Andrew McCormick
ENGL 701/Graduate Methodology
Prof. Richter
Draft of Annotated Working Biblio.
15 Nov. 2010
Agee, James and Walker Evans. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. (1939). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Print.
Since it was, after all, Reed’s discussion of elements of the postmodern in this book that gave impetus to my interest in the emergence of the postmodern in 30’s fiction, I should probably read it to understand where Reed is coming from, not to mention that the text itself is widely considered an important piece of 30’s writing on poverty and class exploitation.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, 2nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press, 1995, 2002. Print.
This is another accessible intro to theory book whose chapter on postmodernism has been useful in helping me just generally conceptualize some widely held tenets of the movement or lens.
Connor, Steven. “Introduction.” The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. Ed. Steven Connor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. Print. 1-19.
Connor, Steven. “Postmodernism and Literature.” The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. Ed. Steven Connor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. Print. 62-81.
These readings by Steven Connor have helped me to expand my understanding of the concept of postmodernism. Some of Connor’s key points have helped me build upon my understanding of Reed’s assertions about Agee and Evans—among others, that the “attempt to remain responsive to the claims of the other [alienated or ostracized subject] without resorting to the violence of formalization [is what largely] characterizes postmodern ethics” (15). This coincides nicely with Reed’s claims about what Agee and Evans do in Let Us Now… and why these tropes are tenets of postmodernism, even though the term/concept (postmodern(ism)) did not formally exist yet. So encountering another author’s claim that one characteristic of postmodernism is a refusal to readily “formalize” those “others” being written about while still trying to represent them in ways that allow action/change, may help sharpen my focus as I read primary texts, giving me something to look for examples of (or examples of the absence of). Connor’s point, quoted above, also seems not just a little parallel to Lee’s interests in a “Strategic Postmodernism” for her discipline, sociology (see below).
Dickstein, Morris. Dancing in the Dark: A Cultural History of the Great Depression. New York: Norton, 2009. Print.
This recent book has proven useful first of all as a tremendously informative, general resource that provides overall context on, as the subtitle suggests, the time period’s cultural history—its major writers and novels, actors, directors and films, and of course in turn the sociological and ideological issues surrounding and informing these various mediums. In turn, it has been an indispensible guide in locating other useful, primary texts (mostly novels) such as Erskine Caldwell’s Tobacco Road, James Agee and Walker Evans’s Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, and Michael Gold’s Jews without Money. But more relevant to my developing project, it has pointed me towards one particular author and novel that will no doubt be an object of analysis—Henry Roth’s Call It Sleep; and yet more specifically, it has given me a useful point of contrast to juxtapose with postmodern and poststructural arguments on 30’s fiction, as Dickstein offers a more traditional, liberal-humanist view of Roth’s masterpiece (as does Alfred Kazin), allowing for a nice example of how two divergent theoretical lenses offer competing interpretations of a work.
Kazin, Alfred. “Introduction.” Henry Roth’s Call It Sleep (1934). New York: Picador, 1991. Print.
Like Dickstein, Kazin saw Roth’s work as belonging to the modernist tradition, characterizing Call It Sleep as more akin to Ulysses than to Sister Carrie (xviii). So he offers another example of a liberal humanist critic, one wary, presumably, of poststructuralism and postmodernism. So he will be interesting to contrast with postmodern voices (with whom I will be siding to some extent or another).
Klages, Mary. Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum Books, 2007. Print.
A highly accessible introduction to literary theory; in particular, Klages’s chapter on postmodernism, especially her concise treatment of Jean-Francois Lyotard and his ideas about postmodernism’s refusal to embrace meta- or grand-narratives, has been foundational in my interest in postmodernism and its related lens, poststructuralism.
Lee, Janet. “The Utility of a Strategic Postmodernism.” Sociological Perspectives. 42.4 (1999): 739-753. JSTOR. 06 Oct. 2010. Web.
