DOCSLIB.ORG

TEXTUAL PRACTICE Editor Terence Hawkes University College, Cardiff Postal Address: Department of English, University College, Cardiff, PO Box 78, Cardiff CFI IXE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TEXTUAL PRACTICE Editor Terence Hawkes University College, Cardiff Postal Address: Department of English, University College, Cardiff, PO Box 78, Cardiff CFI IXE TEXTUAL PRACTICE Editor Terence Hawkes University College, Cardiff Postal address: Department of English, University College, Cardiff, PO Box 78, Cardiff CFI IXE. Editorial board Christopher Norris UWIST, Cardiff (Review Editor) Gillian Beer Girton College, Cambridge Angela Carter Terry Eagleton Wadham College, Oxford John Frow Murdoch University, Australia Linda Hutcheon McMaster University, Canada Mary Jacobus Cornell University, USA Francis Mulhern Middlesex Polytechnic Allon White University of Sussex This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Textual Practice is published three times a year, in spring, summer and winter, by Methuen & Co Ltd, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4P 4EE. All rights are reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retriveal system or transmitted in any form or by any mean, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic type, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without permission in writing from the author(s) and publishers, but academic institutions may make not more than three Xerox copies of any one article in any single issue without needing further permission; all enquiries to the Editor. Contributions and correspondence should be addressed to the Editor at University College, Cardiff. Books for review and related correspondence should be addressed to Christopher Norris at Dept of English, UWIST, Colum Drive,Cardiff CF1 3EU. Advertisements Enquiries to David Polley, Methuen & Co Ltd, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE. Subscription rates (calendar year only): UK and the rest of the world: individuals £22.00; institutions £35.00; single copies £7.95. North America: individuals $35.00; instructions $55.00; single copies $14.00. All rates include postage; airmail rates on application. Subscriptions to: Subscriptions Department, Methuen & Co Ltd, North Way, Andover, Hants, SP10 5BE. Subscription to Textual Practice in the USA: payments in US dollars may be sent to Associated Book Publishers’ account in New York: Account No. 051–70 700–4 at Barclays Bank (New York) Lt, 300 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022. ISSN 0950-236X © Methuen & Co Ltd. 1987 ISBN 0-203-99064-1 Master e-book ISBN TEXTUAL PRACTICE VOLUME 1 NUMBER 2 SUMMER 1987 Contents Articles Invisible fictions: television audiences, paedocracy, pleasure 1 JOHN HARTLEY ‘The thin crust of refinement’: culture, socialism, naturalism 19 WIM NEETENS The rhetoric of remembrance: Derrida on de Man 34 CHRISTOPHER NORRIS Prospero meets Adam Smith: narrative exchange and control in The 49 Prelude IAN REID Theory, enlightenment and violence: postmodernist hermeneutic as a 73 comedy of errors THOMAS DOCHERTY Reviews Making history 98 SUSAN ADRIAN SHAHZADE Signifying 102 JANE MOORE Sexual politics 105 MARGARET ATACK Habermas 110 EDMOND WRIGHT Rethinking Marx 116 J.M.BERNSTEIN Poetics and hermeneutics 119 JOHN LLEWELYN Invisible fictions: television audiences, paedocracy, pleasure JOHN HARTLEY PASSPORT CONTROL Although television as an institution is dependent upon audiences, it is by no means certain what a television audience is. However, it seems that this is not the only uncertainty facing those working in the field of television studies. E.Ann Kaplan, for instance, in her introduction to Regarding Television, remarks: The structure, form, content and context for British television are so radically different from those of its American counterpart that everything has to be rethought by critics in this country [the USA]. Television scholarship is simply not exportable in the easy manner of film criticism.1 The idea that international television criticism is a contradiction in terms is not confined to the American side of the Atlantic. In fact it has been taken even further by the British writer John Ellis, who suggests not only that television scholarship is unexportable but also that one nation’s