I'm not completely allergic to "lit crit" articles (by which I make a fine-grained distinction from "literary criticism" but perhaps one that is idiosyncratic), but I confess I find them far less useful for the Project than articles written from a historian's angle. I guess it's because lit crit feels like it's more about the reception of the topic in question by a modern audience than it is about the historic context of the topic itself. Perhaps that means I'm wronging this journal article in classifying it as "lit crit" because it's very much about the historic context of Fuller's life and writings. It just...feels very slippery and squishy.
Comments