Not long ago I observed that I would be sorry to see the last of Ian Rankin’s surly Scotch-soaked detective, John Rebus. Having now read Exit Music, my anticipated regrets are confirmed; Exit Music shows both Rankin and Rebus in characteristically good form. I don’t have much to add to what has been said about it already in reviews and other blogs (Miriam Burstein at The Little Professor, for instance, has a nice post on it), except to remark that this series exemplifies the challenge writers in this genre face with characterization–most of the characters, for plot and suspense reasons, need to be a degree opaque–as well as the best way they find out of it, namely the series characters, whose characterization can be enriched across many volumes even as, as characters, they change and develop. In this series, of course, it’s not just Rebus (who doesn’t really change much, actually, though we know him better and better), but Siobhan Clarke who offers the human interest and complexity that move the books beyond the superficiality to which ‘puzzle’ mysteries are vulnerable. At the same time, Rankin keeps a careful balance between personal and procedural developments. The close engagement between Rebus and Edinburgh’s history and politics, a thematic preoccupation since Knots and Crosses, is in full play here as well; in fact, Rebus’s brooding here about the city’s “overworld,” which he finds as threatening and corrupt as its “underworld,” reminded me very much of that first novel. Because we end up having relationships with series characters across long swathes of our own lives, Rebus’s brooding on the way his work has dominated his life and identity, and therefore on what and who he will be after retirement, couldn’t help but make me reflect on my own choices–and my own aging…in this respect at least, I appreciate Sue Grafton‘s decision to keep Kinsey Millhone back in the 1980s (no cell phone, never mind an iPod), though probably that is also one reason, among others, why that series seems to me rather to have stagnated.
Author: Rohan Maitzen
A Critic’s Library
ReadySteadyBook points us to this interesting series at Critical Mass: “Each week, the NBCC will post a list of five books a critic believes reviewers should have in their libraries.” Writers surveyed so far include John Updike, Morris Dickstein, Cynthia Ozick, Colm Toibin and Katha Politt; Eric Auerbach’s Mimesis is an unexpected crowd favourite, while some point to works of fiction or poetry rather than criticism or theory. If the question really is which books would be most useful to a practising critic, I think I’d incline towards reference books as much as exemplary scholarship or criticism. How about these five?
- The Oxford English Dictionary.
- M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms.
- Joseph Williams, Style: 10 Lessons in Clarity and Grace.
- Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction.
- Paul Fussell, Poetic Meter and Poetic Form.
On the other hand, if the real question is not which five books would be most useful for the broadest range of critical work but which five books exemplify your critical ideals, or which five books most provoked you to think about critical issues, or which five critical books you felt taught you the most about how to read (whether or not, in the end, you agree with them all the way), the list would look quite different, maybe something like this:
- M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp (or Natural Supernaturalism).
- Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic.
- Wayne Booth, The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction.
- Martha Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature.
- David Lodge, The Art of Fiction.
But of course five is really not enough: I’d want to get in at least some of James’s critical prefaces, and some of Woolf’s Common Reader, and George Eliot’s essays, and probably The Great Tradition, because what it does, it does well, and maybe Lukacs’s The Historical Novel…So what would your top five be (and how would you choose to understand the question)?
If a blog falls in the forest and nobody hears it…
Some assorted and preliminary follow-up thoughts to my previous post on blogging as a spectator sport:
- While I certainly find some value in blogging for myself, in sorting out my thoughts more carefully than I sometimes do in a notebook, for instance, because of the chance that someone else will read them, and in the practice it gives me in writing often, and in the excuse to write about books and topics not strictly work-related and in a relatively informal way–while I like these and some other aspects of blogging, I am disappointed in it at this point as a medium for dialogue and exchange. To be sure, the format readily allows for plenty of back-and-forth, through comments and replies or through linking, cross-posting, and cross-referencing. I certainly don’t get much of that here, myself. It’s true that as far as I know I have very few readers, and I don’t post much that’s edgy or controversial–but I do sometimes ask questions of my (imagined) audience, and sometimes it would just be nice to know what someone else thinks, whether of something I’ve read or of an issue I’m puzzling over–to have some constructive but casual conversation. I can think of two factors that militate against me in particular, in this regard: in the first place, there are over 75 million blogs now, so it’s no wonder that things are quite quiet over here; and in the second place, the kind of conversation I imagine is hard to come by in the ‘real’ world because the people I’d like to talk to are very busy, and I’m sure the same is true in the ‘blogosphere.’ But my question about the possibilities of dialogue-through-blogging is only partly about my own case, because (sensibly) my expectations remain about as low as my profile. The thing is, as I mention in the post I’ve linked to above, even the busy discussions on some of the most established ‘academic’ blogs are dominated by a small number of avid participants, while the rest of us basically eavesdrop or ‘lurk.’ The more political the topic, the more likely it seems to be to engage people. (Though there are always surprises: I think the longest comment thread I’ve come across anywhere is still this one , with 210 comments on the first round and 53 more on the next…)
- One aspect of this situation that I’ve been thinking about is the tension between generalization and specialization that academic blogs perhaps illustrate. It’s difficult to provoke comments on a specialized topic, except from other specialists. Non-specialists may be interested in reading or using your material, but they are unlikely to add to it. (I’m thinking, for instance, of the posts on The Little Professor about Victorian anti-Catholic texts: this is just not a topic on which many people can, or would, chime in, though now I know where to go if I want to learn something about them.) But if your offerings are general enough to interest a lot of people, they may lose their value in establishing a community of expertise, or in contributing to the development of your professional work. And if, as in some of the cases I linked to in my earlier post, they tend towards current events and political controversies, they may not be the kinds of conversations you are keen to participate in, especially publicly, or especially if you’re not American and don’t follow all the latest headlines.
