Comparative Literature: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #556

by Ben Hutchinson

Comparative Literature is both the past and the future of literary studies. Its history is intimately linked to the political upheavals of from colonial empire-building in the nineteenth century, via the Jewish diaspora of the twentieth century, to the postcolonial culture wars of the twenty-first century, attempts at 'comparison' have defined the international agenda of literature. But what is comparative literature? Ambitious readers looking to stretchthemselves are usually intrigued by the concept, but uncertain of its implications. And rightly so, in many even the professionals cannot agree on a single term, calling it comparative in English, compared in French, and comparing in German. The very term itself, when approached comparatively,opens up a Pandora's box of cultural differences.Yet this, in a nutshell, is the whole point of comparative literature. To look at literature comparatively is to realize just how much can be learned by looking over the horizon of one's own culture; it is to discover not only more about other literatures, but also about one's own; and it is to participate in the great utopian dream of understanding the way nations and languages interact. In an age that is paradoxically defined by migration and border crossing on the one hand, and by a retreatinto monolingualism and monoculturalism on the other, the cross-cultural agenda of comparative literature has become increasingly central to the future of the Humanities. We are all, in fact, comparatists, constantly making connections across languages, cultures, and genres as we read. The questionis whether we realise it.This Very Short Introduction tells the story of Comparative Literature as an agent of international relations, from the point of view both of scholarship and of cultural history more generally. Outlining the complex history and competing theories of comparative literature, Ben Hutchinson offers an accessible means of entry into a notoriously slippery subject, and shows how comparative literature can be like a Rorschach test, where people see in it what they want to see. Ultimately,Hutchinson places comparative literature at the very heart of literary criticism, for as George Steiner once noted, 'to read is to compare'.ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.

Genres: Nonfiction, Literature, Audiobook, Literary Criticism, Books About Books

160 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2018

Reviews

[Mattia Ravasi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Three Very Short Introductions to Literary Criticism

Comparative literature: intuitively understood, an absolute motherfucker to wrap your head around.

[Mehmet · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction, but it doesn't make the ever ambiguous span of this blurred academic field any less overwhelming.

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 4 out of 5]

By the book’s end, I had a much better grasp of the field of Comparative Literature, which is a multidisciplinary subject concerned with comparing / contrasting various forms of literature across time and space (among other ways.) That said, it’s not one of the more friendly of books in this series for a neophyte in need of a grasp of the basics of a field. [I’m a big fan of the AVSI series, and frequently turn to it.]

I attribute the book’s problems to two factors. First of all, the first chapter didn’t feel like it really said anything, and I came away from it with the thought, “So, Comparative Literature is all the disparate things I thought it might be, and more.” I understand why there’s a desire for a broad overview upfront, but it would work better for a discipline that was more contained and orderly.

Second, while it might be the necessary way to tell the story of this discipline, the book spends a lot of space discussing comparisons between literary theorists and what felt like little in comparisons of works of literature. The challenge is that most readers come to such a book with an extensive understanding of major works of world literature, but few people outside the field are familiar with literary theorists and critics. A reader might expect to learn why and how “Don Quixote” would be compared to stories of Jorge Luis Borges or Ovid, but one learns more about how the ideas of Roland Barthes compare to those of George Steiner.

Once I got into the second chapter, I felt I was getting a little clarity on the subject and that the chapter was well organized for learning. In subsequent chapters, I found that there were many interesting ways of thinking about translation of literature, the debates in the field, and the competing ideas about discipline’s future. The book also has a useful further reading section that breaks down the various dimensions of comparative literature a little so that interested parties can find a line of attack to advance their studies.

Ultimately, I think the book helps one get a grasp of the subject, but I’d skip over the first chapter and then go back to it once one has a little confidence that there will be clarity rather than obscurity in store.

