Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Чи можлива історія літератури?

Rate this book
Відомий американський літературознавець, професор Гарвардського університету Девід Перкінс у своїй праці аналізує питання історії літератури в її теоретичному й методологічному аспектах. У центрі уваги автора дві фундаментальні проблеми історії літератури: внутрішня суперечливість організації, структурування і викладення матеріалу історико-літературних студій та "вічна невдача" істориків літератури у поясненні закономірностей літературного процесу.
Переклад з англійської Андрія Іщенка.

152 pages

First published December 1, 1991

1 person is currently reading
46 people want to read

About the author

David Perkins

104 books10 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (3%)
4 stars
11 (36%)
3 stars
14 (46%)
2 stars
3 (10%)
1 star
1 (3%)
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Profile Image for rose.
14 reviews
November 8, 2024
this is a terribly boring and dry explanation of how literary historicization/anthologizing/taxonomizing leads to reductive understandings of literary canon and history. Unsurprisingly it happens to be the most boring way to articulate it! Anyway I’m giving it two stars bc I was able to compare this approach to others read in the context of this course- ones which somehow weren’t the most boring way to explain the mentioned topics anywayy she’s done! Bye Perkins ur boring prose will linger
Profile Image for Ava.
125 reviews6 followers
September 21, 2025
No, but we must do it anyway, if you were wondering. Not really a spoiler, he says that in the first chapter. Most parts of this book were very strong. Throughout most of the book Perkins deconstructs the feasibility and integrity of literary history, and he does so very well. Chapters 2, 3, and 5 are especially effective at this. The literary theory discussed in chapters 6 and 7 (chiefly focused on New Historicism and Russian Formalism, respectively) greatly interested me. I just wish Perkins spent a little bit more time on why we SHOULD do literary history in spite of its impossibility. We get a little bit of that in the final chapter but some more room for that discussion would have been appreciated.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.