- Further to that last point, I’m starting to notice a divide in blogging between two kinds of literary sites, which I would roughly divide into ‘bookish’ and ‘academic’–and the academic ones really don’t seem that literary, in the sense of talking about, well, literature, as opposed to politics, philosophy, theory, and criticism. (I know, I know: talking about literature always involves politics, philosophy, and theory, etc….) I ‘m thinking especially at this point of The Valve, subtitled ‘A Literary Organ,’ after all. The bookish ones seem quite contemporary in their focus, so for those of us who spend most of our time reading loose baggy monsters from the 19th century, well, once again but for different reasons, we aren’t really equipped to jump in–and there too, I don’t see that much discussion, to return to my first point. A third category would be the ‘academic specialty’ site, like Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog or The Long Eighteenth, or Blogging the Renaissance, all of which do seem to represent a virtual community offering its members fellowship and mental stimulation–but within established boundaries (that is, I don’t see them as trying to bridge any gaps between specialists and generalists–which is not to say that I think they should, just to observe that their aims seem rather different than the aims of The Valve).
I realize these remarks are rather rambling (it’s been a long day) but I wanted to get some of them down, not least because I volunteered to give a short talk in my department next month, sort of a ‘show and tell’ about academic blogging and I’m trying to pin down my impressions. I’d be curious to know what others (especially but not exclusively other bloggers) think about how well blogs do or can work for fostering dialogue, or about how much (or whether) commenting matters to the value of blogging. I’d also be happy to learn of other models of academic or literary blogs.
This Week in My Classes (October 22, 2007)
1. 19th-Century Novel. Today we begin three weeks on Middlemarch. To me, this is what going to university should be about: this novel challenges us intellectually and philosophically, and it is aesthetically and formally brilliant. As if that’s not enough, it’s also very funny (“‘He has got no good red blood in his body,’ said Sir James. ‘No. Somebody put a drop under a magnifying-glass, and it was all semicolons and parentheses,’ said Mrs Cadwallader”). I’ll open today with a lecture on George Eliot’s very interesting life as well as an overview of some key ideas governing her fiction (realism, determinism, sympathy). Then we’ll get started on the particulars of Middlemarch itself next time, probably with a focus on Dorothea’s marriage and the ways it (and, of course, its treatment by the narrator and in the narrative) highlights the central issue of (mis)interpretation.
2. Victorian Women Writers. It’s week two on North and South. Last week we ended up talking quite a lot about the obviously crucial scene in which Margaret confronts the striking workers on the steps of Thornton’s mill. One of the key interpretive questions about the novel is the relationship between the private or romance plot and the social or political plot. We read some interesting articles on this last week and no doubt our discussion of it will continue, now that everyone has read to the end of the book. I hope we will also focus on what the novel says about the problem of women’s vocation: one of this week’s critical articles puts the novel in the context of the Crimean War and makes a number of connections with Florence Nightingale, which is interesting. As we begin Middlemarch in our seminar next week (yes, I get to work on it in two classes at once, which I call luxurious!), we will also be able to put Margaret’s efforts to find meaningful occupation up against Dorothea’s. Does Margaret perhaps fare better than Dorothea in the end, at least in this respect? Is that a problem, in the end, for Gaskell’s social analysis?
“Proud Atheists” Pinker and Goldstein Interviewed
There’s an extremely interesting interview with Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein at Salon.Com:
Would you say your common interests are partly what brought you together?
