I got that article and read it -- it's very interesting. Of course, I
couldn't help notice that Jackson and Marotti's touted "Turn to
Religion" sounds remarkably appropriate to our own post-9/11 zeitgeist,
with "The Passion of the Christ", God on the cover of Newsweek with some
frequency, etc. Of course, I think Marotti and Jackson have a point --
my own criticism addresses pious literature, because I think it's very
interesting. But another thing that strikes me is that J and M's notion
of where we are going seems remarkably different to Harry's. And
neither stance attaches itself to a marketable banner headline -- it
seems as if we refer to what we do as New Historicism, almost by default
(apres la lettre?).
Michael
Bryan John Lowrance wrote:
>Dear Michael,
>
>An interesting article for this is Ken Jackson and Arthur F. Marotti, "The
>Turn to Religion in Early Modern Studies," Criticism, vol, 46, n. 1.
>(Winter 2004) pp. 167-90. It provides good bibliography and overview of a
>lot of recent scholarship as well as providing some interesting
>theoretical analysis. If your school subscribes to Project Muse, it's
>available on that.
>
>Best,
>
>Bryan Lowrance.
>
>
>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>I'm just finishing up a project with a student on her way to grad
>>school, and the idea is to get her oriented on graduate study (literary
>>studies generally, and English Renaissance in particular). She asked an
>>interesting question yesterday, which was, where are we currently? When
>>I was at her stage in 1992, we all had a pretty clear idea of where the
>>momentum was in literary scholarship, even though there were clearly
>>differing schools and opinions -- all scholarship seemed to be
>>positioned in one way or another with regard to the New Historicism. So
>>I thought I'd turn the question out to the group: Is there a collective
>>sense that we are operating in a particular phase of criticism -- either
>>as Spenserians, Sidneyans, or more generally?
>>
>>All the best,
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>
>>
|