[Amine · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have sadly gained little from this read.
It felt to me like the author lacked the ambition of trying to take a more systematic approach in introducing the field of comparative literature. Instead what we have is a fragmented history, some figures, and some insights into the difficulty of comparison.
Additionally, there seems to be little in the way of literature in this introduction, the presence of examples of application in addition to seminal works in comparison of different literary works would have offered the reader a better idea than the various explanations given throughout the book.
I do not however claim to know much of comparative literature, so take my criticism here with a grain of salt.

[Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

probably should’ve known what comparative literature was before reading this (as an MA lit student), but somehow i didn’t and now i feel silly that i didn’t! this was a solid comprehensive guide, not super interesting or compelling but informative and educational.

[Caroline · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am undecided on the rating. The first part on ‘what is comparative literature’ I found hard to stick with. I kept realizing my mind had drifted off to something else three minutes ago. (I listened.) it could have been edited from ‘a very short introduction to what is...’ to ‘a tiny introduction to what is...’

But once he got jnto the development and history of CL, the writing focused. On this part, from a casual nonacademic reader, a rating of 3.5 to 4. It motivated me to crack open some of the major works on the topic that I’ve accumulated but not read past a glance at the introduction: Mimesis; After Babel; European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, and to hunt down some more recent work by Thiong’o and theorists from India. We will pass over the French, as I doubt my ability or interest to get much more out of them than I can get from a book that no doubt exists: Structuralism and its Aftermath: a Very Short Introduction.

[Nathaniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

honestly what a mess. as messy as comp lit is, dare I say. this feels bizarrely mid-century — Hutchinson’s sympathies are clearly with the old-style “Franco-German tradition”. despite his magnanimous gestures towards the rest of the world, everything somehow seems to circle back to Europe, always...hm...................

there are some okay bits of this, but also a lot of things that just barrel on into “wtf”.

I have a bunch of small nitpicky things, too, but they’re just afterthoughts.

[Vatikanska Milosnica · Rating 2 out of 5]

atrocious writing; filled with so much reservation, 'softness', noncommittal, and unnecessary digressions that it read very much like a postmodern parody of the impotent labyrinths of an academic's mind

two stars for being informative in places despite itself

[Dorrit · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know whether I took anything from this..

[Camille · Rating 5 out of 5]

VSIs are SO FUN (at least to me)

Ben Hutchinson did a wonderful job trying to explain the very complex field of comparative literature in an accessible and succinct way. Loved rediscovering different theories I had learned about during my undergrad that had gotten buried in my brain.

If you’re looking to get into a subject or just to broaden your horizons, VSIs are definitely the way to go!!! (this is not sponsored btw)

[Inês · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muito útil. Deduzo que os restantes volumes da coleção sejam igualmente interessantes.

[eris · Rating 3 out of 5]

recommended background reading for my degree. solid introduction, if a bit shallow. definitely would have appreciated more direct quotations from the seminal works mentioned throughout the chapters - as is, i didn’t really learn much i didn’t already know.

[saturno · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

bem, he did say que seria uma introdução very short

[will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice crash course into the elusive and dynamic field of comp lit.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has to be the second-best “very short introduction” I’ve read, after Roger Scruton’s introduction to Beauty. This book, unlike many others, actually started at the beginning, and started from a layman’s perspective. I have read others which I understood upon reading but forgot upon turning the page. This one will stick with me though.

I find comparative literature fascinating. Sometimes I love it, such as when you read something or hear something and are able to make an interesting connection between that text and others which, on the surface, are very different or even contradictory, but which somehow both say the same thing or address the same issue. The annoying side of comparative literature is that late modernist obsession with showing off one’s ancient literature knowledge by making endless references to mythologies. I’m glad that that has died out, but it has been replaced by perhaps the only thing more annoying: endless references to pop culture. The thing is that at least ancient literature and mythology at least stood the test of time, it had something to say, it was deep, despite being overused. Today’s mythology of pop culture is both overused and shallow.

