Into the Woods of Criticism

James Wood anatomizes the final volume of the Oxford English Literary History. His comments have the ring of truth. I have read such "anatomies" of literary history and they do tend to be sparing of actual criticism. But there is a reason for this: they are scholarship, not criticism. The purpose of such works is basically to give an overview. Of course, it's thin on actual texts.

Wood has made a mistake about genre, but we know exactly why: in order to confirm his and the reader's prejudice that academics do not read or say interesting things about literature. A masterly rhetorician can tear apart a mediocrely written potted history of literature, but it proves little except that Wood likes his prefers his targets lumbering. I say he should read academics as agile and mind-bending as Jonathan Arac or Rachel Blau Duplessis if he wants criticism. Otherwise, he is just shooting fish in a barrel. (And it's disquieting that this appears in the London Review of Books, rather than the New Republic where such snark is obligatory.)