television is ‘incomprehensible’ to observers from other nations. In the preliminaries to his Visible Fictions Ellis confesses that at the time of writing he had never visited the United States, and continues: This really demonstrates an insuperable problem with all writing about broadcast TV: unlike cinema, which in its commercial sectors has a highly integrated international aspect, broadcast TV is an essentially national activity for the vast majority of its audience. Broadcast TV is the private life of the nation-state…incomprehensible for anyone who is outside its scope.2 Neither Kaplan nor Ellis qualifies these remarks with customary scholarly caution. Both write in absolute terms: television is incomprehensible for those outside its scope; television criticism is simply not exportable; everything has to be rethought; the problem is insuperable; it applies to all writing about broadcast television; television is essentially national. Furthermore, their remarks are not 2 TEXTUAL PRACTICE isolated. Quite a lot of media criticism in recent years has been conducted around a perceived gulf, as wide as the Atlantic Ocean, between American and Anglo- European perspectives.3 This gulf, once invoked, is made to explain such divisions as those between empirical and theoretical approaches; so-called transmission and ritual models of communication; liberal-pluralist and Marxist theories; even the disciplinary location of media studies—in America it’s a social science, in Britain it’s in the humanities. If these divisions really constitute an insuperable problem, then of course international television scholarship does become impossible. Or, more accurately, the kind of criticism that constructs as its object an essential form, on the model of ‘cinema’ or ‘literature’, becomes impossible. What the uncertainties noted above do imply is that there is no such thing as ‘television’—an abstract, general form with invariable features. Neither does television have any essential mode of production, distribution and consumption—despite the very obvious fact that many television shows, series and formats display exactly that ‘highly integrated international aspect’ claimed by Ellis for cinema. As for television studies, a certain uneasiness with the erection of essential, national boundaries around television scholarship has been voiced by Willard Rowland and Bruce Watkins in their introduction to Interpreting Television. They discuss ‘this old and contentious issue’, largely with reference to a myth of American ‘dependence’ on European thought, and show that, although that dependence is mythical, the consequences of reiterating the myth have been real enough. They argue that, although it is tempting, it is inadequate to categorize current research by means of a ‘bi-polar, European/critical versus American/ liberal dichotomy’. They conclude that ‘it is becoming increasingly difficult to speak about any pure national or even regional tradition of thought, especially in communication and cultural studies.’4 If it is indeed difficult to speak of pure, national traditions of thought in this context, it may be easier, and certainly more productive, to speak of impurity. It may even be possible to see in impurities not a problem but a fundamental criterion for cultural studies. The productivity of impurity, of transgressing national boundaries unawares, has been amply illustrated, paradoxically enough, by John Ellis. Having erected pure—insuperable—boundaries between British and American television, and between British and American writing on television, he then subverts this line of thinking completely: Sudden exposure to the often bizarre practices of broadcast TV in another country can stimulate fresh thinking about the whole phenomenon of TV. This is the case with Raymond Williams’s concept of ‘flow’ which resulted from his culture shock on seeing US TV. Seeing another country’s broadcast TV has the effect of ‘making strange’ something we normally take for granted: TV, normally habitual and bound into the life of the nation, suddenly becomes an alien and inexplicable series of events.5 INVISIBLE FICTIONS 3 Thus, transgressing the frontiers of the familiar, the national, produces culture shock—the bizarre, the alien, the inexplicable—and this turns out to be the very condition