This book started off with an example of early psychology I had almost forgotten about (rorschach ink blot tests), in which our understanding of things is projected into them, instead of gathered from them. That is a pretty pessimistic view of things, but I liked how they pointed out that one of the earliest things we learn is (social) comparison. Expanding comparison beyond the bounds of literature was very helpful, as it somewhat reflects my “Recursive Reaction” theory, that of endless reactions to reactions to reactions. In relation to this, Comparative Literature is an attempt to idiosyncratically trace the “reactions to reactions” of the present into the past.

Another very helpful point was that comparative literature in its modern form was formed in the modern era as a sort of competitive literature between newly forming nations/empires (18th-19th centuries). In addition to “comparative” insinuating “competitive”, it also implies “contrasting”, often causing differences to be emphasized, and along that, disparities of claimed quality.

The author brings up a view from Goethe that "Only the proven conessoir should compare", which though I don’t dogmatically subscribe to, I think holds some truth. Like for example, why ask kids what they think of a story when they’ve only read a few dozen? When they’ve mastered hundreds, then what they say about stories might be worth hearing. I mean certainly they should attempt developing their comparative ideas, but those should be done within the bounds of assignments or papers, not wasting all this class time comparing the one story they’ve read with the only other story they’ve read. It just isn’t a good use of time or resources. “Implicit in [all schools, not just] undergrad comparative classes is the assumption you should start comparing right away”. And I have very mixed feelings about that.

The author, although a leftie, at least attempted to have some sort of balance in their writing, pointing out how comparative literature can be used by conservatives to uphold European culture, or for progressive ones like international solidarity with oppressed groups. One of the most interesting things they pointed out was something I’m interested in, i.e. how the same few authors tend to be compared again and again. Sure there are minor authors we’d like to talk about, but there’s just so many, and there’s only a finite time we have to live, so we can’t read everything. This is I think the primary problem in the postmodern era, our sheer overwhelming number of works we have access to

More wide-ranging concepts and comparisons can be made with a comparative literature approach than with a historically cohesive approach. (The flexibility allows new ideas, new combinations which is kinda the place that innovation thrives; namely the juncture of previously unexplored overlap between seemingly disparate topics). This is primarily done within two different frameworks: Periods vs regions. The historical approach (first approach) also necessarily also takes regions into consideration, but I think I prefer that one and find it more helpful. “The concept of a region is no less contested than that of a period”

Next the topic of Close reading vs distant reading is brought up, where Close Reading treats literature like art, and is its own authority; whereas Distant Reading treats literature in terms of trends and evolutions (vomit). Close focuses on aesthetics, distant focuses on sociology. This was brought into the conversation to frame the discussion about the canon, and the author brought up two guys I think I’d like: George Steiner, and Harold bloom: "politics replaces aesthetics as the principle arbiter [of the canon]". Others have noted a shift from sacred to profane model of criticism.

In terms of periods, the author pointed out how Postmodern literature is highly referential/intertextual, Modern literature could not exist without recourse to the comparative method, and that the old chronological formulation was Ancient, Middle (Ages), and Modern. 😱😱😱 Of course whenever trying to make categories for such huge epochs, there are lots of overlaps (Sorites paradox [heap of sand)]).

The part I really disagreed with the author of this introduction was when he claimed theorizing literature meant politicizing literature. After this he talked about “What the text "really means"” and other such pretentions. For example he seemed to be surprised that when you slap a filter over a text (such as a feminist, etc.), you are basically begging the question, you’re framing the reading so you can only get a certain reading. He claimed “To compare styles is to compare ideologies”.