GOLDSTEIN: Oh yes, completely. Actually, we met through each other’s work. I was a great fan of Steve’s work. And then I discovered that he had cited me in one of his books. It was my unusual use of an irregular verb. So it was completely through our work and my tremendous interest in Steve’s work that we first came to know each other. I don’t know if I should say this, but when I first met Steve in the flesh, I said that the way he thinks had so completely changed the way I think — particularly what I had learned from him about cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychology — that I said, “I don’t think I’ve had my mind so shaken up by any thinker since [18th-century philosopher] David Hume.” And he very modestly said, “That can’t be the case.” But it was the case. So I can certainly say that Steve has profoundly influenced the way I think.
PINKER: I’ve certainly been influenced by Rebecca as well. Our connection isn’t just that we met through an irregular verb, which sounds like the ultimate literary romance of two nerds finding each other. [Goldstein laughs.] Rebecca as a philosopher is a strong defender of realism — the idea that there is a real world that we can come to know –which emboldened me to press that theme in my own writings, even though people often say that we just construct reality through language. And the topic of consciousness — how the mind emerges from the body, and what makes the three-pound organ that we call the brain actually experience things subjectively — is a theme that runs through both my nonfiction and Rebecca’s fiction and her philosophical writings.
Read the rest here. I am keen to read Goldstein’s book on Spinoza, not least because of his influence on George Eliot.
“An Actual Literary Critic”?
Thanks to Dan Green for pointing us to this thoughtful piece on James Wood. Though I have read only some of Wood’s extensive critical output, I have certainly been impressed at both his compelling close reading and his commitment to taking literature and its forms and effects seriously; as I mostly share his apparent prejudices in favour of realism, character, and moral seriousness, I don’t really mind what DG calls his ‘aesthetic conservatism’ (frankly, in these “everything’s a text” days, I find it refreshing) and I’m certainly in sympathy with the idea that whatever his prejudices, the ‘evangelical zeal’ he brings to his criticism raises the level of the debate for all of us. As usual, I find myself fretting when I read comments like this:
In a world in which it seems that every year there are fewer and fewer readers, perhaps any serious dialogue about what makes good literature good and bad literature bad is, after all, good. In an interview, Pulitzer-prize winning novelist of The Hours (and director of the program where I am pursuing an MFA in fiction) Michael Cunningham said that “in the scattershot climate of contemporary literary criticism,” he is thankful for “an actual literary critic.”
I guess that makes a lot of us ‘virtual’ literary critics? But I think I understand the standard Cunningham is invoking here. If you conceive of a critic as someone with a public role, a kind of intellectual and literary intermediary between writers and their broadest audience, there’s no doubt that most academic critics do not fit this model. Most histories of criticism acknowledge that ‘once upon a time’ the situation was different; here’s Brian McRae, for instance, from Addison and Steele are Dead:
For Thackeray and his contemporaries, literature is a public matter, a matter to be lectured upon before large audiences, a matter to be given importance because of its impact upon morals and emotions. For the present-day academic critic, literature no longer is a public matter but rather is a professional matter, even more narrowly, a departmental matter.
Of course, writers of this history vary in their attitudes, some celebrating, some accepting, and some deploring the development of today’s highly specialized, professionalized ‘discipline’ of literary criticism. But there’s no doubt that one result of it is that academic criticism has become largely uninteresting and irrelevant to a lot of readers. Most of the time we do write for a kind of ‘virtual’ world, hoping that some day someone will happen across our small contribution to some sub-field and find it valuable. I’ve been challenged before to explain why our scholarly work should be expected to appeal to non-specialists when the research of academics in other fields is not. I’m still thinking about this question, which I still believe is not adequately answered by pointing to current disciplinary norms or professional demands.
October Fatigue Syndrome
It all seems so easy and exciting and then the assignments start coming in and it’s almost SSHRC season and students need letters and things pile up….I have several topics in mind that I’d like to write up proper posts on if I had more time and energy, but I’ll have to settle for the thumbnail versions for now.