for understanding, stimulating fresh thinking by breaking habitual bonds. Even so, it has to be noted that some bonds remain taken for granted: Ellis is still presuming that there is such a thing as ‘the whole phenomenon’ of television, in the teeth of his own evidence to the contrary. TELEVISION: ANOTHER COUNTRY? Since the concept of the nation seems to play such an important role in specifying both television and TV scholarship, it would seem to be a good idea to look at what the concept of the nation might mean. However, it wouldn’t be such a good idea to substitute for the essentialism of ‘television’ another kind of essentialism—for instance, the notion of an essential ‘America’, or ‘Britain’, or ‘Australia’, or even ‘the nation’. Nations cannot be understood ‘purely’, that is, from their own supposed intrinsic or essential features. Neither television nor nations can be understood at all, in fact, except in relational terms. They have no pure, intrinsic properties but only differences from other, related domains. Benedict Anderson has argued that they are by definition limited, or impure, because each nation is defined by other nations: Even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formerly Theutsreview
    formerly the UTS review Editorial Board IEN ANG Sydney, RUTH BARCAN Sydney, TONY BENNETT Milton Keynes, JODY BERLAND Toronto, CHRIS BERRY London, MARCUS BREEN Chapel Hill, ANNE BREWSTER Sydney, MARION CAMPBELL Melbourne, DIPESH CHAKRABARTY Chicago, ROSS CHAMBERS Ann Arbor, KUAN-HSING CHEN Hsinchu, NAIFEI DING Taipei, SIMON DURING Baltimore, ROSS GIBSON Sydney, DAVID GOODMAN Sydney, HELEN GRACE Hong Kong, LAWRENCE GROSSBERG Chapel Hill, GHASAN HAGE Sydney, JOHN HARTLEY Brisbane, GAY HAWKINS Sydney, CHRIS HEALY Melbourne, VILSONI HERENIKO Honolulu, JACKIE HUGGINS Brisbane, JANE JACOBS Edinburgh, LALEEN JAYMANNE Sydney, LESLEY JOHNSON Sydney, NOEL KING Sydney, MARCIA LANGTON Melbourne, JENNY LEE Melbourne, AMANDA LOHREY FALMOUTH Tasmania, ADRIAN MARTIN Melbourne, BRIAN MASSUMI Montreal, JENNA MEAD Hobart, PHILIP MEAD Hobart, AILEEN MORETON-ROBINSON Brisbane, MEAGHAN MORRIS Sydney and Hong Kong, PHILIP MORRISSEY Melbourne, STEPHEN MUECKE Sydney, TOM O’REGAN Brisbane, SUVENDRINI PERERA Perth, ELSPETH PROBYN Sydney, ZOE SOFOULIS Sydney, LESLEY STERN San Diego, JON STRATTON Perth, GRAEME TURNER Brisbane, THEO VAN LEEUWEN Sydney, MCKENZIE WARK New York, ROB WILSON Santa Cruz Former Editors (2002–2006) CHRIS HEALY, STEPHEN MUECKE Founding Editors (The UTS Review 2005–2002) MEAGHAN MORRIS, STEPHEN MUECKE history experiments VOL.14 NO.1 MAR 2OO8 edited by john frow and katrina schlunke Editors JOHN FROW & KATRINA SCHLUNKE EDITORIAL & SUBSCRIPTION OFFICE Reviews Editor RUTH BARCAN Cultural Studies Review Managing Editor ANN STANDISH School of Culture and Communication Thanks to Anne Brennan, Mark Byron, Clare The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Corbould, Martin Harrison, Chris Healy, Roger Australia Hillman, Ross Gibson, Laleen Jayamanne, Michelle E <[email protected]> Langford, Meg Mumford, Julien Murphett, Klaus W <www.csreview.unimelb.edu.au> Neumann, Katrina Schlunke and Deane Williams.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 – 2016 English Literature Fourth Year Option Courses
    2015 – 2016 ENGLISH LITERATURE FOURTH YEAR OPTION COURSES 1 17 June 2015 SEMESTER ONE An English Heritage p. 3 Cities of Literature: Metropolitan Modernities p. 5 Contemporary American Fiction p. 6 Contemporary Postcolonial Writing p. 7 Decolonization and the Novel p. 9 Film Criticism and Analysis p.11 Literature and the Great War p.13 Literature in the Age of Terror p.14 Modern Religious & Ethical Debates in Contemp Lit p.20 Neo-imperialisms p.22 Outback, Outlaws and Outcasts p.24 Political Shakespeare p.27 Queering Fictions p.29 Scottish Women’s Fiction * p.31 Sex and God in Victorian Poetry p.33 Sex, Sedition and Seduction in Restoration Literature p.35 The Long Summer p.38 Thinking Translation – A Beginners Guide p.40 Writing for Theatre* p.44 Writing the Body Politic p.46 SEMESTER TWO Censorship p.51 Contemporary British Drama p.54 Creative Writing Part I: Poetry* p.57 Creative Writing Part II: Prose * p.60 Digital Humanities for Literary Study p.62 Fairy Tales * p.66 George Orwell and the Politics of Literature p.68 Modern and Contemporary Scottish Poetry* p.70 Modernism: Text, Image, Object p.73 Postmodernism: Who Needs it? p.76 Shakespeare Adapted p.78 Shakespearean Sexualities p.80 Writing and Tyranny at the Court of Henry VIII p.81 Writing Contemporary Feminities * p.84 Victorian and Edwardian City p.87 * Courses with an asterisk have a Scottish emphasis. Note: Courses may be taught by staff in addition to the named course organiser. 