克丽娅-戴维森、凯瑟琳-塞奇威克、詹姆斯-菲尼摩尔-库珀、亨利-沃兹沃斯-朗费罗、托马斯-贝利-奥尔德里奇等)到另一位作家,从一种做法到另一种做法(将文字抄写到便览本中、使用题记、撰写续集等),努力唤起人们在普遍优先考虑熟悉事物的时代生活的感受。在第一章中,她将 17 岁就去世的戴维森描述为一位通过 "历史悠久的主题和叙事"(3)来寻求成熟的年轻女性。斯托克斯认为,"遵守文学传统为戴维森提供了一条途径,她可以通过这条途径扮演成人权威人物的角色",从而使她能够 "充当道德的决定性仲裁者,监督他人的福祉"(30)。戴维森的母亲玛格丽特-米勒-戴维森(Margaret Miller Davidson)是一位诗人,她没有反抗尊贵,而是 "利用诗歌来掌握和准备更大的权威"(30)。有趣的是,斯托克斯并没有努力去论证戴维森诗歌的模仿性破坏了诗歌赖以生存的传统。相反,她认为戴维森 "娴熟的文学模仿 "通过 "对作者的性格、忠诚度和可靠性的贡献和证明",使她获得了 "家庭和社会权威"(43-44)。第二章是斯托克斯 2018 年发表的《美国文学史》(第 30 卷,第 2 期,第 201-21 页)中关于 "commonplacing "一文的重印本,将这一论点置于更广阔的文化背景中。正如斯托克斯所观察到的,19 世纪许多小说和回忆录中作为章节开头的题记在很大程度上得益于常用书的流行,在常用书中,精选的引文被保留下来,作为一个人熟悉 "文化 "的标志和智慧的源泉......
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 求助全文
来源期刊
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE
EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
62
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信