KING-DISSERTATION-2014.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Dissertation Committee for Bradley Ray King Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Romance with Melville and American Literary History Committee: Evan Carton, Supervisor Matt Cohen Martin W. Kevorkian Brian A. Bremen Winfried Fluck The Romance with Melville and American Literary History by Bradley Ray King, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2014 Acknowledgements Given that this project in part aims to articulate the value of critical acknowledgement, it is a travesty that this suggestively titled section of my dissertation should be so cursory. When I think about how I came to the texts I analyze, my arguments, and my critical disposition, it seems to me that all these dimensions of “my” work represent the outcomes of unforgettable conversations with students, friends, and mentors; or of my engagement with a particularly compelling talk, essay, or book. Since to acknowledge fully is a fantasy—a descent into an inescapable maze of impression and influence—here I can only acknowledge the debts I feel most acutely. I’ll begin by expressing gratitude to my committee, whose tireless generosity— which manifested itself in encouragement and resistance—has sculpted the various dimensions of my critical identity. My supervisor, Evan Carton, raised the harshest, most cutting criticisms of my thought and writing that I have ever heard, and thus I owe to him a sharpened sense of what actually is original and valuable in my work. Evan’s generosity with his time was exemplary. He not only provided strikingly fast turnarounds on the writing I submitted; he also committed dozens of hours each semester to reading and discussing texts that I wanted his insight on, including criticism, theory, fiction, and even an opera. More than anything else, Evan taught me to parse the structure, rhetoric, and positioning of Americanist criticism—others’ and my own—and he therefore enabled me interrogate my scholarly aspirations and to iii argue with deliberation and self-awareness. Winfried Fluck also illuminated the value of reading criticism with rigor and care, both in his scholarship and his commentary on my work. To a large degree, I owe the very name of this dissertation to his writing on “the romance with America,” so his presence on my committee was a great asset. He allowed me to sound the resonance and validity of my claims, and to situate these claims within the larger critical community. I’m grateful to Matt Cohen for always asking questions that stretched the seams not only of my project, but also of my very faculties of comprehension. He often posed surprising, difficult problems that pierced deeply into my habits of thinking, and his feedback allowed me to discern unacknowledged incoherencies in my work. Matt also challenged me to interrogate the deep historical lineaments of the hermeneutic trends I discuss and of my own methods of reading. Brian Bremen, too, provided valuable intellectual mentorship. I’m especially grateful to him for galvanizing my fascination with pragmatism. Brian helped me to understand pragmatism’s theoretical and historical affiliations with both American literature and American literary studies. I also owe serious intellectual debts to several scholars who did not serve on my committee: Don Pease, Chris Castiglia, Jennifer Fleissner, Jennifer Greiman, Hortense Spillers, Caleb Smith, and Katy Arens, all of whom heard early versions of this material and generously responded. Everyone on my committee provided much-needed emotional care, but Martin Kevorkian was truly remarkable in this regard. Martin gave me what every iv graduate student in English needs: an indefatigably friendly face, and someone to make us feel welcome and valued in this scary, alienating discipline. Martin also provided meticulous feedback, which somehow managed to synthesize sentence-level and theoretical commentary. From Martin I learned to see the inconsistencies and immaturity of my thinking through my grammatical mistakes and syntactical awkwardness. I also want to thank my loving, giving family—both Saylors and Kings—who provided abiding emotional and financial support for my Quixotic pursuit of an education that promises no monetary or practical value. Their expressions of pride and confidence have been invaluable to me. My more immediate “pack”—my partner, Sara, and dog, Ishmael—were especially generous with their love and affection when I needed it most, in my not infrequent moments of insecurity, fear, and frustration. Sara also offered some of the most insightful, generative feedback that I received. She read and reread the countless drafts that gradually became this dissertation and made invaluable suggestions regarding my readings, argumentation, and usage of English. More than anyone else, Sara has taught me to write more fluidly and to argue less pedantically. She also consistently demanded that I be more aware of my unthought reliance on texts, assumptions, and rhetorics that only Americanists traffic in. v Several friends also helped to shape this project, only a handful of whom I can mention here. Chris Taylor helped me to understand the allure of psychoanalysis— not so much as a “critical approach,” but as a way of living that can engender empathy, discernment without judgment, and a unique attention to how we need the texts and ideas we become attached to. On several occasions Chris I talked and argued about language, desire, agency, and dozens of specific texts. These conversations were invaluable to my awareness of who I am as an intellectual. To Brianna Jewell I owe my growing interest in Queer Theory. She challenged me to read Eve Sedgwick, Lauren Berlant, Heather Love and others long before I could see their relevance to my work. Brianna also gave helpful feedback as I folded this difficult material into my dissertation. Many others—Chris Ortiz y Prentice, Lynn Cowles, John Destafney, Yvette DeChavez, Cleve Wiese, Andy Uzendoski, Laura Beerits, Ty Alyea, Corey Baum, and Mark Janchar, to name a few—made less easily definable contributions to getting me through this process. My final acknowledgement goes out to David Longoria, who often wrote with me, and whose presence helped me not to resort to the cold, sterile tropes of academic writing quite so unhesitatingly. He encouraged me to take pleasure in writing, and I learned from him that cultivating this always-fleeting pleasure demands striving to remain conscious of what matters to me about my scholarship. vi The Romance with Melville and American Literary History Bradley Ray King, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2014 Supervisor: Evan B. Carton This dissertation traces the historical emergence of what I call the romance with Melville during the postwar moment and argues that its striking endurance demands that we rethink the relationship between the discipline’s past and present. For the enduring vitality of the romance with Melville throughout the twentieth century points to deep continuities across major cuts in the discipline’s history. These continuities that the romance makes visible suggest that the discipline’s past is not so monolithically invested in masculinism, nationalism, and racism as many dominant voices have claimed it was, and also that the discipline’s present has not broken with its predecessors as completely as many had thought. I begin with a chapter that introduces the prevalence of the romance with Melville in American literary history, interrogates why Melville’s work lends itself so readily to this hermeneutic move, and articulates how the persistence of this move upsets the authoritative histories of American literary studies. My second chapter describes how Melville’s final story Billy Budd elicited a remarkably explicit transatlantic conversation about the affective and political ramifications of postwar heteronormativity. Chapter 3 examines C.L.R. James’s conversation with postwar vii Americanists about Moby-Dick, a conversation in which James sought to galvanize the critical community to fight the anti-democratic Cold War immigration laws under which James himself was being deported. My final chapter analyzes Ralph Ellison’s use of Moby-Dick, “Bartleby,” “Benito Cereno,” and The Confidence-Man to argue that American literature is fundamentally concerned with and informed by issues of racial injustice and inequality. In both his literary criticism and his fiction, Ellison, I argue, used Melville’s writing to criticize the racial negligence of American literary critics and to reflect on the ironies of his own abiding loyalty to white canonical writers like Melville. When one follows the various permutations of the romance with Melville in this moment and attends to the contestations it facilitated, one finds a rich, politically multivalent critical discourse that in many important but unacknowledged ways lays the groundwork for the political desires and textual attachments that continue to animate American literary studies. viii Table of Contents Preface………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Chapter 1: The Romance with Melville……………………………………...…… 7 Chapter 2: “if books are to be written”: Billy Budd and The Discipline of American Literary Studies………………………………………………………….. 50 Chapter 3: C.L.R. James’s “active, integrated humanism”: Moby-Dick and Mid-Century Intellectuals………………………………………………………..…….. 98