2 17 June 2015 English Literature Fourth Year Semester One Option Course An English Heritage: Nativism, Language and History in the Work of Four Post-war Poets Course Organiser: Professor James Loxley This course will explore the work of four post-war English poets in relation to their shared concerns both with Englishness and with arguments concerning the nature of distinctively ‘English’ poetic traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory Time: on the History of Poststructuralism
    Theory Time: On the History of Poststructuralism Ian Hunter The 40th Annual Symposium of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, 19-20 November 2009. The Humanities in Australia: Taking Stock Introduction I would like to begin by thanking the Academy’s Council for the honour of presenting this lecture, and the Secretariat for their organisation of the symposium.1 It is a particular pleasure though to thank my colleague and friend of many years Mark Finnane, for his good work and good offices in the convening of such a timely and significant intellectual event. My topic — the intellectual history of post-1960s humanities theory, poststructuralism in particular — is one that comes with great promise and significant risk. The promise is to achieve some insight into a series of intellectual practices and contexts that had significant impact on the culture of the Western humanities academy during the second half of the twentieth century and up to the present. The risk is that there is little agreement about how to develop a historiography for poststructuralist theory, or even about whether one can be developed. This is to say nothing of the fact that in pursuing this task one must run the gauntlet between those whose love of poststructuralist theory makes its historicisation sacrilegious and those whose dislike of it makes it unworthy of historicisation. An invitation to speak on the history of humanities theory thus has something in common with an invitation to a post-concert party with the Rolling Stones: there is the enticement to discover something new and possibly forbidden; the challenge to stay the distance in a demanding milieu; and the risk that one will leave the event in worse shape than on arrival.
    [Show full text]
  • FRODSHAM, John David
    THE AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF THE HUMANITIES ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 33 JOHN DAVID FRODSHAM 1930–2016 fellow · elected 1969 Before taking up a position at Murdoch University, where Frodsham was Professor of World Literature, I had looked up his publications in the University of Sydney’s Fisher Library. He had had a brief stint at Sydney in the Department of Oriental Studies before taking up a position as Lecturer in Far Eastern History at the University of Malaya. He returned to Australia in 1965 to a similar position at the University of Adelaide followed by his election to a Readership in Chinese at the Australian National University (ANU) in 1967. At Sydney I had been unimpressed by the narrow discipline- oriented interests of the English literature staff, their overbearing monolingualism and, needless to say, their Oxford pretentiousness. Against the latter, Frodsham, in my reading of him, stood out like an unusual beacon. He had already made it into Who’s Who and been elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1969; his books had been published by Clarendon Press (the prestige imprimatur of Oxford University Press). I also read that he spoke some thirteen languages fluently. He interviewed me at a Circular Quay hotel, paid for the coffee and lunch on his American Express photo: courtesy of v. mishra Card, and offered me a three-year tutorship. There was nothing untoward nor indeed corrupt about this, as this ohn Frodsham, who was born on 5 January 1930 in was a professor’s right, a kind of gift, in the old system.
