Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Monday, October 27, 2008

Epic: Britain’s Heroic Muse, 1790-1910

Posted by Miriam Burstein on 10/27/08 at 10:18 PM

Epic poetry was once considered the most exalted form of poetry; not coincidentally, writing a great epic was supposed to be part and parcel of the career trajectory of any major poet.  Herbert F. Tucker’s Epic: Britain’s Heroic Muse, 1790-1910 is, suitably enough, not just about the epic, but at 737 pages (counting the index), manages to be epic in scope.  (The division into twelve chapters may be a sly joke, given the magic number of “twelve books” in nineteenth-century epic.)  In heft and, to a slightly lesser extent, subject matter, Epic shares shelf space with its acknowledged forebears, Howard Weinbrot’s rumbustious Britannia’s Issue and Isobel Armstrong’s Victorian Poetry.  Given the trend towards shorter and shorter books, especially in recent years, a “big” book is itself a tribute to the author’s academic capital.  Moreover, the literary-historical subject matter departs in focus from Tucker’s two well-known monographs on Browning and Tennyson: instead of closely studying an individual, canonical author, Tucker now ranges widely over what is frequently uncharted territory.  This is the literary historian as Odysseus, as it were.

Suitably enough, given the role of warfare in the history of epic, there’s a bit of disciplinary warfare in both the historical narrative and in the text itself.  In nineteenth-century studies, there has been a traditional division of labor between Romanticists, who mostly do poetry, and Victorianists, who mostly do fiction.  Obviously, this division has never been a hard-and-fast rule, but this state of “genre attraction” has something to do with the relative critical reputations of poetry and fiction during the respective periods.  Armstrong’s book was an attempt to hew out some space for poetry in a sea of Victorian fiction, but Tucker goes a step further: while arguing that epic poets and novelists spent the nineteenth century competing, in effect, for the same literary territory, he also makes the stronger claim that attempts to differentiate epic from the novel have foundered rather badly. Or, as Tucker puts it, “a great deal of what Lukacs and Bakhtin say about the prose fiction of the nineteenth century will also find exemplification among the period’s verse epics” (15).  Even more bluntly, Tucker argues that “verse narrative” actually enjoyed considerably greater “flexibility of focus and agility of pace"than did those other, non-versified forms (21); anything fiction can do, the epic can do better--or, at least, as well.  This includes taking in next-door genres like a hyped-up vacuum cleaner, a point that Tucker dryly suggests has been omitted from “prevailing literary histories,” which celebrate such absorption in the novel but neglect to note the same activity in the epic (268).  Instead of the novel springing from the epic’s corpse, then, Tucker paints a picture of the novel and epic spurring each other on to new formal and aesthetic heights.  Which, by extension, suggests that the professional Victorianist may wish to (at least temporarily) close his Dickens and open his Morris.

Tucker’s project is traditional literary history in the best sense of the word: the survey aims for completeness (while admitting that it can never quite be complete); mixes its canonical authors, like Browning and Tennyson, with their less-canonical counterparts, like Robert Pollok (while noting, properly, that the latter were sometimes more popular than the former); and doesn’t skimp on the qualitative judgments (while occasionally turning up some surprising gems languishing among the forgotten verses).  Not surprisingly, given the vast quantities of text under discussion, Tucker moves through the shelves according to chronology, although he frequently finds his chronological groups cohering according to theme or subject matter.  Thus, we have apocalyptic epics, Spasmodic epics, and so forth, which usually refuse to stay put neatly in their assigned spaces.  (Tucker’s periodization, which looks draconian if considered solely from the POV of the table of contents, is far less so in execution.)   I note with some interest that this may be the first major literary history to incorporate rare texts made available courtesy of Project Gutenberg and GoogleBooks.  Most chapters restrict themselves to five or ten years, so the reader knows something is afoot--or, rather, not afoot--when chapter eleven suddenly swallows up a quarter-century.  While Tucker does tack shifts in literary priorities to contemporary politico-religious ebbs and swells, he disarmingly admits that “[t]he chapter arguments are  seldom if ever arrestingly new; they conform more often than not to the received political and social history of the long nineteenth century” (9), and the book is really at its strongest when dealing with interrelationships among literary texts.  This is not the type of historicist or new historicist project that reads literary texts against other discourses, whether theology, medicine, or ad copy.  

