Abstract
Two kinds of critical practice which consciously set out to minimise the role of historical knowledge in literary evaluation are the so-called ‘humanist’ criticism of F. R. Leavis and structuralist criticism, particularly that practised by David Lodge in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Both Lodge and Leavis wrote essays on Hard Times; indeed Hard Times has probably received more attention and been the subject of more disputes than any of the other social-problem novels. A close examination of Lodge’s and Leavis’s arguments reveals some fundamental limitations in their ‘ahistorical’ approach. In particular, their tendency to ignore or marginalise the novel’s topical reference leads them both to partial and in some ways tautologous readings. This shortcoming is most apparent in their attempts to explain weaknesses in the novel’s plot and characterisation. For my purposes, though, the significance of their readings of Hard Times lies in some features which they share with the historical accounts, despite the fact that these accounts seem to be diametrically opposed.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Arnold Kettle, ‘The Early Victorian Social Problem Novel’, in Boris Ford (ed.), Dickens to Hardy: The Pelican Guide to English Literature, Vol. 6 (Harmondsworth, 1958, 1976) pp. 169–87.
John Lucas, ‘Mrs Gaskell and Brotherhood’, in David Howard, John Lucas and John Goode (eds), Tradition and Tolerance in Nineteenth-Century Fiction (London, 1966) p. 143.
Copyright information
© 1996 Josephine M. Guy
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guy, J.M. (1996). The Social-Problem Novel and Literary History. In: The Victorian Social-Problem Novel. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24904-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24904-6_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-62844-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24904-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)