- Blogging as a spectator sport. I remain enthusiastic about the potential blogs show for generating scholarly conversation, but now that I follow some blogs fairly regularly I am noticing that those that actually get much discussion going in the comments section are heavily dominated by a fairly small handful of contributors, most of whom seem to know each other very well and thus to be engaged in their own special game of point-counterpoint. I’m not saying that nothing of interest or value goes on, and I’m sure there’s no intent to be exclusive and that what I’m seeing is partly the result of the particular blogs I’ve taken to watching. But it’s all a bit claustrophobic in its own way, and off-putting for newcomers, or at least for me. It’s kind of clubby, which seems ironic given the medium. Others offer a pretty steady stream of mildly to very interesting comments, reviews, or opinions, but again, not much goes on in the comments sections, although apparently they have hundreds of readers. (I’m not taking into account in these observations blogs that proffer primarily personal anecdote or that mostly collate links from elsewhere, or those that define themselves as literary or bookish, rather than academic, several of which I also now keep an eye on and enjoy. I’m thinking here about blogs that try to realize the idea of academic community idealized in some of the meta-discussions I’ve read.) All of these blogs are also American, and they reflect a particularly intense interest in relationships between academic work and the American political scene which is, of course, perfectly legitimate but not as compelling a context for people on the outside (following some of these threads has brought back unpleasant flashbacks of some of my own graduate school experiences at Cornell, back when ‘culture wars’ was not a historical reference…and in my imaginary longer version of this post, I meditate a bit on the differences between Canadian and American universities and wonder why there seem to be so few Canadian academics who blog).
- Undergraduate relativism, as discussed, for instance, in this little Chronicle piece. It is true that undergraduates are uneasy having evaluative conversations about art. I challenged my class today to argue for or against the inclusion of Lady Audley’s Secret on our syllabus and though there were several remarks about books that are good to read vs. books that are good to study, nobody seemed to have much stomach for saying it just isn’t very well written. In the longer (imaginary) version of this post I add a bunch of qualifications about defining “well written” and acknowledge reasons for including things in courses beyond aesthetic or formal ones (historical ones, for instance).
- Mark Kingwell’s off-hand proposal for a grade-free university at the end of this Globe and Mail article. It’s true that plagiarism is in the air (I know of three cases already being pursued in my department alone this term, and no doubt there are more), and for sure he’s right that if papers weren’t worth marks, there would not be much point in cheating on them, but how exactly he envisions the system working, especially given how fixated students are on credentials, rather than on the substance of their education, I have no idea. He mentions offering exams at the end of term for those who can’t do without evaluation. Does he imagine something like a British-style tutorial system the rest of the time? Assignments that we comment on but don’t put grades on?
This Week in My Classes (October 15, 2007)
1. 19th-Century Fiction. This week is our second and last on Braddon’s Lady Audley’s Secret. I closed out last week with an overview of Pre-Raphaelitism, to help us think about the significance of Lady Audley’s portrait, which we are told must have been painted by a member of that movement:
No one but a pre-Raphaelite would have so exaggerated every attribute of that delicate face as to give a lurid lightness to the blonde complexion, and a strange, sinister light to the deep blue eyes. No one but a pre-Raphaelite could have given to that pretty pouting mouth the hard and almost wicked look it had in the portrait. . . . my lady, in his portrait of her, had something of the aspect of a beautiful fiend. (Ch. VIII)
There are many PRB paintings that capture the quality Braddon evokes here; this is one of my favourites. This week we will focus on the cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between Lady Audley and Robert Audley, the investigator-hero of the novel (or is he?). Issues likely to come up include just what the stakes are for both of these characters in the batttle to reveal or conceal Lady Audley’s real identity and (presumed) crimes, and the displacement of Robert’s affection for his lost buddy George Talboys onto George’s eerily similar sister, Clara. When we get to the end of the novel, we will debate whether Lady Audley is ultimately offered to us as evidence of the danger dissatisfied women pose to social and sexual hierarchies or as a clever woman who uses her beauty as capital in a society that otherwise inhibits her access to capital and thus to social advancement. I’ve yet to be convinced that Braddon herself offers a coherent position on whether Lady Audley is more to be feared or pitied; the late chapter title “Buried Alive” seems to urge us towards the latter, but there’s only so much sympathy or feminist ire I can muster on behalf of a homicidal bigamist…. It is always a bit discouraging to me how popular this novel is with my students, full as it is of cheap tricks and thoughtless language. But I wouldn’t assign it if I didn’t think we would all learn from talking about it. The transition to Middlemarch next week may be hard on them, though: that is a novel that will ask them to think much harder about issues presented with much more complexity and subtlety.
