{"title":"The Scourge of the Unwilling: George Eliot on the Sources of Normativity","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"In a notebook of 1877, George Eliot at one point muses on moral philosophy, asking “Of what stuff is virtue made?” and ending with the dramatic “What is the scourge of the unwilling?” Such questions show Eliot engaging one of the great questions of nineteenth-century moral philosophy: where does the obligatoriness of moral obligations come from? Or, more simply, why should one care about morality? Henry Sidgwick’s magisterial 1874 treatise The Methods of Ethics ultimately conceded defeat on this issue, concluding that there was no way to show the rational egoist that altruistic behavior was more rational than self-interested action. Eliot’s own attempts to answer this question, reflected in the narratives of Esther Lyon, Fred Vincy, and ultimately Gwendolen Harleth, depend on the role of shame in moral psychology, and in particular on the conditions necessary for maintaining the self-approval necessary for internal coherence and autonomy.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114942913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Epilogue: Between Immersion and Critique – Thoughtful Reading","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Let’s take a step back. In the introduction, I sought to demonstrate some of the ways in which formalism has become instinctive in literary criticism, using several different genealogies. The first briefly surveyed some current thinkers, including Franco Moretti, Caroline Levine, Jonathan Kramnick and Anahid Nersessian, who assert that formalism is constitutive of literary study and a distillation of the best elements of its scholarly history. The second looked at how formalism had emerged as a contrast to methods based on reading for the content and ideas of literary texts, considering first a trajectory up to the New Criticism and Cleanth Brooks’s diagnosis of the heresy of paraphrase and subsequently an arc away from it, one through Fredric Jameson and Jacques Derrida that maintained the suspicion of literary content. And the third looked at the scholarship that formed the ‘ethical turn’, which similarly refused to read for the moral thought in literature, preferring to emphasise the ethical effects of form. All the while, though, there has been a sort of normal science of literary criticism that largely refused the insistence on form and was willing to let its scholarship rest with attempts to bring authors into conversation with issues that the critics cared about. That school of criticism has never received the dignity of a formal title, and I concluded by suggesting that it deserved one. Moreover, I argued, the moral thought in Victorian narratives offered a useful example in this regard, since it is a literary tradition deeply concerned with communicating an important message, and subsequent traditions in moral philosophy offer useful resources for clarifying the ideas such authors had....","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114203517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction: In Defence of Paraphrase","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"How did “reading for the message,” a mark of shame among literary critics, yet in many ways an ordinary reading practice, become so marginalized? The origins of this methodological commitment ultimately are intertwined with the birth of literary studies itself . The influential aestheticist notion of “art for art’s sake” has several implications crucial for understanding the intellectual history of literary criticism in the twentieth century: most important was the belief that to “extract” an idea from a text was to dismiss its aesthetic structure. This impulse culminated in the New Critical contention that to paraphrase a text was a “heresy.” Yet this dominant tradition has always co-existed with practical interpretation that was much less formalist in emphasis. A return to the world of American literary criticism in 1947, when Cleanth Brooks’s The Well-Wrought Urn was published, shows this clearly: many now-forgotten critics were already practicing a form of criticism that emphasized literary content, and often overly rejecting Brooks’s insistence that reading for the content or meaning of a poem betrayed its aesthetic nature.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116428183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Robert Browning, Augusta Webster and the Role of Morality","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"It has sometimes been asserted that a refusal of straightforward communication is definitive of literature as such, or at least definitive of poetry. Such a definition is however not neutral; it reflects instead a preference for certain poets and poetic styles over others. Robert Browning’s dramatic monologues have occasionally been presented as his greatest poetic achievement, highlighting the ironic distancing supposedly central to poetics. However, a look at Augusta Webster’s contemporaneous dramatic monologues reveals that Browning’s irony does not define the genre: Webster uses the form not to create distance between the speaker and the reader but to highlight the intellectual problem she is addressing. Looking at how both poets addressed the role of morality in human life, the chapter contends Webster’s poetry demonstrates that many poetic traditions have emphasized content just as much as form.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115630560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Everyday Aesthetics and the Experience of the Profound","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"The oldest arguments justifying formal analysis of literature, of course, grow out of a longer tradition in aesthetics, one having its roots in the development of a theory of the aesthetic in the eighteenth century. Ultimately, to emphasize the content over the form in literary interpretation is to emphasize forms of aesthetic value other than the beautiful and the sublime: to read for the content, and particularly for the intellectual content, is to value a book because it is deep, thought-provoking, and profound. Yet far from ignoring a text’s aesthetic nature, in fact these latter ways of reading offer the possibility for a renewed justification for literary aesthetics, one especially salient given the deep skepticism that formalist accounts of aesthetic value evoke.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125950752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Content and Form","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"A remarkable demonstration of the contempt literary theory has had for content appears in the various reference dictionaries of literary terms. Almost invariably, they offer lengthy definitions of form, while usually failing to include an entry at all for content. Yet all the while, the term “content” recurs throughout other definitions, a hidden but necessary component of explaining the various methods of making sense of literary texts. A more nuanced account of the form-content distinction, one that draws on both the analytic philosophy of literature and the sophisticated scholarship on allegory in literary theory, explains how form can be a tool for the expression of literary content.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129137012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}