A new and potentially interesting, cross-disciplinary source. In short, Lee talks about how of the many disciplines that have found themselves disrupted by postmodernism, sociology is especially ripe for discussion, and for some re-evaluation of the possibilities of compatibility between disciplines and postmodernism as a lens. Lee explains that traditionally, sociology has assumed and insisted upon the need to be empirical, to measure evidence and pose categories of identity, to presume a sense of agency comprised at least in part by common, lived experiences on the part of those being studied. This is especially so when it comes to disenfranchised groups—minorities, women, etc. For rather obvious reasons, Lee explains, postmodernism as a condition or a lens would seem, by its nature, to disrupt these things. But Lee offers some possibilities for a “strategic postmodernism.” Quoting another sociologist, Mike Featherstone, she offers that “there are…lessons to be learned from a postmodern sociology: it focuses attention on ways in which theories are built up, their hidden assumptions, and questions the theorist’s ability to speak for the ‘other’…” (740). This article seems potentially quite compatible with Reed’s discussion of Agee and Evans, and it is worth noting that one point Reed takes issue with is that the text (Let Us Now…) has been recently classed as a sociology book, which he says is problematic. More pressingly, though, it would seem to be precisely the inherent difficulty in “speak[ing] for the ‘other’” to which Featherstone (quoted by Lee) refers, with which Reed is concerned in the work of Agee and Evans.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979). Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1984. Print.
One of the theoretical texts I will be hopefully reading to gain a deeper understanding of the lens/movement I will be exploring in depression era lit.
Reed, T.V. “Unimagined Existence and the Fiction of the Real: Postmodernist Realism in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.” Representations. No. 24 (1988): 156-176. JSTOR. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
This particular article has been tremendously influential in inspiring the specific direction of my developing project; Reed’s assertion that though postmodernism or the postmodern was not yet a conscious concept at the time of Agee’s and Evans’s work, in retrospect these writers’ inherently interdisciplinary approach, embracing the “epistemological problematic” of trying to portray the poor who were most disenfranchised by the Depression, can only be properly called postmodernist. More compellingly, I feel that Reed’s analysis of this particular work offers a useful example of what one might rightly call the usefulness or practicality of examining emerging postmodern tropes in 30’s literature; for to Reed, what most vitally makes this work postmodernist is its tacit—even explicit—acknowledgment that in attempting to portray the poor and oppressed, one must be vigilant in guarding against the tendency of writers and artists at large to simplify and thus infantilize the subject under consideration—in other words, Reed exhibits, I hope, an example of the social applicability of poststructuralism and postmodernism (worth considering in opposition to justifiable attacks on these theoretical lenses).
Roth, Henry. Call It Sleep. (1934). New York: Picador, 1991. Print.
Henry Roth’s fascinating, inner-consciousness driven and linguistically rich glimpse into the world of a young boy growing up in turn-of-the-century New York City offers what has turned out to be a great text to explore differing theoretical readings. It will likely be one of several works I end up using to examine emerging elements of the proto-postmodern in thirties fiction.
Solomon, William. “Politics and Rhetoric in the Novel in the 1930’s.” American Literature. 68.4 (1996): 799-818. JSTOR. 22 Oct. 2010. Web.
Solomon allows me to add to the growing roster of voices “convinced,” as he himself puts it, that prose fiction of the 30’s was trying to do something epistemologically complex and thus goes beyond the limits of naturalism and realism. Examining several oft-called proletarian novels, his close readings offer an inspiring example of a modern-day re-visitation of works long-dismissed as heavy-handed and excessively leftist. Solomon writes, “I am convinced that in the thirties an entirely different way of looking at the relationship between politics and literature was struggling to emerge, and that the failure of past critics to acknowledge this fact has obscured valuable ideas and precise observations” (800). At a general level, it is useful to have one more critic, to offer as growing evidence of a mainstream re-consideration of Depression-era literature. More important, though, are Solomon’s revealing arguments about how “a few leftist novelists in the thirties made rhetoric…the ground of their interventions into the political,” adding that “certain writers of this time put to excellent use insights we now associate with rhetorically inspired literary theory,” which Solomon says included “an at times extreme skepticism towards the referential reliability of the realist modes of narration” as well as “a rigorous understanding of the structure and function of tropes” (800). These particular assertions are not dissimilar to ones made by Dickstein and Kazin, liberal-humanist voices, and actually share some common ground with Reed’s argument for the presence of “postmodernist realism” in Agee and Evans.
No comments:
Post a Comment