Advertisement

Revising English: Theory and Practice

  • Carol Atherton

Abstract

The difficulty of resolving the ‘Arnoldian paradox’ — of closing the gap between culture and society so that the former could be brought to bear on the problems of the latter — remained an important theme in the literary criticism of the 1960s and 1970s. During these decades, the need for a stable, humane culture was given a new sense of urgency. For some, this stemmed from the threat of the Cold War: the critic C. L. Mowat claimed that a renewed sense of a common culture was potentially ‘our last, best hope on earth’.1 For others, this urgency was prompted by the debasing of popular culture, and the consequent need for critics who could keep alive what Lionel Trilling referred to as ‘the cultural mode of thought’.2 The critic, charged with the task of interrogating modern culture and finding ways in which literature could continue to be made meaningful, was invested with a level of responsibility that far exceeded that of the scholar. And while the critic may indeed be an academic specialist, the task he or she faced was of a scale that rendered questions of disciplinarity irrelevant: ‘We are all specialists now: and what we need is to rediscover what is common between us.’3

Keywords

English Literature Personal Growth Current Debate National Curriculum Literary Criticism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Lionel Trilling, quoted in Richard Hoggart, ‘The Difficulties of Democratic Debate’, Critical Quarterly, 5 (1963), p. 210.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Terence Hawkes, General Editor’s Preface to ‘New Accents’ series, in Catherine Belsey, Critical Practice (London: Methuen, 1980), p. vii.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Terence Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics (London: Routledge, [1977] 2003), pp. 139–40.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Hayden White, ‘The Absurdist Moment in Contemporary Literary Theory’, in Directions for Criticism: Structuralism and its Alternatives, ed. Murray Krieger and L. S. Dembo (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977), p. 85.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    For one attack on radical literary theory and its place in the universities, see Peter Washington, Fraud: Literary Theory and the End of English (London: Fontana, 1989).Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    English: The National Curriculum for England (Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, QCA/99/459, 1999), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Brian Cox, Cox on the Battle for the English Curriculum (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995), p. 75; see also Brian Cox, Cox on Cox: An English Curriculum for the 1990s (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991).Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    Peter Hollindale, ‘War-weary sides call for truce’, Times Educational Supplement (12 January 1996), accessed online at http://www.tes.co.uk/search/search_display. asp?section+Archive&sub_section = Friday&id = 25359&Type=0.
  9. 18.
    OCR: English Language and Literature, Mark Scheme for the Components/Modules, June 2001 (OCR, 2001), report on units 9000/1 and 4481, section 7.Google Scholar
  10. 19.
    Jenny Stevens, ‘The new ‘A’ Levels: Critical Theory in the Sixth Form Classroom: A Very, Very Short Introduction’, The Use ofEnglish, 52 (2000), p. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    Robert Eaglestone, ‘Active voice! Responding to Adrian Barlow on the new English Literature A-levels’, English Association Newsletter, 166 (2001), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    A Language for Life: Report of the Committee ofInquiry (DES, 1975), paragraph 1.3. Quoted in Bethan Marshall, English Teachers — The Unofficial Guide: Researching the Philosophies of English Teachers (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2000), p. 4.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    See Marshall, English Teachers — The Unofficial Guide, ‘A Rough Guide to English Teachers’ (after p. 56), also pp. 70–129.Google Scholar
  14. 27.
    Nick Peim has commented on the fact that such texts have never been part of the accepted English canon: they ‘are not, according to any formalized or traditional view, official texts of English Literature’. Nick Peim, Critical Theory and the English Teacher: Transforming the Subject (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 74.Google Scholar
  15. 28.
    See David Holbrook, English for Maturity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  16. 40.
    Pamela Bickley, ‘The New A-Level: What Will It Mean?’, paper given at the English Association Conference for Higher Education, April 2000, accessed online at http://www.le.ac.uk/engassoc/info/sel.html.
  17. 41.
    OCR: English Language and Literature, Mark Scheme for the Components/Modules, June 2001 (OCR, 2001).Google Scholar
  18. 49.
    AQA English Literature, Specification A: Report on the Examination, GCE 2001, Advanced Subsidiary (5471), June Series (AQA, 2001; hereafter AQA Examiners’ Report), p. 17.Google Scholar
  19. 52.
    Simon Dentith, ‘English and the Audit Culture: An Introduction’, English Subject Centre Newsletter, 3 (May 2002), accessed online at http://www.english.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/general/publications/newsletters/newsissue3/dentith.htm.
  20. 60.
    Mike Craddock, ‘Idealism, Theory, Practice and the New “A” Levels’, The Use ofEnglish, 52 (2001), p. 108.Google Scholar
  21. 62.
    Mike Craddock, ‘Curriculum 2000: A Teacher’s Verdict’, The Use of English, 54 (2003), p. 115.Google Scholar
  22. 71.
    Philip Smallwood, “‘More Creative than Creation”: The Idea of Criticism and the Student Critic’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1 (2002), p. 64.Google Scholar
  23. 72.
    Chrissie Boughey, ‘From Equity to Efficiency: Access to Higher Education in South Africa’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2 (2003), p. 67.Google Scholar
  24. 74.
    Natasha Walter, ‘Can We Win the War against Cliché?’, The Independent (23 April 2001), accessed online at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp? story=68134.
  25. 76.
    Lawrence Rainey, ‘The most uncommon reader’, The Independent (21 April 2001), accessed online at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?=67826.
  26. 89.
    Anthony Kearney, ‘What to Read and Why: A View of John Carey’s Pure Pleasure’, Use of English, 53 (2001), p. 49.Google Scholar
  27. 90.
    Jim Sait, summary of lecture delivered by John Sutherland at the University of Sydney, accessed online at http://www.usyd.edu.au/publications/news/2K0810News/1008briefly.html.
  28. 91.
    John Sutherland, Is Heathcliff a Murderer? Puzzles in 19th-Century Fiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. ix.Google Scholar
  29. 92.
    Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre (London: Penguin, [1847] 2002), rear cover.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Carol Atherton 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Atherton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations