In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ELT 36 : 1 1993 its publication, lacks a sense of context and is limited by an absence of documentation. Summers excels when he takes on critical rather than textual or documentary matters. Crisply written and carefully focused, the summaries separate the essential from the secondary and are a model of taste and acumen, and the absence of comment is tactful and courteous. Most helpful is the occasional reliance on brief quotations to convey a given article or book's main argument. Particularly welcome in a work of reference is the unflinching discernment of the "tin ear" (Entry L49) or of bias, especially homophobia (Entry F40), when it masquerades as evaluative judgment. The scope of the work catalogued and assessed here is large and diverse as scholars responded to the impact of new information, assessed Maurice and the posthumously published short fiction and abandoned novels, and came to terms, sometimes reluctantly and in some cases hostilely, with Forster's homosexuality at a time, too, when new critical technologies were being mapped-out and applied. With so much being published, it is not surprising that the odd item—Eric Crozier's account of the writing of the libretto to Billy Budd (Opera Quarterly, Autumn 1986) and Naomi Mitchison's memoir in You May Well Ask (1979), for instance—has escaped even Summers's vigilant eye. He has, however, succeeded in ferreting out, pertinently commenting on, and helpfully indexing a formidable body of writing from a wide array of sources and in so doing has saved both the novice researcher and the seasoned Forsterian precious time and energy. In short, this is an essential work on an essential writer, and no serious student of Bloomsbury and no respectable academic library can do without it. J. H. S tape Chiba University, Japan Hardy and Gissing Annette Federico. Masculine Identity in Hardy and Gissing. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1991. 148 pp. $29.50 THIS IS A BOOK which fills a big gap and breaks new ground. However, not a few readers, arrested by the promise of the title, will open the volume with definite expectations, kindled by Irving Howe in his Thomas Hardy (Masters of World Literature), and be disappointed. Discussing the rise of the self-educated proletarian in nineteenthcentury England, Howe observed that "English fiction was slow to 74 BOOK REVIEWS absorb this remarkable new figure. . . . There are glimpses of the self-educated worker in the novels of George Gissing; he appears a bit more fully in the *Five Towns' fiction of Arnold Bennett, and still more impressively in D. H. Lawrence's early novels." One would expect Annette Federico to have started from this essentially correct observation (if Howe had known Gissing's work better, he would have used another word than "glimpses"), but her table of contents leaves no hope that Howe's hint has been taken—he is not even mentioned in her bibliography. Nor has Gissing's oft-quoted letter to Morley Roberts of 10 February 1895 in which he defines what he thought to be "the most characteristic, the most important part of [his] work" as "that which deals with a class of young men distinctive of our time—well educated, fairly bred, but without money." One thinks of the long line of such characters in his novels, from Arthur Golding downward, and of a good many cognate figures in Hardy's work, notably Stephen Smith, Clym Yeobright and Jude Fawley. But this is not what Federico has interested herself in. Whereas Howe started from social considerations and the manner in which Hardy, Gissing and their successors represented in their works a number of variations on a neatly defined social type, she started from closely observed individuals seen within a social context and classified them in groups to which she gave conventional names. The chapter titles speak for themselves: Nasty Boys, Pathological Gentlemen, Modern Romantics , The Other Victim. Another legitimate expectation is disappointed. Hardy and Gissing were contemporaries; they were occasional correspondents and had some consideration for each other's works, but of this next to nothing is made, and one has a (possibly mistaken) impression that the author is but moderately knowledgeable about the work of her...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 74-77
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Archive Status
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.