    [Show full text]
  • Poststructuralism in English Classrooms: Critical Literacy and After
    1 Poststructuralism in English classrooms: Critical literacy and after Bronwyn Mellor & Annette Patterson This paper was published in a slightly different form in: International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol 17, No 1, p.85-102 (2004). Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis 2 Poststructuralism in English classrooms: Critical literacy and after Abstract This paper explores the effects of poststructuralism on the work of two English teachers and writers of classroom texts. It traces aspects of their theoretical and practical engagement with poststructuralism from an initial acceptance of what appeared to promise the possibility of a truly critical practice through ideology critique to a stance that endeavours to include a consideration of the emergence of English pedagogy as well as theories about language and meaning. Current understandings of reading in English classrooms have moved away from the belief that the interpretation of literature is purely a matter of personal response. Instead, it has been argued during recent decades that reading is a socially, culturally and historically located practice. In part, this change is an inheritance from British Cultural Studies which, informed by political and cultural theory, influenced English in seemingly radical ways in the 1970’s and 80’s. During this period ‘theory’ – especially postructuralist theory – effected changes at every level of English teaching. Challenges to ideas about what constituted a student reader, a classroom text and an interpretation resulted in a re-formation of English in high schools. This re-formation included shifts in emphases away from the individual reader’s personal response to texts toward the idea of subject positioning through textual practices, a review of the concept of interpretation, a focus on the concept of multiple readings, a deconstruction of the opposition between 3 high culture and popular culture and an embracing of the concepts of text, textuality and intertextuality.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions of Address: for Meaghan Morris Vol
    Cultural Studies ARTICLE Review Questions of Address: For Meaghan Morris Vol. 24, No. 1 John Frow March 2018 University of Sydney Corresponding author: John Frow, Department of English, University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia. [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/csr.v24i1.5958 Article History: Received 02/11/2017; Revised 13/03/2018; Accepted 14/03/2018; Published 20/04/2018 In beginning to prepare this tribute to Meaghan Morris’s work I went to the bulging folder that contains the letters and postcards and draft papers she sent me over a period of about twenty years, from the early 1980s to the early 2000s (more recently we’ve communicated © 2018 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article almost entirely by email). One of the things that strikes me, looking through these pages with distributed under the terms their typewritten text full of crossings-out and handwritten marginalia, is the enormous care of the Creative Commons Meaghan gives to her intellectual relationships, in my case with someone she didn’t know all Attribution 4.0 International that well, who lived on the other side of the country, and with whom there were significant (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ points of intellectual difference. One of the letters I’m going to quote from is ten closely typed by/4.0/), allowing third parties pages long, and to write it she would first have to have read, closely and carefully, a dense and to copy and redistribute the abstruse paper of mine, set in what looks like 8-point font and to me today almost unreadable.
