Cfletc01.files.wordpress.com



Carrie Fletcher

Dr. Monica Luebke

Rhet 3203

13 November 2012

Annotated Bibliography: Early American Print Culture

Benson, Mary Margaret. "Book Reviews: Arts & Humanities." Library Journal 117.16 (1992):

86. Academic Search Premier. Web. 04 Nov. 2012.

The critical agenda for Benson’s book review is to make the reading public aware of the purpose for reading Armstrong and Tennenhouse’s book. Benson briefly associates the authors with 17th and 18th century American and British literature. She places emphasis on the attention the authors give to captivity narratives in their discussions that range from Mary Rowlandson to Daniel Defoe. In her review, Benson states that both Armstrong and Tennenhouse draw on the most recent criticism as they demonstrate the active role of the authors of the captivity narratives which results in their being deemed as the actual creators of modern intellectual life. She goes on to recommend the book for comprehensive research collections only due to the authors’ highly specialized treatment of captivity narratives. Benson points out the fact that both Armstrong and Tennenhouse have been published extensively, and lists works that they have written individually and as co-authors. While Benson’s book review is short, it does contain information that I can utilize in my research. Because of the review, I now know that I may find accredited sources in authors such as Armstrong and Tennenhouse who share my appreciation for Early American print culture. I cannot include Benson’s book review as a source because this annotation covers the extent of the review. It is the type of review one can find on the back of books that relates the context to the prospective reader. However, the review has introduced me to material that directly relates to my topic.

Burnham, Michelle. “THE JOURNEY BETWEEN: LIMINALITY AND DIALOGISM IN

MARY WHITE ROWLANDSON'S CAPTIVITY NARRATIVE.” Early American

Literature; Mar1993, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p60, 16p. Academic Search Premier. Web.

01 Nov. 20.

The critical agenda for Burnham’s literary review of Mary White Rowlandson’s captivity narrative is to explore the text from a feminist perspective. Burnham argues that a curious dichotomy in the narrative tone of the captivity narrative makes it seem as though the detailed observations of her physical journey were recorded by one voice, and the spiritual quotations and conclusions drawn from her experience were in a separate voice. In order to explain this duality in voice, Burnham describes Rowlandson’s experience as a two part journey. On one hand a type of spiritual pilgrimage based on Puritan theological beliefs by which a good Puritan dutifully undergoes suffering as a test to their faith, and virtues. And on the other, as a captive who experiences the social and ideological differences of the captor’s (Alonquian Indians) culture.

The narrative is traditionally recognized as a primary example of divine providence that was used as a method of instruction by ministers such as Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards. Burnham’s argument represents the psychological aspects of culture shock that is evident by the duality of voice that Rowlandson seems to be unaware. Her critical review is a good example of a psychoanalytical point of view that I will utilize as part of my research project because it gives voice to what others in the field have to say about my topic.

Derounian, Kathryn Zabelle. “The Indian Captivity Narratives of Mary Rowlandson and Olive

Oatman: Case Studies in the Continuity, Evolution, and Exploitation of Literary Discourse.”

Studies in the Literary Imagination. Spring94, Vol. 27 Issue 1, p33. 14p. MasterFILE

Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.

The scope of Derounian’s journal article is written as a biographical analysis of two women who wrote narratives about their personal experiences as captives of Native American Indians. The biographies of Mary Rowlandson and Olive Oatman reveal several interesting parallels: they were captured as their families pushed westward further into the wilderness; much of the available information about them comes from internal, unverifiable data in their texts, rather than from external evidence; and while publicity about their capture put them temporarily in the public eye, their private lives, both before and after their captivities remain shadowy. Derounian explores the narrative uses of the actual captivities and reveals that the women were doubly victimized: first, they were captured by the Native Americans as casualties of American expansionism, and then they were exploited by clergy and society on their return for the purpose of producing propagandist texts that rationalized white superiority over the Native Americans. By examining the lives of these two bestselling authors, Derounian points directly to the narratives as exploited forms of popular print commodity that was presented under different titles through the many editions that were published. I will use this journal article as part of my research project beause Derounian’s findings back my initial claim that many captivity narratives were re-written, added to, and sensationalized in order to meet public demand. .

Fetterly, Kimberly. “My Sister! My Sister!: The Rhetoric of Catharine Sedgwick's Hope

Leslie.” American Literature; Sep98, Vol. 70 Issue 3, p491, 26p. World Cat. Web. 16 Oct.

