The New Historicism, also known as Cultural Materialism (or was that only in
the UK?). Comes in two varieties, British and American. The Bible of the
Brit splinter is Dollimore and Sinfield, _Political Shakespeare_. Stephen
Greenblatt is the big high heid yin of the US branch -- _Renaissance
Self-Fashioning_.
Behind both sides looms Foucault (every contemporary branch of litcrit has
to have its French saint) and the Brits also used (this is less well known)
Lever's _Tragedy of State_ as a model. Both sides are profoundly marxist,
but in slightly different ways. Sometimes it appears that it was
constructed entirely to function as a mode of commentary on Shakespeare.
New Historicists can usually be found negociating a site of conflict. Put
down: "Oh, it's only anecdotal history when it comes down to it."
Probably now rather old fashioned, since Presentism (see Terence Hawkes) has
come along.
Wiki articles on both which I haven't managed to read through this time in
the morning.
Hope that helps, Pat. As varieties of LitCrit go, it's not entirely bad, as
should be the case, being invented by Renaissance scholars so they'd have
their Very Own Literary Theory. Sensibly, they chose Foucault as their
patron. Mostly works with prose texts and drama rather than poetry.
Does this count as a Thursday snap?
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick McManus" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:54 AM
Subject: new historical criticism-help!
> Erm ?? can anyone fill me in a bit here?(me the non academic!)
>
> preferable in shortish words say child's/silver surfer's guide talkies
>
> Janet partner is doing a paper on it -and I should be aware!!!or beware?
>
|