A Short History of English Literature

by harry-blamires

'It is good to see a reprint and complete updating of this well-known historical tour de force, with its evidence of vast reading and literally thousands of useful facts.' - Times Educational Supplement

Genres: Literature, History, Reference

484 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

Reviews

[Alok Mishra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though not very contemporary, the commentary in this book is just amazing. Maybe not for the readers who are young and fresh into the study of literature. It's intellectualised.

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The first reading of Troilus and Criseyde is one of life's great narrative experiences," writes Harry Blamires near the beginning and from that point on, I was hooked. Plot summaries, short biographical information and some critical points about hundreds of authors, poets and playwrights keep this fast and fun. I hit a bit of a hiccup when he seemed to excuse Jacobian anti-Semitic plays claiming that the performances did as much damage to Jews as wicked stepmother stories hurt second wives. I have to admit, though, the comparison is clever if open to discussion. I also took great pleasure in the tossed out sentences about writers Blamires found less worth of inclusion. About Noël Coward he writes, "whose talent for keeping the pot of verbal flippancy can be entertaining in short doses. His work raises the question whether flippancy can be labelled 'satire' in the absence of a morally anchored viewpoint." Nice one. But Blamires is not a snob, giving Tolkien as much attention as more canonized authors. This wasn't just a convenient and charming "expert" confirming my own vague opinions about various authors, there were many writers who I was completely unfamiliar with that are now on the too long "to-read" list in my head, and other writers I had already wanted to read acquired a greater sense of urgency. Why is the title about "English" literature, though, when Blamires surveys so many Irish, Welsh and Scottish writers? Some Americans, like T.S. Elliot and Henry James, make the cut. It seems the criteria is: did you write in English or English dialect and did you ever live in the British Isles. When I consider how much time and geography is covered in less than 500 pages it makes me smile, and I was smiling the whole time I was reading this.

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up the very cheap English Library edition of this book in the late seventies (the only kind of books I could afford in those days were cheap editions!), and it sat on my shelf unread for about four-five years, because it was not exactly reading materials for teens. But when I finally read it, I loved it for its sweep from the very beginnings to the modern age. It was one of the first tomes which introduced me to the joys of literature, and therefore holds a special warm spot in my heart.

[Sohail · Rating 3 out of 5]

My final review:
The first irritating thing about this book is its title. It should have been 'A Chronology of Select Prominent English Writers and their Major Works', instead of History..., because if you are looking for history (something in the same vein as Norton's Anthology of English Literature), you are going to find almost none in here.
Nevertheless, it's a good chronology of some of the most well known English writers. Don't forget that not all of the people mentioned in this book are important writers, and some very important ones have been - suspiciously - omitted altogether, as if the author had some kind of a personal problem with them! Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner and other major writers have not even been mentioned, whereas some very obscure ones have been discussed in detail. Read it as a complementary source. But whatever this book is, it's not a comprehensive record, and not one to be trusted.


This is my review when I had read 4 or 5 chapters:

I have read several chapters of this book and, so far, it is a good book that lacks focus. Summaries are extremely short and incomplete. Therefore, they are simple fillers and time wasters that too little can be deducted from and yet, take up a huge portion of the book. This books could have been much shorter without the summaries, and you'd get the same out of it.