Pagan Dreiser: Songs from American Mythology

Pagan Dreiser: Songs from American Mythology

Pagan Dreiser: Songs from American Mythology

Pagan Dreiser: Songs from American Mythology

Synopsis

"The purpose of this investigation is threefold: first, to explicate Dreiser's passing allusions to Greek myth and literature; second, to explore some of his less obvious but more important structural, conceptual, and philosophical debts to the Greeks; third, to elucidate how this "pagan" point of view helps untangle many of the traditional, knotty problems of Dreiser scholarship. St. Jean operates from a central assumption: that a late-twentieth-century critical viewpoint, even when buttressed by formidable knowledge of American and European literary history, is finally insufficient for a fair appraisal of Dreiser's canon if unaccompanied by some understanding of the author's (often highly romanticized) debt to "paganism."" "The study does not proceed according to the traditional, chronological method of chapter-per-novel, but instead in four intertextual, subject-based chapters: first, a reappraisal of Dreiser's status as a literary naturalist and his place in literary history; second, a reading of his often-overlooked and subversive mode of social criticism; third, a reconciliation of his controversial perspectives on gender and sexuality; and, finally, an accounting of his attitudes toward religion as mythology and a discussion of the canon of American authors as a self-construed pantheon, with Dreiser as an aspiring member." Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Excerpt

The following study is intended to revise a very old but UNDEveloped method of reading Theodore Dreiser’s eight novels. External evidence, in the form of letters, reviews, and criticism, suggests that Dreiser’s contemporaries and earliest critics—H. L. Mencken, Burton Rascoe, Randolph Bourne, John Cowper Powys—all understood Dreiser’s literary debt to the ancient Greeks in such a way as to consider it self-evident to the educated reader. As products of the late nineteenth century, they had been classically educated with a rigor that few today enjoy. of course, this does not mean that their sense of the Greeks was any more perfect than that of classicists today—far from it—only that their culture placed a higher premium on philological study. in the work of a handful of later critics, such as Philip Gerber, one can still see lingering evidence of such education. But with fundamental shifts in canonical education during the twentieth century, from the conferral of legitimacy on American literature itself to the recent and increasingly urgent calls for ethnic diversity in the canon, the classics have taken on the form of a separate subdiscipline in the study of literature. Therein lies the necessity of this study: over the course of a century no one has yet done an extensive explication of Dreiser’s works in light of his self-professed “paganism.” What was once deemed obvious and therefore unnecessary for critics to explain has now entailed no little amount of research, argument, and speculation to recover.

At the same time the disciplines of English and Classical Studies have diverged, they have also undergone a curious and artificial conflation. Many of us have read Homer beside Walt Whitman and Sophocles beside Arthur Miller and have a sense of Greek literature as representing some kind of ancient, failed America. We have been taught that a hamartia (already the language barrier) is a “tragic flaw,” that function of a character’s temperament that dooms him or her to act in certain ways, and that hubris simply indicates egotistical pride. Unfortunately, something is lost in transliteration. Since such words have . . .

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.