Lastly, the issue of translation was raised, and I think that that’s really the core issue. Comparative lit is beholden to translation (except in very rare polyglot exceptions, of which I am not one). Translations are often seen as either that of fidelity (loyalty) or freedom. There are two opposite poles: Domestication vs foreignization, which means smoothing it out vs leaving the original flavor in. I absolutely detest domestication. Reading a foreign work should be difficult, even in your own language. That smoothing is little more than violence to the text, yet I feel like a lot of lefties really like those sort of translations and do those sort of translations, while it’s the conservatives who do very literal, accurate translations. I don’t really understand why lefties could put up with such acculturation and westernizing of world literature, but whatever. Translation not only makes comparison possible, but is itself a comparison (just like interpretation, and translation as an interpretation). Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy was given as an example of this interrogation.

In the context of translation the book also discussed tradition. They said some cool stuff, like “New meaning is produced by new juxtapositions” and “Tradition as received and as invented” and “The canon is never ideologically neutral” (okay, sure, but why would that be a bad thing? You want a canon which is neutral to pedophiles?).

Ultimately comparative literature is well placed between other disciplines, and I agree with the author that it has a bright future. "If comparative literature is a compass it requires constant recalibration."

“How can one understand one’s era as ‘modern’ unless implicitly comparing it with the past?”

“With the right role models, anyone can aspire to a multi-polar perspective”

“Raise [your] sights above [your] comfort zone”

I appreciated that it ended with a gentle call to action like that, to read more widely and to analyze ideation across cultures and epochs. I’ve found it to be very intellectually fulfilling and an indispensable asset to literature analysis. Frankly, it’s hard for me to think about literature in terms other than comparison.

[Sandra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really difficult to rate this. It might be that I am too un-academic, too little the analyst to appreciate the nuances, the point of comparative literature. For one, I read either to enjoy or to learn more about something I am interested in. Any comparison comes about when it strikes me as of interest, to me, but doesn't seem worth making a song and dance about.

Despite several thought-provoking statements, my over-riding impression was that each paragraph offered no more substance than a soap bubble, briefly pretty and interesting, trying hard to prove its worth, but quickly become as nothing.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can’t think of a better way to explain the complexities of the term ‘comparative literature’ than to quote the blurb for this book:

Comparative Literature is both the past and the future of literary studies. Its history is intimately linked to the political upheavals of modernity: from colonial empire-building in the nineteenth century to the postcolonial culture wars of the twenty-first century, attempts at “comparison” have defined the international agenda of literature. But what is comparative literature? Ambitious readers looking to stretch themselves are usually intrigued by the concept, but uncertain of its implications. And rightly so, in many ways: even the professionals cannot agree on a single term, calling it comparative in English, compared in French, and comparing in German. The very term itself, when approached comparatively, opens up a Pandora’s box of cultural differences.
Yet this, in a nutshell, is the whole point of comparative literature. To look at literature comparatively is to realize just how much can be learned by looking over the horizon of one’s own culture. In an age that is paradoxically defined by migration and border crossing on the one hand, and by a retreat into monolingualism and monoculturalism on the other, the cross-cultural agenda of comparative literature has become increasingly central to the future of the Humanities. We are all, in fact, comparatists, constantly making connections across languages, cultures, and genres as we read. The question is whether we realize it.

Well, you know if you read my blog regularly that I believe that I cannot make valid judgements about the quality of Australian literature unless I look over the horizon of my own culture. That’s why I feature reviews of books from all over the world, including (thanks to the influence of Stu at Winston’s Dad) books in translation. But until I read this VSI, just published this year in 2018, my beliefs about why this was important were only instinctive. Now I know that there is more to it than that.
This VSI is divided into five sections:
Metaphors of reading;
Practices and principles;
History and heroes;
Disciplines and debates; and
The futures of comparative literature.
(There are references and further reading too.)
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2018/04/15/c...

