Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T09:29:50.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is New Formalism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Marjorie Levinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This review of new formalism poses challenges very different from those of the familiar compendium-review genre (e.g., “The Year's Work in Victorian Studies”). While all review essays face questions of inclusion, in an assignment of this kind, where the defining category is neither an established period nor topic but a developing theory or method emerging from the entire repertoire of literary and cultural studies, identifying the scholarly literature is a critical task in its own right. Moreover, because new formalism is better described as a movement than a theory or method, the work of selection is especially vexed and consequential. It is vexed because the practitioners' modes and degrees of identification with the movement are so various, and consequential because the reviewer's bibliographic decisions cannot help but construct the phenomenon being described.

Type
The Changing Profession
Information
PMLA , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 558 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2007

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

Altieri, Charles. “Taking Lyrics Literally: Teaching Poetry in a Prose Culture.” New Literary History 32 (2001): 259–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Isobel. “When Is a Victorian Poet Not a Victorian Poet? Poetry and the Politics of Subjectivity in the Long Nineteenth Century.” Victorian Studies 43 (2001): 279–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslin, James E. B. From Modern to Contemporary: American Poetry, 1945–1965. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.Google Scholar
Bruster, Douglas. “Shakespeare and the Composite Text.” Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements. Ed. Rasmussen, Mark David. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 43–66.10.1007/978-1-137-07177-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael. Revenge of the Aesthetic: The Place of Literature in Theory Today. Berkeley: U of California P, 2000.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stephen. “Between Form and Culture: New Historicism and the Promise of a Historical Formalism.” Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements. Ed. Rasmussen, Mark David. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, Denis. “Teaching Literature: The Force of Form.” New Literary History 30 (1999): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubrow, Heather. “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Reinterpreting Formalism and the Country House Poem.” Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, Julie K. Cato's Tears and the Making of Anglo-American Emotion. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999.Google Scholar
Hartley, Lucy. Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture. Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture 29. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.Google Scholar
Howard, June. Publishing the Family. Durham: Duke UP, 2001.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. Paul. “Formalism and History: Binarism and the Anglophone Couplet.” Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 109–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehlen, Myra. “Literary Criticism at the Edge of the Millennium; or, From Here to History.” Aesthetics and Ideology. Ed. Levine, George Lewis. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1994. 40–53.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Robert. “Everybody Hates Kant: Blakean Formalism and the Symmetries of Laura Moriarty.” Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 131–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keach, William. “‘Words Are Things’: Romantic Ideology and the Matter of Poetic Language.” Aesthetics and Ideology. Ed. Levine, George Lewis. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1994. 219–39.Google Scholar
Koppen, Randi. “Formalism and the Return to the Body: Stein's and Forne's Aesthetic of Significant Form.” New Literary History 28 (1997): 791–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, Murray, and Krieger, Joan. Ekphrasis: The Illusion of the Natural Sign. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992.Google Scholar
Levine, George Lewis. “Reclaiming the Aesthetic.” Introduction. Aesthetics and Ideology. Ed. Levine. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1994. 1–28.Google Scholar
Liu, Alan. “The Power of Formalism: The New Historicism.” ELH 56 (1989): 721–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loesberg, Jonathan. “Cultural Studies, Victorian Studies, and Formalism.” Victorian Literature and Culture 27 (1999): 537–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loesberg, Jonathan. A Return to Aesthetics: Autonomy, Indifference, and Postmodernism. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2005.Google Scholar
Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. London: Routledge, 1978.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. “The Commitment to Form; or, Still Crazy after All These Years.” PMLA 118 (2003): 321–25.Google Scholar
Pinch, Adela. Strange Fits of Passion: Epistemologies of Emotion, Hume to Austen. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1996.Google Scholar
Prins, Yopie. Victorian Sappho. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1999.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Mark David. “New Formalisms?” Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements. Ed. Rasmussen. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Ellen. “Form and Contentment.” Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagaser, Elizabeth Harris. “Flirting with Eternity: Teaching Form and Meter in a Renaissance Poetry Course.” Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements. Ed. Rasmussesn, Mark David. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soderholm, James. Beauty and the Critic: Aesthetics in an Age of Cultural Studies. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 1997.Google Scholar
Strier, Richard. “How Formalism Became a Dirty Word, and Why We Can't Do without It.” Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements. Ed. Rasmussen, Mark David. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 207–15.Google Scholar
Susan J., Wolfson “Reading for Form.” Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 1–16.Google Scholar