Neither the responses mentioned in What Happened to Later C18 Literature? (a blog post below) nor my quick summary in class today mentioned an obvious possibility:
Maybe the literature from this period just isn't any good?
Discuss.
Deadline: Friday (1/30), 9am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The term "good" is relative. Some people don't think country music is good, while others adamently disagree. The literature from the Later 18th Century is certainly more politically charged, which I don't personally find interesting, especially since it is difficult to relate to the causes of the era. However, I would not say that anything I have read so far from this time period is necessarily "bad".
I think this directly relates to a lecture point made in class today that the literature from the later 18th Century is to the point, rather than the expected literature taught in the typical introduction level courses. For example, in our two poems discussed in class today, by Anna Seward and Wallace Stevens, Seward's was much more straightforward and honest as opposed to Stevens, where we were "purposefully confused", as one student said in class. Studying later 18th Cent. lit is unlike studying other literature, and therefore, it can be difficult to mix it into a typical introduction course. Also, the literature is often difficult to read, and this can also slow down a literature course, making it something more likely to avoid.
I certainly agree with Brit, "good" is relative. As described in class Late 18th Century literature is not typically hide and seek challenge, but the temporal disturbances between then and now clearly pose problem. I find deciphering archaic language and grammar interesting, making for a "good" read. Yet, some of the other students in the course might find the prospect of a grammar test in their daily read terrifying or annoying. I think that the original comment though that there is no good literature from this era is entirely to open ended and indescriptive enough to make a "good" argument.
Eighteenth century literature seems to require fairly extensive and specific knowledge about the period to really appreciate and understand much of the literature. This does not make it "good" or "bad" but does make it more challenging. Context seems to be extremely important and without it much of the significance of the works is lost. An introductory literature course will not necessarily want to spend time focusing on historical influences on the literature of a period, which may lead to 1740-1799 getting skipped over in favor of canonized works from the stylistically distinct Enlightenment and Romantic era.
If good means popular, then definitely C18 literature isn't very good.
If good means easy to read, then C18 literature belongs in the same pile as Wallace Stevens.
If good means beautiful and thought-provoking, then yes, I'd say C18 literature is good...so far. I just read Gray's "Elegy," and I think it's very very good. But I need to read more texts before I can confirm my stance.
(Aside: I really enjoy the bluntness of the question and I hope someone bluntly agrees with it.)
I think Caitlin B.'s point about how Eighteenth century literature often requires historical background to fully comprehend the text is key in understanding why it is not as heavily included in many introductory literature anthologies. As English majors, we are traditionally trained to do close readings of a text and look solely within the piece itself to find meaning. Though research on the text and the time period does sometimes follow, we are encouraged to find discoveries based on the words alone. For this reason, the politically and socially charged works of this time period are not ideal for such close readings. This is not to say that close readings are not used with this literature, but that historical research seems especially important with this period...However, I see that fault in my comment because even though I am not completely up to par with the history of this time period, others are and could focus on close readings more readily than I. I think it depends on who is reading the literature...So, now that I have just contradicted myself, I will end by saying that regardless of the history required behind the texts, the selections we have read so far are, to me, "good" because they include an interesting combination of humor, social commentary, and, as Issac notes, "thought-provoking" texts.
Post a Comment