Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:03:11.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Context Rocks!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

Searching for the phrase “appreciation of literature” in Google's Ngram Viewer shows that the phrase reached its peak usage in English publications between 1936 and 1937 and then nosedived after those years. It's interesting to speculate about what came together at that time. In 1937, DC Thomson published the first issue of The Dandy, one of the best selling comics in the history of British pop culture and the third-longest-running comics in the world; Daffy Duck debuted in the animated short Porky's Duck Hunt, directed by Tex Avery for the Looney Tunes series; and Detective Comics commenced publication. A year later, Superman went public. But 1937 also was the year that John Crowe Ransom left Vanderbilt University for Kenyon College and published “Criticism, Inc.” in The Virginia Quarterly Review. The target of Ransom's ire is “moralist” historical criticism, into which camp he puts actual morality purveyors, the new humanists and the new leftists (those purveyors of what we often now call symptomatic readings), and “personal registrations” or unfettered appreciation (597). While of course correlation is not causation, 1937 might mark an important fork in the subterranean lines in the United States, where the two trains of comics fandom and literary criticism begin to go in different directions, on trajectories that take them farther apart during and after World War II: comics toward the aesthetics of appreciation, and criticism to increasingly professionalized literary analysis. Critics today seem to be returning to this junction, asking how comics and criticism might reunite. Perhaps that convergence is happening now, through approaches variously known as surface reading (Best and Marcus), reparative reading (Sedgwick), close reading, postcritique (Felski, Limits), thin description (Love), or redescription (Latour)—each of which encourages professionalized critical appraisal without taking rolling stock into dead-end symptomatic tunnels. Perhaps it is through some other approach, one that may look like Hillary Chute's Why Comics?

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Bennett, Jill. Practical Aesthetics: Events, Affects, and Art after 9/11. Bloomsbury, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Stephen. “La Foi Postcritique, on Second Thought”. PMLA, vol. 132, no. 2, 2017, pp. 337–43.Google Scholar
Best, Stephen, and Marcus, Sharon. “Surface Reading: An Introduction”. Representations, vol. 108, no. 1, 2009, pp. 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Wayne. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed., U of Chicago P, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics. 1998. translated by Pleasance, Simon and Woods, Fronza, Les Presses du Réel, 2002.Google Scholar
Buckridge, Patrick. “The Age of Appreciation: Reading and Teaching Classic Literature in Australia in the Early Twentieth Century”. Australian Literary Studies, vol. 22, no. 3, 2006, pp. 342–56.Google Scholar
Chute, Hillary. Why Comics? From Underground to Everywhere. HarperCollins Publishers, 2017.Google Scholar
Chute, Hillary. “Why I Study Comics: An Interview with Hillary Chute.” Interview conducted by Robin Lindley. History News Network, 11 June 2017, historynewsnetwork.org/article/166047.Google Scholar
“Comic Art Indigène.” National Museum of the American Indian, 2019, americanindian.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/item/?id=402.Google Scholar
Elias, Amy J. “Art and the Commons.” Art and the Commons, special issue of ASAP Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, Amy J. “The Dialogical Avant-Garde: Relational Aesthetics and Time Ecologies in Only Revolutions and TOC. Contemporary Literature, vol. 53, no. 4, 2013, pp. 738–78.Google Scholar
Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. 1983. Columbia UP, 2002.Google Scholar
Feagin, Susan L. Reading with Feeling: The Aesthetic of Appreciation. Cornell UP, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, Rita. “Context Stinks!New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. 573–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, Rita. The Limits of Critique. U of Chicago P, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallop, Jane. The Deaths of the Author: Reading and Writing in Time. Duke UP, 2011.Google Scholar
Gardner, Jared. “Autography's Biography, 1972–2001”. Biography, vol. 31, no. 1, 2008, pp. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, Gerald. Professing Literature: An Institutional History U of Chicago P, 1987.Google Scholar
Gray, Jonathan, et al., editors. Fandom: Identities and Communities in the Mediated World. New York UP, 2017.Google Scholar
Heffernan, James. Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ek-phrasis from Homer to Ashbery. U of Chicago P, 1993.Google Scholar
Howard, Sheena C. Encyclopedia of Black Comics. Fulcrum Publishing, 2017.Google Scholar
Howard, Sheena C., and Jackson, Ronald L., editors. Black Comics: Politics of Race and Representation. Bloomsbury, 2013.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York UP, 2006.Google Scholar
Kester, Grant H. Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. U of California P, 2004.Google Scholar
Kittay, Jeffrey. “Towards a Theory of Description”. Yale French Studies, vol. 61, 1981, pp. i-v.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford UP, 2005.Google Scholar
Levinson, Marjorie. “What Is New Formalism?PMLA, vol. 122, no. 2, Mar. 2007, pp. 558–69.Google Scholar
Long, Elizabeth. Book Clubs: Women and the Uses of Reading in Everyday Life. U of Chicago P, 2003.Google Scholar
Love, Heather. “Close but Not Deep: Literary Ethics and the Descriptive Turn”. New Literary History, vol. 41, 2010, pp. 371–91.Google Scholar
McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. Harper Perennial, 1993.Google Scholar
McGurl, Mark. The Program Era: Postwar Writing and the Rise of Creative Writing. Harvard UP, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W.J.T. “Comics as Media: An Afterword”. Critical Inquiry, vol. 40, no. 3, 2014, pp. 255–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nell, Victor. Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. Yale UP, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, James. Somebody Telling Somebody Else: A Rhetorical Poetics of Narrative. Ohio State UP, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, John Crowe. “Criticism, Inc”. The Virginia Quarterly Review, vol. 13, 1937, pp. 586602.Google Scholar
Rippl, Gabriele. “Why Intermediality?” Introduction. Handbook of Intermediality: Literature—Image-Sound—Music, edited by Rippl, , De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Duke UP, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennett, Richard. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation. Yale UP, 2013.Google Scholar
Striphas, Ted. The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control. Columbia UP, 2009.Google Scholar
Whitlock, Gillian, and Poletti, Anna. “Self-Regarding Art”. Biography, vol. 31, no. 1, 2008, pp. v-xxii.Google Scholar
Williams, Jeffrey. “The New Belletrism”. Style, vol. 33, no. 3, Fall 1999, pp. 414–42.Google Scholar