2012.

The critical agenda for Kimberly Fetterly’s rhetorical analysis is to revitalize texts of the nineteenth- century American literature that have played an important role in the construction of the new Republic. Fetterly bases her claims on the rhetoric of Catharine Sedgwick’s Hope Leslie because it portrays early American life and celebrates the role of women in building the republic. Fetterly states that this frontier romance novel challenges the conventional view of Indians, tackles interracial marriages and cross-cultural relationships, and claims for women their rightful places in history. Fetterly argues that works of female authors of the nineteenth century received less attention than those of male authors. She offers her essay as well as a way of reading texts by nineteenth century American women that balances the polarity between biographies that treats its subjects with undue reverence that is directly proportional to the misogyny informing previous treatment of these writers and texts. Fetterly focuses on the critique that implicates these writers and their texts in a variety of nineteenth-century racist, classist, and imperialist projects. I will utilize this text as part of my research project because it focuses on roles of authority that women played rather than roles that were dominated by patriarchal rule.

Hartman, James D. “Providence Tales and the Indian Captivity Narrative: Some Transatlantic

Influences on Colonial Puritan Discourse.” Early American Literature; Jan 1997, Vol. 32

Issue 1, p66, 16p. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.

The critical agenda for Hartman’s essay is to add to the discussion of the early Puritan Indian captivity narrative by proposing the seventeenth-century English providence tale as an important influence on these narratives. The discussion focuses on the generic studies of seventeenth-century Puritan Indian captivity narratives that have clearly shown the form’s indebtedness to spiritual autobiographies, conversion narratives and long recitations of mournful complaints. The essay gives direction to scholars such as Annette Kolodny, Lucy Maddox, Nancy Armstrong, Leonard Tennenhouse, and Michelle Burnham because they have proposed a wider influence for Indian captivity narratives on subsequent American and continental discourse. Kolodny and Maddox have discussed the formative role in American culture of “frontier” literature and discourse by and about Native Americans. Armstrong and Tennenhouse place the Indian captivity narrative, especially Mary Rowlandson’s among the primary early sources of the English epistolary novels of vunerable, letter-writing females. And Burnham claims the Indian captivity narrative to have been a formative influence on the novel for its mixture of form and cultures and it dialogic characteristics. I will utilize this essay into my research project because it offers insight of what others in the field have to say about the subject of captivity narratives. Hartman also cites sources that may prove to be helpful for conducting a literature review.

Kolodny, Annette. "Review Essay." Early American Literature 14.2 (1979): 228. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

The critical agenda for Kolondy’s review is to offer the reading public a wealth of raw materials comprised of 311 titles published in 111 separate volumes as a comprehensive source for studying the genre of captivity narratives. With the recently completed printing of the Garland Publishing Company’s Narratives of North American Indian Captivities, the genre may at last be comprehensively introduced into our classrooms and find its way back into our literary histories. Selected and arranged by Wilcomb E. Washburn, these extensive series of facsimile reprints opens with Mary Rowlandson’s 1682 A True Story (vol. 1), Jonathan Dickinson’s 1699 account of God’s Protecting Providence (vol. 4), and bridges the 17th and 18th centuries with selected titles by Cotton Mather which tell of recent captivities and “notable deliverances’ (vols. 1-4). The bulk of the narratives detail captivities from the northeast, the north central states, the Great Plains, and the southeast. Fewer titles are from the southwest and the northwest. Authentic accounts, sensationalized or fictionalized redactions of what were originally authentic accounts, and wholly fictional, even spurious materials are represented throughout. I will utilize this source because it plays an active role for tracing the changing patterns of the genre by assessing its vitality over a period of almost three centuries. It may prove to be useful for making a comparison of its history and development with that of other native narrative forms.

Lambropoulos, Vassilis. “Verbal Revolution.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction, Spring94, Vol. 27

Issue 3, p312-314, 3p. Academic Search Premier. Web. 03 Nov. 2012.

