{"title":"重塑美国早期文学研究(再次)","authors":"Matthew Pethers","doi":"10.1093/alh/ajae034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This review essay considers the edited collection American Literature in Transition: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1770–1828, in relation to current shifts in the field of early American literary studies away from New Historicist methodologies toward a concern with topics such as form, genre, and networks. Seeking to interrogate longstanding critical assumptions about the danger of “grand narratives” and “bounded wholes,” it asks whether potentially progressive alternatives to concepts of transition and contingency are possible. At a moment when early Americanist scholarship, and the institutional and political contexts for it, are in a heightened state of flux, what emerging lines of inquiry are likely to have an ongoing influence and to what degree are critics working on the long eighteenth century engaged in a shared project?[T]he still-dominant academic rhetoric of rupture, unsettling, liminality, et al. may sometimes be a barrier to practically arriving at reconstituted models of the social order[;] there is a delicate balancing act to be achieved between recognizing resistant specificity and knitting individual perspectives together.","PeriodicalId":45821,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remaking Early American Literary Studies (Again)\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Pethers\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/alh/ajae034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This review essay considers the edited collection American Literature in Transition: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1770–1828, in relation to current shifts in the field of early American literary studies away from New Historicist methodologies toward a concern with topics such as form, genre, and networks. Seeking to interrogate longstanding critical assumptions about the danger of “grand narratives” and “bounded wholes,” it asks whether potentially progressive alternatives to concepts of transition and contingency are possible. At a moment when early Americanist scholarship, and the institutional and political contexts for it, are in a heightened state of flux, what emerging lines of inquiry are likely to have an ongoing influence and to what degree are critics working on the long eighteenth century engaged in a shared project?[T]he still-dominant academic rhetoric of rupture, unsettling, liminality, et al. may sometimes be a barrier to practically arriving at reconstituted models of the social order[;] there is a delicate balancing act to be achieved between recognizing resistant specificity and knitting individual perspectives together.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajae034\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, AMERICAN\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajae034","RegionNum":2,"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
摘要
这篇评论文章从美国早期文学研究领域当前从新历史主义方法论向形式、体裁和网络等主题转变的角度,对编辑的文集《转型中的美国文学》进行了探讨:The Long Nineteenth Century, 1770-1828(《漫长的十九世纪,1770-1828》),与当前美国早期文学研究领域从新历史主义方法论转向对形式、流派和网络等主题的关注有关。该书试图对长期以来关于 "宏大叙事 "和 "有界整体 "的危险性的批判性假设提出质疑,并询问是否有可能对过渡性和偶然性的概念做出潜在的进步性替代。在早期美国主义学术研究及其制度和政治背景处于高度变动状态的时刻,哪些新出现的研究方向可能会产生持续的影响,研究漫长的十八世纪的批评家们在多大程度上参与了一个共同的项目?[关于断裂、动荡、边缘性等仍占主导地位的学术修辞有时可能会成为实际达成社会秩序重建模式的障碍[;]在承认阻力的特殊性和将个人观点整合在一起之间需要实现微妙的平衡。
This review essay considers the edited collection American Literature in Transition: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1770–1828, in relation to current shifts in the field of early American literary studies away from New Historicist methodologies toward a concern with topics such as form, genre, and networks. Seeking to interrogate longstanding critical assumptions about the danger of “grand narratives” and “bounded wholes,” it asks whether potentially progressive alternatives to concepts of transition and contingency are possible. At a moment when early Americanist scholarship, and the institutional and political contexts for it, are in a heightened state of flux, what emerging lines of inquiry are likely to have an ongoing influence and to what degree are critics working on the long eighteenth century engaged in a shared project?[T]he still-dominant academic rhetoric of rupture, unsettling, liminality, et al. may sometimes be a barrier to practically arriving at reconstituted models of the social order[;] there is a delicate balancing act to be achieved between recognizing resistant specificity and knitting individual perspectives together.
期刊介绍:
Recent Americanist scholarship has generated some of the most forceful responses to questions about literary history and theory. Yet too many of the most provocative essays have been scattered among a wide variety of narrowly focused publications. Covering the study of US literature from its origins through the present, American Literary History provides a much-needed forum for the various, often competing voices of contemporary literary inquiry. Along with an annual special issue, the journal features essay-reviews, commentaries, and critical exchanges. It welcomes articles on historical and theoretical problems as well as writers and works. Inter-disciplinary studies from related fields are also invited.