"poetry seems to be what the late eighteenth-century was known for"
"[there were so many] important world events [at the time;] Brit. Lit. [was] not the most important"
"This time period is between two larger, more prominent periods--The Enlightenment and the Romantic Era. This period in between seems to be quickly skimmed over."
"Maybe for this period (1740-1799) educators thought students should be focusing more on history and social changes instead of literature."
"[It is] in between literary periods--no distinct style."
"Our [general education textbook] reaches more for modernity and diversity. It has lots of C20 lit. Mary Wollstonecraft was our only overlap, probably because of her writings for women's rights, which appeals to the diversity aspect of this particular range of literature."
What possibilities would you add to this list?
Deadline: Monday (1/26), 9am.
7 comments:
It might have something to do with the condition of England.
Maybe people were just tired of the British tradition and were looking toward the upstart American tradition.
OR
Maybe the Brits were low on morale/inspiration after losing the Revolutionary War.
The later eighteenth century seems to have been a time when many great ideas were generated, specifically ideas related to the rights of the individual. It may have been these rights, that new sense of the individual working for the individual, that allowed for the widespread creation of something as indulgent as the novel.
I think the comment that the later C18 has not distinct literary style is not quite true, but it is true that it is sandwiched between two very overbearing ideological/literary eras. While the style of the late C18 is closely tied with the Enlightenment and the Romantics the nuances of Johnson, Boswell, Pope, Swift and many others capture a unique moment in history. The topics of spirit mind and body are being born into the concepts of the individual in an ever expanding society.
I would agree with most of the assessments listed especially the "sandwiching" of the later 18th century literature between the Enlightenment and Romanticism. English Literature is predominated by series of movements in style and thought, and personally, the later 18th century does not fit well into any of these movements, nor does it create a movement of its own. The major 18th century players fail to stack up to writers from those major movements such as Wordsworth or Tennyson, and therefore fall off the syllabus of a general lit class. While my opinion may change over the course of the semester, at present the later 18th century is a bit of a mystery in terms of style and common themes.
I agree with Issac. I think that the condition of England definitely had something to do with the lack of well-known later 18th century British literature. Also when I think of this time period my mind definitely goes more toward philosophy. I think of people like Burke, Diderot, Hume, and Kant.
I feel the predominant reason for it is how this time period is taught in schools. History lessons are only what we choose to learn about. With so many political and revolutionary struggles going on at the time, literature simply took a backseat in significance, whether it be warranted or not.
I think this is an interesting question, and a previous comment may have nailed it for me: it is about how things are taught to us. Instead of having our course named after a movement, it is based on a specific time period. For that reason, it is easily sandwiched between overall movements. Like Kelli said, I'm sure most of us will develop opinions on the works of the day after this course is over, there is still plenty of time to learn as much as we can!
Post a Comment