The critical agenda for Lambropoulos’ book review of Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse’s “The Imaginary Puritan” is to promote the book as a fine scholarly read that every scholar in the humanities would benefit by studying. It is evident that Lambropoulos is genuinely moved by the authors’ message. Her book review can be perceived as a reflection of a comprehensive look the authors took over the course of ten years. Lambropoulos goes into great detail by relating Armstrong and Tennehouse’s project as a re-evaluation of literary studies as a discipline - a field which disciplines people into a particular regime of truth and experience, and as a project that draws from various sources of radical critiques of reading, history, gender, psychoanalysis, and politics. The review tends to follow the authors’ steps for making claims and arguments as they scrutinize the historical movement when intellectual labor got out of hand - the English Revolution. Their findings led them to see a Puritan revolution in words and writing which followed the lifting of censorship in 1641 of authors, mass readership, popular press, media, and public opinion. Lambropoulos found that the book argues that through its standards and practices of literacy that the Puritan middle class rose to dominance through a plain style of vernacular English which became the new language of control and power held by those who possessed literacy. Now that the state could no longer regulate the printed word, the Puritan’s intellectual labor ruled by consent rather than coercion. For the first time in history, a society of personal opinions and private emotions was established. I will utilize this source as part of my research project because Armstrong and Tennenhouse’s efforts resulted in literary studies of Early American print culture as a discipline to be introduced into classrooms. The book review offers insight to what others in the field of Early American literary studies have to say about my topic.

Wyss, Hillary S. "Reviews." Early American Literature 29.2 (1994): 199. MasterFILE Premier.

Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

The scope of Wyss’ book review of Katheryne Zabelle Derounian and James Arthur Levernier’s The Indian Captivity Narrative 1550-1900 covers the impressive range and level of detail to the amorphous body of material called captivity narratives. Wyss associates form and structure as one of the strongest points of the book. Wyss denotes that the authors have defined the form as no small task since the captivity narrative encompasses fact and fiction, functions in ways that range from religious allegory to political propaganda, and covers a geographical and chronological span that can seem overwhelming. Other problems the authors faced dealt with establishing authorship and identifying plagiarism. At the same time, they call into question the assumption that captivities were primarily a British-American phenomenon; they have included captivity narratives of Mexicans and African Americans and have methodically covered a range of European narratives - French, Spanish, as well as British. Furthermore, Wyss indicates that the excellent bibliography is useful to experts in the field of Early American literary studies. I will utilize this book review as part of my research project because it backs the claims of my argument that captivity narratives were often sensationalized and fictionalized to serve the purpose exploitation through religious allegory and political propaganda.

´ Í!¸[pic]LÍ!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.

$ù-TÙ½L:Š½L:Š½L:ŠšŠFŠ¼L:ŠšŠBŠ¼L:ŠRich½L:ŠPEL[pic][pic]í!AEà[?]!

[pic]p

[?][pic]€

[?]Κ

[?]@?o

r

.rsrc?o

p

[?]@@0€

°€H€`€Ž[pic]x€[?]?€¨€À€Ø€ð€ |€ € 8€

P€

h€

€€

˜€

°€È€à€ø€ |€@ |€X |€p |€ˆ |€  |€¸ |€Ð |€è |€€€-0€H€ `€!x€"?€#¨€$À€%Ø€&ð€' €( €)8 €*P €+h €,€ €-˜ €.° €/È €0à €1ø €2

€3(

€4@

€5X

€6p

€7ˆ

€8 

€9¸

€:Ð

€;è

€<

€=

€>0

€?H

€@`

€Ax

€B?

€C¨

€DÀ

€EØ

€Fð

€G

€H

€I8

€JP

€Kh

€L€

€M˜

€N°

€OÈ

€Pà

€Qø

€R

€S(

€T@

€UX

€Vp

€Wˆ

€X 

€Y¸

€ZÐ

€[è

€\

€]

€^0

€_H

€``

€ax

€b?

€c¨

€dÀ

€eØ

€fð

€g€h €i8€jP€kh€l€€m˜€n°€oÈ€pà€qø€r€s(€t@€uX€vp€wˆ€x €y¸€zЀ{è€|€}€~0€H€€`€?x€‚?€ƒ¨€„À€…Ø€†ð€‡€ˆ €‰8€ŠP€‹h€Œ€€?˜€Ž°€ÈÈ€Éà€Êø€Ë€Ø€Ù0€ÚH€[pic][pic]`€[pic][pic]x€[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 0[pic] @[pic] P[pic] `[pic] p[pic] €[pic] ?[pic]  [pic] °[pic] À[pic] Ð[pic] à[pic] ð[pic] -[pic] -[pic] -[pic] 0-[pic] @-[pic] P-[pic] `-[pic] p-[pic] €-[pic] ?-X5hÀ;è[?]¨>([pic]Ð?¨

xN¨ Whˆ\¬D8¡¨%àƨˆ×hˆÜè[?]pß([pic]˜à¨

@ï¨è÷hPýê‡@…[pic]¨%èª[pic]¨?»[pic]h€À[pic]è[?]hÃ[pic]([pic]?Ä[pic]¨

8Ó[pic]¨àÛ[pic]hHá[pic]Š_Ø@[?]¨%€f[?]¨(w[?]h|[?]([pic]@}[?]h¨‚[?]è[?]?…[?]¨8Ž[?]¨