    [Show full text]
  • 20Th Anniversary Colloquium the Academy's Cultural
    20TH ANNIVERSARY COLLOQUIUM THE ACADEMY’S CULTURAL & COMMUNICATIONS SECTION Overview 9:30am—4:30pm Wednesday 14th November 2018 Social Sciences Building, A02, Lecture Theatre 200, Science Road, University of Sydney This Colloquium celebrates the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of the Cultural and Communication Studies Section of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. That establishment was preceded by a campaign led by the late Professor Ken Ruthven, a key moment of which was a symposium on the topic ‘Beyond the Disciplines: The new humanities’ held in 1991. We revisit some of the key topics discussed in that symposium –the discipline of cultural studies, multiculturalism, cultural policy studies, feminist/gender studies, post-colonial/subaltern studies, and legal studies – and discuss how our disciplines have moved on since then. Our focus will be on the theoretical, political, and institutional challenges they have confronted, the changing contexts in which they have evolved, and the directions in which we think they are headed. Our presenters will include some of the founding members of the section, some newer members, and some young colleagues who do not as yet belong to the Academy. Convenors: Professor Tony Bennett FAcSS FAHA, Professor John Frow FAHA, Professor Elspeth Probyn FASSA FAHA and Associate Professor Chris Healy FAHA. We acknowledge and thank the University of Melbourne's School of Culture and Communication, the University of Sydney's Department of Media and Communications, and Western Sydney University'
    [Show full text]
  • Genre Worlds: the Discursive Shaping of Knowledge
    Arena Journal_No.23_2005.qxd 8/3/04 5:08 AM Page 129 Genre Worlds: The Discursive Shaping of Knowledge John Frow The thesis I want to argue in this article is a simple and in some ways rather formalistic one: that textual meaning is carried by formal structures more powerfully than by explicit thematic content; that what texts do and how they are structured have greater force than what they say they are about; and that genre — by which I mean merely the kinds of talking and writing, of imaging and of structured sound — is perhaps the most important of the structures by which texts are organized.1 Consider the following piece of writing, displayed recently for a few hours on hoardings in the streets of Edinburgh: RAPE CASE JUDGE IN NEW STORM This very transient and very simple text works with a number of ‘deep’ suppositions. It supposes a reader walking or driving in the 1. This an edited and extended version of the Marion Adams Lecture delivered at the University of Melbourne in 2004. ARENA journal no. 23, 2005 129 Arena Journal_No.23_2005.qxd 8/3/04 5:08 AM Page 130 130 John Frow street whose attention needs to be caught by large and bold lettering, and who knows that these words are on display because they are tied to a story in the newspaper whose name is inscribed on the border of the poster. It assumes that the story it tells is factually true, and that it is newsworthy, not trivial (this is one reason why the word ‘storm’ here cannot be read literally: judges caught in the rain are not news).
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Humanities Review
    AUSTRALIAN HUMANITIES REVIEW issue 45 2008 Edited by Monique Rooney and Russell Smith Australian Humanities Review Editors: Monique Rooney, The Australian National University Russell Smith, The Australian National University Consulting Editors: Lucy Frost, University of Tasmania Elizabeth McMahon, University of New South Wales Cassandra Pybus, University of Tasmania Editorial Advisors: Stuart Cunningham, Queensland University of Technology Guy Davidson, University of Wollongong Ken Gelder, University of Melbourne Andrew Hassam, Monash University Marilyn Lake, La Trobe University Sue Martin, La Trobe University Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, University of Sydney Libby Robin, The Australian National University Deborah Rose, The Australian National University Susan Sheridan, Flinders University Rosalind Smith, University of Newcastle Terry Threadgold, Cardiff University, Wales McKenzie Wark, Eugene Lang College, New York Terri-Ann White, University of Western Australia Adi Wimmer, University of Klagenfurt, Austria Australian Humanities Review is published by the Association for the Study of Australian Literature, with the support of the School of Humanities at The Australian National University. Mailing address: Editors, Australian Humanities Review, School of Humanities, AD Hope Building #14, The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: [email protected] Website: www.australianhumanitiesreview.org Published by ANU E Press Email: [email protected] Website: http://epress.anu.edu.au © The Australian National University. This Publication is protected by copyright and may be used as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 provided appropriate acknowledgment of the source is published. The illustrations and certain identified inclusions in the text are held under separate copyrights and may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the respective copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory& Cultural Studies
    csr 12.1-16 (180-201) 3/9/06 9:08 AM Page 181 an exchange on theory & cultural studies The following exchange grew out of a series of posts to the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia discussion list.1 As a talking point leading into a regular meeting for early career cultural studies researchers in Brisbane, Melissa Gregg, Jean Burgess and Joshua Green quoted a passage from Simon During’s recent Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction (Routledge, 2005) in the hope of provoking a wider debate about the current state of Australian cul- tural studies. Various members of the list were duly provoked, and the ensuing discussion was later picked up in a paper by John Frow and continued in private correspondence and then in invited responses to the developing exchange. — Simon during, CULTURAL STUDIES: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION (2005), p. 26, quoted in melissa gregg, jean burgess and joshua green, post to csaa list, 26 august 2005 Nowadays Australian cultural studies is increasingly normalised, concentrating on cultural policy studies and, often uncritically, on popular culture and the media. Indeed it is in Aus- tralia that the celebration of popular culture as a liberating force … first took off through Fiske and Hartley’ s contributions. The young populists of the seventies now hold senior posts and what was pathbreaking is becoming a norm. The readiness of a succession of Aus- tralian governments to encourage enterprise universities has empowered the old tertiary technical training departments in such areas as communications, allowing them to have an impact on more abstract and theorised cultural studies in ways that appear to have deprived the latter of critical force.
