FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2922162632> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2922162632 endingPage "225" @default.
• W2922162632 startingPage "222" @default.
• W2922162632 abstract "Reviewed by: The Novel After Film: Modernism and the Decline of Autonomy by Jonathan Foltz Jordan Brower The Novel After Film: Modernism and the Decline of Autonomy. Jonathan Foltz. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. 304. $65.00 (cloth). Jonathan Foltz's The Novel After Film: Modernism and the Decline of Autonomy joins the post-millennium trend in scholarship intent on nuancing our understanding of modernism's media ecology. As he duly acknowledges in his introduction, that body of writing is too diverse to account for singly (the study cites as influences Mark Goble, Michael North, Laura Marcus, and many others), but Foltz writes most clearly after David Trotter's Cinema and Modernism (2007). There, Trotter announced his dissatisfaction with arguments based on an analogical relation between modernist literary experimentation and filmmaking techniques such as montage editing and camerawork, finding them at once too loose … and too tight: that is, often ahistorical on the one hand, and positing an insufficiently mediated formal relation on the other.1 Foltz has learned well from Trotter and company. In studying the writings of Virginia Woolf, H.D., Henry Green, and Aldous Huxley, he at once tracks those authors' relations to and reflections on film—which include their involvement in various forms of film criticism, and, in Huxley's case, participation in production—and sensitively reads the formal and stylistic ramifications of those engagements.2 From these singular correspondences between literature and film (The Novel After Film, 11), Foltz seeks to clarify a set of related attitudes toward medial difference, generic identity, and the compromised aesthetics of address that bind these disparate styles together in a common history (23). The book is thus remarkably ambitious—it tackles the Novel, and Film, and Modernism, and Autonomy—and that high aspiration is the study's great virtue. But by taking on those big words which make us so unhappy and by allowing their augustness to compound and their slipperiness to slicken—even the preposition After is purposely ambivalent, suggesting temporal belatedness and a conflicted relation of indebtedness and disavowal—that ambition is also the study's principal limitation (5–6). The work of this review will be to give a sense of the challenge and promise of Foltz's book and what they mean for media-oriented studies of modernism going forward. Although he declines to bind his analysis to either a historical or a formal definition of modernism as such, Foltz acknowledges as sources for his sense of that concept the sociology of twentieth-century literature undertaken by scholars ranging from Lawrence Rainey (Institutions of Modernism [1999]) and Mark McGurl (The Novel Art [2001]) to Andrew Goldstone (Fictions of Autonomy [2013]) and Evan Kindley (Poet-Critics and the Administration of Culture [2017]) (24). It is by way of McGurl that Foltz conceives of the modernist novel as the art-novel, which is conceivably why Henry James hovers over his study—literally, as the provider of its first epigraph, and figuratively as the author perhaps most often associated with the self-conscious effort to refine novelistic technique (5).3 Broader questions aside, Foltz is above all interested [End Page 222] in the way his four chosen authors warp what he calls novelistic address along four vectors: character, point of view, omniscience, and irony (10).4 For Foltz, these deformations find their etiologies in his four authors' particular experiences of film. But despite being the common name for the art form of celluloid-based moving images, Foltz's film is not a coherent medium, with concrete and materially identifiable properties or styles that writers might emulate with confidence; rather, Foltz goes on to say, I treat film as a transitive figure through which writers came to articulate modes of writing that the tradition of the novel had disallowed (The Novel After Film, 9). Foltz's notion of the transitive figure—which has presumably been selected for its flexibility—also introduces a tension in his study's conceptual framework. The critic's admiration of the sociological approach to modernism and his attention to writers' unique responses to film might make us expect him to build his case from the bottom up, coordinating these individual, socially embedded, culturally..." @default.
• W2922162632 created "2019-03-22" @default.
• W2922162632 creator A5028644771 @default.
• W2922162632 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W2922162632 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2922162632 title "The Novel After Film: Modernism and the Decline of Autonomy by Jonathan Foltz" @default.
• W2922162632 cites W1532558326 @default.
• W2922162632 cites W1594699307 @default.
• W2922162632 cites W2145226351 @default.
• W2922162632 cites W405453832 @default.
• W2922162632 cites W592630144 @default.
• W2922162632 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mod.2019.0011" @default.
• W2922162632 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2922162632 type Work @default.
• W2922162632 sameAs 2922162632 @default.
• W2922162632 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2922162632 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2922162632 hasAuthorship W2922162632A5028644771 @default.
• W2922162632 hasBestOaLocation W29221626321 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C134141054 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C2776242748 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C65414064 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C68389820 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C107038049 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C124952713 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C134141054 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C142362112 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C144024400 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C17744445 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C199539241 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C2776242748 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C2778061430 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C519580073 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C52119013 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C65414064 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C68389820 @default.
• W2922162632 hasConceptScore W2922162632C7991579 @default.
• W2922162632 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2922162632 hasLocation W29221626321 @default.
• W2922162632 hasOpenAccess W2922162632 @default.
• W2922162632 hasPrimaryLocation W29221626321 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W1977906469 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2035938212 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2207116165 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2619469882 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2800674105 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W2907389107 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W3097370560 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W4244935606 @default.
• W2922162632 hasRelatedWork W4256044985 @default.
• W2922162632 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2922162632 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2922162632 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2922162632 magId "2922162632" @default.
• W2922162632 workType "article" @default.