Of course, Tucker has quite enough to read as it is.  The book is big, and its argument is big to match; trying to narrow it down to a few lines or so is a perilous enterprise indeed.  Nevertheless, Tucker often returns to a point made fairly early on in the long introduction: “From nebula to tissue, from testament to syllable, one had to learn that nothing had always been or would forever be.  But that meant one might aspire to find the law of the change, integrate its differential into a compensatory performance by writing its code” (23).  Tucker’s heroic poets are always in the process of inventing and reinventing a personal, national, international, or even universal past, while trying to project that history forward into the future--sometimes, as in the case of the apocalyptic epics, into the next world.  By the same token, while epic always retained certain essential elements (like scope), new topics meant new challenges to the boundary of the genre; apocalyptic epics, as Tucker points out, certainly brought new meaning to the term “comprehensiveness” (249).  Epic’s changeability leads us to another of Tucker’s key arguments, which is that reports of epic’s “death” (4 ff.) after Milton, are, like Mark Twain’s, exaggerated.  Poets may feel more or less angsty about taking epic on, and some poets only feel comfortable writing epic when the epic in question is mock-epic, but the genre was clearly not in a state of cryogenic suspension.  While the reader may cavil at some point or another, that’s a feature, not a bug: a history of such sweep is supposed to produce a critical conversation, not beat the Gentle Reader into whimpering submission.

If there’s anything in the method that may cause some readers to demur, even slightly, it’s Tucker’s decision to avoid close work with language in favor of analyzing narrative constructions.  Given that the section of the book’s bibliography devoted only to the epics runs from pp. 602 to 626, this choice makes perfectly good sense; anyone who works on non-canonical works quickly learns the agonies of navigating between the Scylla of extensive quotation and the Charybdis of overarching plot summary.  Moreover, as he correctly notes, close reading and epic don’t necessarily go together (9)--although the distinction there between oral and written epic probably could have been theorized a little more explicitly. In fact, close reading occasionally crops up in quirky moments, as when Tucker seems mesmerized by the sheer oddity of Charles M. Doughty’s The Dawn in Britain (1906) (571-83).  From the POV of user-friendliness, though, this Gentle Reader occasionally found herself yearning to nail Tucker’s more sweeping generalizations down to a quotation...sometimes, any quotation.  E.g., when encountering Tucker on Swinburne: “As this narrative flashed at large from blaze to black across the thermodynamic inane, or as [backstage at the accidental theater of human consciousness] it was microscopically rehearsed at the speed of synaptic discharge, it demanded expression in lyric forms” (524).   Still, Tucker’s frequently punning, alliterative prose, while it requires close attention, never bogs down in forbidding jargon, and even comes ornamented with--dare one say it?--a sense of humor.  Readers will find much to ponder.           


[X-posted from The Little Professor.]

Comments

Tucker goes a step further: while arguing that epic poets and novelists spent the nineteenth century competing, in effect, for the same literary territory, he also makes the stronger claim that attempts to differentiate epic from the novel have foundered rather badly. Or, as Tucker puts it, “a great deal of what Lukacs and Bakhtin say about the prose fiction of the nineteenth century will also find exemplification among the period’s verse epics” (15)... Tucker paints a picture of the novel and epic spurring each other on to new formal and aesthetic heights.

Epic as dialogic with novel? (And it sounds from the next graf as if chronotopic considerations enter as well.) Could you elaborate on how Tucker engages Bakhtin’s notions? (I’m also curious how Browning might fit into all this.)

By nnyhav on 10/29/08 at 02:25 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I don’t want to preempt Miriam’s reply here, but I have a copy of the book (to review; must get around to doing that) and I can answer nnyhav by saying: Tucker doesn’t really engage with Bakhtin at all.  Browning gets two columns in the index, Bakhtin half a line, viz. ‘Bakhtin, Mikhail 15, 391.’ Miriam quotes the p.15 ref.; the p.391 ref is more glancing.  (I get more substantive engagement from Tucker actually; a fact I offer not in glorious self-aggrandizement [’Roberts, Adam, 10 n.14, 17 n.23’] but as an indication of how low down on his critical radar Bakhtinian dialogics actually is.)

Incidentally, I found this review excellent, useful and succint, and will try to respond at greater length when I’ve a moment.

By Adam Roberts on 10/29/08 at 03:18 PM | Permanent link to this comment

This part of the argument is Tucker being polemical, as he admits, not thorough--he keeps coming back to the novel/epic issue, but doesn’t work with either Bakhtin or Lukacs.

By Miriam on 10/29/08 at 06:19 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: