Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Narrative and Gender in Literary Histories

Narrative and Gender in Literary Histories Comparative Critical Studies 6, 2, pp. 149–164 DOI: 10.3366/E1744185409000676 © BCLA 2009 Literary histories as a rule serve two purposes at the same time. They supply information on individual works of literature and their authors. And they tell the story of literature throughout the ages, relating how it developed and changed, creating ever new styles and worlds. Recently, however, the first function, that of providing information, has all but obscured the second. ‘Narrative gets shouted down by the encyclopedic’, James Wood complains in a review of the twelfth volume of the Oxford English Literary History.1 The verbal links which are used in literary histories in order to convey an impression of coherence with regard to succeeding works and authors are revealing in their monotony and superficiality. In volume twelve of the OELH, simple comparative gestures abound: ‘Comparable views shaped the works of other novelists [. . .]’; ‘Similar views were developed [. . .]’; ‘Similar emphasis appeared [. . .]’.2 One wonders whether students looking for the information thus offered would not be better served by encyclopedias and readers’ companions with their entries arranged for easy reference in alphabetical order. It is my conviction that, while reference books http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Comparative Critical Studies Edinburgh University Press

Narrative and Gender in Literary Histories

Comparative Critical Studies , Volume 6 (2): 149 – Jun 1, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/narrative-and-gender-in-literary-histories-ZQbdJWvxBy

References (1)

Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
© British Comparative Literature Association 2009
Subject
Essays; Literary Studies
ISSN
1744-1854
eISSN
1750-0109
DOI
10.3366/E1744185409000676
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Comparative Critical Studies 6, 2, pp. 149–164 DOI: 10.3366/E1744185409000676 © BCLA 2009 Literary histories as a rule serve two purposes at the same time. They supply information on individual works of literature and their authors. And they tell the story of literature throughout the ages, relating how it developed and changed, creating ever new styles and worlds. Recently, however, the first function, that of providing information, has all but obscured the second. ‘Narrative gets shouted down by the encyclopedic’, James Wood complains in a review of the twelfth volume of the Oxford English Literary History.1 The verbal links which are used in literary histories in order to convey an impression of coherence with regard to succeeding works and authors are revealing in their monotony and superficiality. In volume twelve of the OELH, simple comparative gestures abound: ‘Comparable views shaped the works of other novelists [. . .]’; ‘Similar views were developed [. . .]’; ‘Similar emphasis appeared [. . .]’.2 One wonders whether students looking for the information thus offered would not be better served by encyclopedias and readers’ companions with their entries arranged for easy reference in alphabetical order. It is my conviction that, while reference books

Journal

Comparative Critical StudiesEdinburgh University Press

Published: Jun 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.