James Studies 1983-1984: An Analytic Bibliographical Monograph

James Studies 1983-1984: An Analytic Bibliographical Monograph by Richard A. Hocks, Karen R. Hamer, and W. Dale Brown, University of Missouri Editor's note: This is the first of two parts of "James Studies 1983-1984"; the second installment will be published in vol. 9, no. 1. Because the task of the annual review of James studies has grown so massive—the present essay came to eighty-seven pages of single-spaced typescript!—future contributions to this series will be coauthored by teams of James scholars headed by Professor Hocks, who will contribute the "General Introduction" and the "Books" section of each annual review. Jamesians interested in writing sections for 1985 and later years—sections on general articles and on articles on specific works (three such sections in each annual review, on James's works 1864-1881, 1882-1899, and 1900-1917)—are urged to write to us at the HJR as soon as possible.— DMF I. Introduction Work written on Henry James in 1983-1984 tells us beyond any doubt that the scholarship on the novelist has become stupendous. Some reasons are, I expect , familiar ones, and others perhaps new. The large and generally fine corpus of his work has always been a key factor, resulting in a virtual "tie" each year with Faulkner in the MLA Bibliography. What seems new, however, are the exotic names of some journals and the increased number of chapters on James in books organized around some broader theme. But the biggest change of all to my mind is the accelerated output brought about by word processing—a proposition impossible to prove scientifically but one that inspires more conviction with each passing day. This review, like James scholarship itself, has also grown beyond manageable proportions, and the task is one that may need some rethinking; that is for others to decide. When the 1982 version appeared, I believed that this assignment would fall to someone else; yet herewith follows the true "hippopotamus " of H. G. Wells's Boon, since that characterization of James was unfair and misplaced. Here it is not so misplaced. Readers will immediately perceive the extraordinary space and special status given the work of John Carlos Rowe, whose work seems to me a kind of quantum jump in James studies, work that raises large questions every Jamesian should ponder. Such space is not intended, however, to imply generic favoritism for contemporary/theoretical work over more traditional scholarship: as always, it 156 The Henry James Review depends on who is doing it. Some readers may recall years ago a similar separate category given to the work of Adeline Tintner, whose entire approach to James could not possibly be more different from Rowe's. In that regard, one could justifiably treat Tintner separately every time this review is published, for she continues to be more prolific than any other James scholar; indeed, she appears so frequently in these pages that it may surprise few to learn she now has over two hundred pieces published on James, including her recent book. If there is any new thematic pattern to be noted in the 1983-1984 work, it might be a propensity toward a more broadly defined "comparatist" analysis— to establish connections between James and all sorts of issues well beyond the more familiar literary and philosophical ones, though they too are here. The book by Mark Seltzer is a dramatic example of such an approach. There is also renewed interest in the publishing background of James's writing, and a continuing preoccupation with his language. As for individual works, there is no question that these have been the years of Golden Bowl analysis; it seems to dominate both in the essays and in chapters from interpretive books. This reconfirms my own sense, voiced in the 1981 review and repeated later on in this one, that that novel is in the process of becoming James's "Ulysses." Otherwise, The Turn of the Screw (an "amusette") has, incredibly, produced another eleven articles to that of seven for The Ambassadors ("the best 'all round' of all my productions"). By contrast, there are only two separate essays on The Portrait of a Lady, which has sometimes boasted...