I found reading Cathy Davidson’s introduction to be an enlightening, engaging experience. So much so, that I almost feel at a loss for words. I know so little about Early American Novels, and yet I was able to relate so much of what they were trying to accomplish to my own areas of interest—intertextuality truly abounds, and history (of the novel) does indeed repeat itself.
Richard Rorty has written that literature is the new philosophy, but perhaps literature has first and foremost been “the people’s philosophy.” Davidson’s comment that “the novel as a genre was more inclusive in its audience and characters than was the new government” (9) certainly seems to serve as evidence for such a labeling. I’m not particularly surprised here, but to sit and ponder over just how much power potential a novel could have, I’m, as always, amazed. I wonder, today, what has—if anything—the same amount, the same kind of power to influence our country. (I’ll let you know when/if I come up with an answer I think sound, or at least remotely possible.)
Christopher Newfield’s argument that “moderation” is, as Davidson puts it, “the most consistent and foundational American value” (17) rings true to me, and it is a value that these early American novels seemed to possess. Introduce the intrigues of seduction, sure, but have a nice moralizing bit at the end to tidy things up. Texts were careful not to be too extreme, and it seems that idea passed on into the minds of readers.
On this note, Davidson’s discussion of “subversion” was of particular interest to me, given my following of Victorian sensation novels of the 1860s—subversion, subversion, subversion, is the word on the literary critics’ street. Yet I’ve always liked and disliked the word, thought it appropriate, yet not really appropriate at all. As she writes, “subversion seems like a narrow way to describe the complex operations of the literary form in the contest over how to define and create that amorphous entity called a ‘nation’” (24).
Finally, that her work is truly of the interdisciplinary sort speaks to its power. That she sometimes met with disfavor toward such a methodological approach is something I, too, have come across, but to see that she was able to move beyond that and produce what, from the introduction, promises to be a first rate work is inspiring.
I should also add that my interest is now that much more peaked to read some of these early American novels. I’m not sure when I’ll get to it—my reading list is always long—but get to it I shall. I may well find that further reading of Davidson’s text results in a repositioning of said list altogether.
I can recommend The Power of Sympathy, The Coquette, and if you like freaky/gothic novels, try Wieland. Getting on the Early American novels train is a ride you will enjoy!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestions! I love freaky/gothic novels, so Wieland makes my list. My brain is already thinking about how I can make connections between what Early American novelists were trying to accomplish with their texts and what British sensation novelists were trying to accomplish with theirs. But surely I should actually read these novels you suggest before I start theorizing and scheming. And if my reaction to them is anything like what my reaction to my first sensation novel was, well, I'll be suffering from Early American novel monomania big time!
ReplyDeleteMelissa, I was equally impressed with Davidson's intro, and especially with her discussion of "subversive" literature. It's not enough to say that texts are or are not "subversive"; if we wish to make bold claims about the impact of art/literature on society, we must answer the key question, "Subversive of what?" (25) -- all while keeping in mind that texts exist within the same culture they work to subvert, thereby complicating matters even further. After reading Davidson, I can better appreciate how/why the difficult work of literary and cultural criticism lies in developing clearly-defined concepts, questions, and frameworks that take into account the myriad complexities at play in the intersection of text and world -- complexities that threaten to undo us (it seems) at nearly every turn.
ReplyDeleteIf only we all got the chance to write an intro to an "expanded edition" of our work. Then we'd all get the chance to re-read, re-assess, and re-vise our ideas twenty years later...
(It also means we'd all be famous scholars, which I hear ain't half-bad work if you can get it.)
Hi Melissa, I am glad you found Davidson's intro refreshing. She first published in 1986, but her research and writing were done ten years before this, so she missed a lot of the theoretical and cultural debates that went on in the 80s and 90s. Thus her intro is an interesting reassessment of her study in light of what went on during the 80s and 90s. Her appraisals are accurate and shrewd, though a couple of times I think she's guilty of her own sort of exceptionalism. But she certainly gives a good survey of critical modes and developments. Good stuff. I look forward to our discussions. BTW, Larisa is right; -Charlotte Temple- and -The Coquette- are good quick reads. -Wieland- is slower but interesting. Davidson offers a great analysis of dozens of interesting novels. dw
ReplyDelete