616 American Literature
Er worthy of treatment, recognizing that their choices will always be open to debate.
Then, we have the term history, even more complex and difficult than the others. To use Lawrence Stone’s definition, history is the study of change over time and the attempt to explain the reasons for change. But this task is even more complicated for the literary historian. This role involves a major tension between the task of the historian to provide a narrative account of changes and the task of the literary critic to explicate texts, generate interpretations, and instill understanding and appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of works of art. Because of the wide variety of critical methods, we may expect considerable variations in the ways that different contributors approach their material. To illustrate this variety, one might examine a sample section and a list of the contributors to the volume. Each section shows the effort to interweave essays on single authors and movements with pieces that explore aspects less likely to get full treatment in the more standard essays. In selecting contributors we aimed to have the best person available for each essay; we did try to have some surprises, by having some write in an area other than those for which they are best known. Of course, some persons we did ask were too busy with other projects to take on this one, so it cannot be assumed that someone not on the list was not asked. I must also add, however, that the field of American literature now has many superb scholars that the task of selection was most difficult, and there are excellent people whom we could not invite. I do believe that the final list is fair, balanced, and quite exciting.
But even with such talent available, we still must ask how diverse, or even eccentric, some of the approaches may be without disorienting the reader or making the book a collection of critical essays rather than a history of literature? Must the editors ask for some kind of unity to avoid confusion and serious gaps of information? It seems to me that the answer lies someplace between a laissez-faire editorial policy and tyranny. At every point in the process, contributors are sharing with the editors their plans through outlines, letters, and conversations, with an understanding
“The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History,” Past and Present, No. 85 (November, 1979), pp. 3-8