    [Show full text]
  • Saluting John Frow
    Cultural Studies Review volume 18 number 3 December 2012 http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/csrj/index p. 359 Katrina Schlunke 2012 Saluting John Frow KATRINA SCHLUNKE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY This issue of Cultural Studies Review is the final one I will co-edit with John Frow. It has been a pleasure to co-edit with John and it seemed fitting to offer a small intellectual salute to both his work and the engagement and reactions he inspires through the following article and responses. While this was understood as a small commemoration of John’s work as editor it also mimics in a more public way the endless (and often very productive) work of commenting upon, responding to and working with the work of our fellow thinkers that all in the larger Cultural Studies Review community do. What follows is a response to one small part of John’s writings but he is also an extraordinarily deft reader and that skill can be seen again and again in the pages of this journal. The capacity to read an article in its own terms, to place it properly with reviewers who will best engage with and improve a piece, requires a style of reading that is as much communitarian as critical. The result of that reading then flows on to a published article that is itself better able to be read and so the flow of concatenating readerships spreads. I would like to thank John for all our co-readings and for the time and attention he has given to the journal in all its guises from bank balances to illustrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications for John Frow 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
    Publications for John Frow 2021 href="https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/books/reading-country-30- Frow, J. (2021). After 'Orientalism' (forthcoming). JOSAH: years">[More Information]</a> Journal of the Society of Asian Humanities, 52. 2017 2020 Frow, J. (2017). Introduction: The prosaic imaginary. Novel, Frow, J., Hardie, M., Smith, V. (2020). Introduction: The 50(1), 1-7. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00295132- Bildungsroman: form and transformations. Textual Practice, 3854235">[More Information]</a> 34(12), 1905-1910. <a Frow, J., Smith, V. (2017). The Prosaic Imaginary. Novel, href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950236X.2020.1834692">[Mo 50(1). <a re Information]</a> href="https://read.dukeupress.edu/novel/issue/50/1">[More Frow, J., Hardie, M., Smith, V. (2020). The Bildungsroman: Information]</a> form and transformations. Textual Practice, 34(12). <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rtpr20/34/12?nav=tocLi 2016 st">[More Information]</a> Smith, V., Frow, J. (2016). Novel Worlds. Journal of 2019 Language, Literature and Culture, 63(2-3). Frow, J. (2016). Prefaces to the Novel: Robinson Crusoe and Frow, J. (2019). Cookie. Cultural Studies Review, 25(2), 208- Novelistic Form. Journal of Language, Literature and Culture, 210. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/csr.v25i2.6899">[More 63(2-3), 96-106. <a Information]</a> href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20512856.2016.1244907">[Mor Frow, J. (2019). Cultural Studies. In Jeffrey R. Di Leo (Eds.), e Information]</a> The Bloomsbury Handbook of Literary and Cultural Theory, Frow, J. (2016). Reading with Guns: Institutions of (pp.
    [Show full text]