àœ[?]hH¡[?]¨ð±[?]¨%˜×[?]sc˜;([pic]À°^1ª`6©c9«d;ªa>¬`?ªe=­f>³a6´d:¶fÀžÁ®!€r[ýX¤çŽ÷âàp“zàgì

[?]?Âv?

|¶¾‚ŸÍ—PØ*!“/¡PÜÆÖÖ6JÛ;ÈæK®•À;ü±žZW¡ê¨{[?]pêáonjÀ¹ã=86žª¨Üím‚µL[pic]ë™-drE¤3[Öà3Ô5[pic]

]‘

µ-ªuˆZÉ&£•”¶ Ö4ZIz-ÐBj

_3¸ÇÐéGûù­„z~ç_^p·‚"ÜR톪¿$]cÃ>t´µ(%ÅÐ[pic]V2y45ìS¥Ø·oö ÀÄ¡$`-]@±¨ŒÉÖùñš¾?Œêoˆ¡¾vËØþÙ¥

~zÙÂmÑëD5„™â¦râ¿u²ù5ÒƉiÿèxs™ºfq#û}º½½½=³CÈ톆†[pic][?][pic]?ð‚R"‘÷%¤»Û¢/Vp#¡ÖÍÓ'`2{o,ÒŒ_zå?ik›üøÒvª¥K;D¼ÌõÌîÆŸwêo˜>O辆†?}À€¦PÓ‰kæ×3Ú:|G®›øõ‰Þöèwݪ#‹š€ÕßÊéW,íà_v[Eÿ

ám?Õ`A‘²_èêS

1‘¾=Lt?pöw[pic]À¢Ëïܱ-S§_±´ƒýù

>¿

™ |[pic]¹‰j L]f]TR„•²³³Ã[qØ•;¬ [pic]H[pic]?†^ÿDõ¿þ4 zÁßf¾[pic]…|i[?]X´þæªÿ?/Í!_¨Õš÷!®… \ø‹

v·â!¨…[úìƒ"ü;ð© ð[pic]£?@2lŠjh¦ýþ |‡;

/¼vgë™úœ°¡Ó‚êŠÓê ®»ÕÔšºuó%ˆ]€Ô¹GœÕöAmØöTƒ

‡B

´›öû?m;þ˜ÖÏZ#Mhq°0én†ÿ¸£ÌÕèFvDs…îoE$$

?†›0,5„#ƒíhC*a¶à‡ËðÏëH˜o­Ðk?ÙªµW€á„ŸfÂ_ØÚÆôœFý ¼=ícÕBwGy0·˜A¨¥Áuzsf

/^[[?]¹@Ö(ÈW”Þä[?]‰ê„ I©«{@J6Ømß&6CzÃù¨ ¤Êì[?]ô[?]VoD®PÂßücyª9Hv„‘”zHþûgÎÛºfd>ôÎY'ÐÀ*ý²Ä›® HM

OÔDa)£îxeö%¿j¢Íþüƒ„_úÆÍ

J+ŸúÜKÈä¬õØx'ÞöÚGy߬¡àw·ºÜtóHÀ>A

{[pic]bãV#›/ÙšüS|MRAò؉*=«I(Ú[pic][pic]ß–§ h

¯„÷ÈI¤ïî:q~í»wpw¾úÑ–?½´€ŸÙè

Œ†›ð»¿~¦

5r½&[pic]nå?àOþèÉKºƒümö˜#2¨êÚ€fC€g—6L¯5\?QóÕIƒ•BÂ

¼­tšƒ[?]€¾*†—–‹{óüó÷?…ûÁ‰ ›/áo¿l/²ñƒï8VÖxŠG_=ˆîDsK¢ù´™Ý‡GK[pic]!0Ä =åœqo?FÀY?[pic]ê´€h¨ÑÐ~uþ

¨¯˜]´M@?›3k‡{3ÔNK80 ’Dw2‚îd

±p’ o"{’ü·ß{ ÀìRù| w3È嶱²–ÇÊz[pic]+é ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download