Aren’t They All in the Literary Histories?’
English Criticism and the Dismissal of Comparative Literature
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12416831 |
|---|---|
| Authors | May Hawas (University of Cambridge, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 360-370 |
| Publication date | 2025-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1062-7987 • E-ISSN: 1474-0575 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1062798725100203 |
| OpenAlex | W4411256080 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
The tendency to dismiss history in favour of close reading by twentieth-century British critics has cast a long shadow over critical practice. Yet the tendency to revere a formalist, a-historical, even a-political critical method primarily for its own sake seems to be singularly strong in English studies. This somewhat self-isolating tendency has not, for example, appeared as a noteworthy part of critical practice in comparative literature. Of course, the two fields have built up over time a mutual suspicion of each other’s critical methods, though it wasn’t just about the necessity of multilingualism but also about the value of history
Art · Criticism · Dismissal · Literary criticism · Literature · Political science · Law · Scottish History and National Identity
| Highly cited | No |
|---|