A Quixotic Quest through Devious Walks of Literature

While preparing his edition of Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson observed to one of the contributors that a ‘commentary must arise from the fortuitous discoveries of many men, in devious walks of literature’.¹ Steven Moore’s ‘alternative history’ of the novel promises to deviate from the well-trodden paths of literary criticism. For readers unfamiliar with the terrain, Moore’s encyclopaedic study will broaden the range of texts they associate with the novel and its shifting trends. However, as Johnson noted, a task of this kind is best undertaken by ‘many men’. The quixotic interests of its single author limit this ‘alternative history’, and at times the laudable aim of opening up the history of the novel to new readers is scuppered by Moore’s personal perspective.

Moore organises his work according to national boundaries, which means he can delve into the details of the Spanish picaresque tradition, but this approach limits the comparative analysis that could have resulted from thematic or chronological organisation. He also elides the distinction between ‘fiction in English’ and ‘English’ fiction. Moore begins with the ‘European novel’, which is subdivided into ‘Spanish’, ‘German’, and ‘Latin’ fiction. ‘The French Novel’ is given its own chapter. Using national boundaries like these limits the ‘alternative’ enquiry promised in Moore’s title. Novels in the Netherlands, for example, cross-pollinated with those in English in the period covered. Creative translations flourished, not least Johannes Stinstra’s translations of Richardson. Having dealt with Cervantes at the beginning of his book, Moore is forced to double back near the end to English novels containing ‘quixotic quests’. He has a short section on the ‘Oriental tale’ amongst his discussions of English novels, and again his structure lets him down. Having illuminated some lesser-known works from Asia in a previous section, he is forced to disregard the fruitful dialogue that took place between Eastern and Western narratives, as detailed by Ros Ballaster in her Fabulous Orients.² Despite these organisational issues, the ‘chronological index of novels discussed’ at the end is a helpful feature for navigating the vast array of texts covered within each chapter. The index highlights the book’s potential as a reference tool, and its chronological organisation flattens some of the nationalist boundaries erected by the main structure.

The majority of the book is devoted to the English novel. As David Gervais in his review of Patrick Parrinder’s Nation and Novel suggests, to ‘survey the entire sweep of the English novel in one book is to commit oneself to countless plot summaries and snap interpretations, and a bird’s-eye view is often a simplified one’.³ However, ‘The English Novel’ section of Moore’s study has a clutch of thematic subsections which help to add nuance: ‘Quixotic Quests’, ‘Modern Romances’, ‘Bluestocking Novels’, ‘Road Romances’, ‘The Gothic Novel’, ‘Political Novels’, and ‘Critifications’. Moore deftly summarises the trends he will cover as ‘romance’ and ‘homegrown’ fiction (p. 541). At this point, some more overview would have been welcome, as in the earlier sections especially it feels as though there is little logic behind the progression from one plot summary to another. The plot summaries themselves, though, can be quite helpful: for example, there is a comprehensive overview of the many subplots and interpolated narratives of Mary Wroth’s Urania (pp. 550–4). This approach could whet the appetite of the non-specialist reader, but I suspect because of the book’s length and because of the eccentric progression from one work to another, the ‘general’ reader may feel alienated. It is a shame that texts which do not appear on the list of ‘classics’ will remain inaccessible for many readers of this book because of the way that Moore’s literary expectations affect his representation of them. One of the presiding themes of misrepresentation is Moore’s assumption that the older the novel, the more simplistic it will be: thus Fielding’s Joseph Andrews surprises Moore with social critique that ‘one would expect to see in...