Reviews for English literature, 1450-1900

The average rating for English literature, 1450-1900 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-04-21 00:00:00 Melissa Shugarts I have a tendency to read all books, fiction or otherwise, with the same attitude. That is, I quickly feel out the narrator and try to build up their character in my head. I can't help it, it's part of what keeps me interested. By the time I get through a few chapters, I already know the "narrator" enough to be genuinely interested in what they have to say about each subject. If I lose interest it's probably because I haven't been able to connect with the author who, in the case of nonfiction books, is the narrator in a way. I started this book with no little enthusiasm; I had just finished another book on the 18th century and I was excited (in a really nerdy way, I might add) to connect what I had just learned with what I already knew of the 19th century. Sadly, that didn't happen. It's not that I lost interest, I actually read the book cover to cover. It's just that the book did not deliver to me what it promised to, and for these really annoying reasons. 1. Scattered references You have to imagine, when someone opens up a book on English literature, that they probably need to know what happened, when it happened, and who made it happen in what book. It's common sense, really. And so it's important for the student of English literature to keep a mental map of the thousands of book titles and writers and poets and be able to place them on a roughly accurate timeline. In Mr. Mair's book, two things mess up this mental map, and I imagine that both of them stem from the same trait on the author's part, one that I would call arrogance. The first is that very frequently a work is mentioned without any reference to its author, the assumption being that you should already KNOW. Well excuse me, but if I already KNEW, I wouldn't be reading your book just for the kicks and giggles. The second is that he keeps talking about works or writers who belong to other time periods without explicitly and immediately acknowledging that fact, and it had a terrible disorienting effect on me. Again the assumption was that you should already KNOW who belongs to what period, which is just plain dumb. 2.The perverse compliment method I used to date a guy who would compliment me on something really impersonal and in a very practiced manner, like "wow you have such good posture!" and the follow it up with a comment guaranteed to make me feel self conscious and inferior like, I don't know, "It takes away attention from your height." Such was the case of Mr. Mair with most of the writers he treated in his book. Like, he would say of Pope's poem Rape of the lock that it is brilliant, but it is "only play". He would acknowledge the greatness of some writer or work, but then turn around and state a completely personal and prejudiced opinion dressed as actual fact and leave you asking yourself if he ever really believed that the author or work was great or if he says so because everyone else does. It got to a point where every time he said something good about a writer I kept waiting for him to also dismiss him as inferior or something (which he usually did). I understand the merits of considering both the good and the less-than-good qualities of historical figures and works of art and not idolize or idealizing them into "the greatest that ever was". Again, it's common sense, thank you. But what Mr. Mair does doesn't feel like that. Instead of avoiding prejudice by showing both sides of a person or work, he manages to tell you that that person/work was in fact "the greatest that ever was" and to dismiss them as nothing too important in the same paragraph. 3.It's a Man's world, apparently. I think he mentions all of 4 women in the book. And I say again, mentions. Where there's talk of Arcadia, There is no talk of the countess of Pembroke. Where there's talk of Burke and the french revolution, There is not even a mention of Marry Wollstonecraft. He devotes a whole chapter to Dr.Johnson and his circle, and yet he had no space for Mrs. Thrale, not even when he talked about Johnson's biography, and nothing about Fanny Burney. That last one is mentioned in passing only once in the chapter on the Novel, and with no reference to any of her books. The same is true of Jane Austen, Ms. Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. I am afraid to read too much into this. Admittedly the roles of women are less pronounced than those of men in the history of English literature. We also need to consider the fact that this book was written in semi-mid twentieth century. We can make allowances for Mr. Mair on account of the fact that we have come a long way since his time. Still, though, it sucks, and it drags the book's value down further than any of the other offenses I have given against it. For all its claiming to sum up the literature of the years 1450 up to 1900, it ignores a hell of a lot of that literature.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-02-21 00:00:00 Steve Jorgensen The context often overshadows the literature when it comes to this book. But it is, by all means, a good book to come to, to get an idea of how the social/political/economic/cultural milieu of a particular age helped shape its literature. However, before coming to it, I'd suggest getting a general idea of English history. The text often just makes references to events, instead of going into detail. This is where prior knowledge would help. It is also not a good text if you want an in-depth study of the literature of that particular age. It does what it claims to do, show a basic connection between literature and its context.