2. Victorian Women Writers. My graduate seminar is taking up Gaskell’s North and South this week. It’s interesting coming to this novel right after two weeks on Jane Eyre: though both novels take up issues of rights, Gaskell places an equivalently high value on duties, including social duties, something Jane Eyre subordinates to a more individualistic standard of duty to self (equally principled, for sure, but different principles: “‘Who in the world cares for you? or who will be injured by what you do?’ Still indomitable came the reply–‘I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself.'”) Also, though much criticism in the past 20 years has helped us understand Jane Eyre as a text inextricably part of its historical moment, there are still many elements in that novel that invite us to consider it in abstract or symbolic ways (the fairy-tale structure, the appeals to myth and legend, the gothic features, the allegorical character of sections such as Jane’s lonely wanderings, etc.). North and South does not seem to me to accomodate such interpretive moves. Even its preoccupation with right relations between master and men, though appealing to abstract concepts and theories, really makes sense only as an analysis of conditions at that particular time; the same seems to me true about its interest in “that most difficult problem for women, how much was to be utterly merged in obedience to authority, and how much might be set apart for freedom in working.” Formally, North and South seems to me as well structured and balanced as Jane Eyre, and as well suited to its themes–perhaps a little too pat in places, but also avoiding the sentimental and melodramatic extremes of Mary Barton. As we read several works focusing on the role and experience of women writers, I expect we will start with some questions about how Gaskell seems to be inhabiting that role in this case, but we’ll move on to the usual discussions of the relation between the novel’s industrial plot and its central courtship plot.
Alberto Manguel, The Massey Lectures (I)
On Friday night I attended the first in the series of 5 Massey Lectures being given this year by Alberto Manguel. It was an erudite and occasionally eloquent performance, but by the end I was feeling distinctly underwhelmed. For one thing, for all the wide-ranging literary allusions and anecdotes, his points were wholly predictable, even banal, and certainly preaching to the choir on occasions such as this: books nourish our humanity, fictions of all kind offer us stories about how we do or could or should live our lives, language shapes as well as reflects our experience, and so forth. Perhaps he considered it necessary for the occasion and for his intended audience to speak in extreme generalizations, especially as this was the first in his series, but strip away the allusions to Plato and Doblin and I think there’s a pretty fine line between much of his talk and platitudes. Further, though, and more problematic (there’s nothing wrong, after all, with asserting general claims for the beauty and value of literature from time to time in prominent venues), I became troubled by two aspects of his characterization of literature.
First, he repeatedly invoked the difference between political language and literary language, without, I thought, sufficiently acknowledging the highly political dimension of much literature (or literary language). I don’t think he meant to imply that literature operates in an apolitical realm (indeed, his talk about the role of literature in imagining society and shaping identity, including national identity, at least implicitly pointed towards its political dimensions, which can of course be reflected in its form and language as well as in its content). But he did persistently point to political discourse as the opposite of literary.
Second, he repeatedly described literature as posing, rather than answering, questions, as allowing for ambiguity, confusion, and profundity rather than insisting on clarity, definition, or systems. I have found that people working on the relationship between literature and moral philosophy (such as Martha Nussbaum, Cora Diamond, or Jane Adamson) also typically characterize literature in this way, thus opposing it to what they consider the reductive tendencies of analytic philosophy. But as Adamson’s essay “Against Tidiness” clearly shows (but does not seem self-conscious about itself), this is not a universal or historically constant view of literature, and applying its standards strictly could mean ruling out some pretty important writers (such as Alexander Pope, say, or George Eliot) as not truly literary precisely because they do offer some strong prescriptions. As I have written about elsewhere, I think this is why Nussbaum starts off her theory of literature as moral philosophy with Henry James, explicitly setting George Eliot aside. (Actually, as I discuss in that article, she really works in the other direction, starting from her favourite novel, James’s The Golden Bowl, and looking for a way to find or explain its philosophical significance.) Although typically these people (including Manguel) mean to be boosting literature by emphasizing its difference from dogma, by insisting on its irrational or unphilosophical or subjective or mystifying aspects, they risk limiting its relevance (or its perceived value) in today’s world in just the ways their supposed opponents (Plato, utilitarians, scientists, politicians, analytic philosophers, etc.) do. Though I’m sure most readers share George Eliot’s view that it is not desirably for fiction to lapse “from picture to diagram,” it does seem important that we not restrict our thinking about the role of literature in society (or philosophy) according to an essentially Romantic notion of it.
Cure for Parental Grumpiness
I’ve mostly avoided personal posts here, but this little recent episode warmed my heart so much I thought I’d pass it along, especially since it’s a grey, gloomy sort of day out here and we can all use a little mental sunshine.
Tired grumpy parent: “How’s your day going?”
Lovely daughter: “Pretty good now.”
TGP: “Your parents must be doing something right, then.”
LD: “Everybody in the world is doing something right, Mommy, because they’re all loving someone.”
Who could stay grumpy after that? Hugs all ’round!
Novel Readings 