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This very short introduction is easy enough to read for anyone who is interested in the field. Hutchinson has given a brief but informative account of the field from its beginning to its most recent development, and offers a perspective of his own too. If one is looking for the answer to the definition of comparative literature in this little explanatory book, usually one gets more befuddled after reading as the content in this book is nothing but a scholarly overview of the subject matter. Although Hutchinson has included a few examples of how comp lit could be done, it means little to those who have not gotten their hands on the subject , let alone those who are new to literary studies (though I don't think they would be reading this book). Perhaps looking for an answer is in itself an over-the-top wish because the study of literature does not demand one single answer too, and I think this property is well reflected in Hutchinson's account too. The method of comp lit encourages readers to find points of comparison: social, political, linguistic, national background, style, just to name a field. Rather than seeing the study of comp lit as an isolated entity, it is actually inside our reading, especially in the age of globalisation. It is important for us to hold a comparative mindset as intercultural exchanges flourish, and of course people seek a higher level of understanding between cultures. Hence, the method itself also reflects the power dynamics between different cultures (I am trying to use it as an umbrella term here) and nations. The hints and clues are in the texts that we put and read together.

[Helen (they or he) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a stranger to Comparative Literature and have no knowledge whatsoever about the subject so the first half of the book made me want to cry. I knew none of the critic's name and I have no idea why history of the subject mattered so much that it needed to be explained in two whole chapters. My brain felt like it had been subjected to torture (which, by the way, happens a lot when I'm reading non-fiction) and my only thought was "Should I just dnf this?"

Then the last two chapter came and holy shit, I had to bump my rating up to 4 stars. I kid you not, I was highlighting like crazy. There are So. Many. Quotable. Lines! Who would've knew this book will also talk about literary theory, cultural studies, translation studies, postcolonialism et cetera? So reading/Listening to the 4th Chapter (Disciplines and debates) was nothing like the first 3 chapters because I am finally not completely lost.

So do I recommend this book? If you are interested in this discipline then yes. Absolutely. But if you zero prior knowledge, have no actual interest, and/or English is not your first language, DON'T DO IT. You will feel like you're a sleep-deprived 20 year old Asian undergrad listening to a literature studies lecture taught in your 4th language. (That happened to me once. It's not fun)

[Katsia Lazar]

Absolutely in love with the field of study, completely set off by the language of the author (ugh) that seemed either too conformist or rather lacking even this conformity bit, being basically noncommittal to any approach or stance (couldn't quite get why then I'm relying on his authority on the matter), and I still grapple with an aftertaste of the author's Eurocentrism despite his numerous gestures (at times, seemingly patronizing) towards 'other' literatures.

The introduction to the comparative literature is made, though, and the best part of the book, for me, is References and Further Readings which could count as as the fulfilment of its title's promise.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is not what I expected. Maybe it was asking too much to read about how to "do" comparative literature in this - like, insights into comparisons of literature and ways to compare pieces of literature - but instead what I got was an overwritten and boring historical study of the discipline of comparative literature along with a few not very useful thoughts along the way. Tries a couple of times to get out of the Eurocentric orbit but eventually seems to give up and just relish in it. A month from now I doubt I'll remember anything I read in this at all.

[Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

I went into this book knowing and understanding very little about what comparative literature even is (mostly just what I could understand from the name itself). However, I was incredibly interested in it and this book gave me the rundown of the basics in order for me to be able to continue my research from a place definitely above zero. This is by no means a deep dive into the subject but it is after all "a very short introduction" and that is enough for someone just starting out with the concept.

[Mikael Cerbing · Rating 3 out of 5]

At least I cant listen to these types of books... I need stories not theory to be able to follow an audio book. But when Hutchinson had stories in this book, it was quite interesting. Comperative literature seems to be a subject that in its theory has followed the history of the 20th century closer then many others. And that in it self makes it an interesting study for theoretical historians. It would be fun to see if CL could be used as a tool box for other subjects.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant introduction to the discipline, its history, its connections with other disciplines, its past and its future. It covers absolutely everything without judging, proposing further reading but giving the main facts in a clear and intelligible way. I will definitely recommend it to my students!

[Alisa Cupcakeland · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this collection by Oxford. I had a lot of fun revisiting certain topics I've studied in the past and it was a thoroughly enjoyable reading. If you like literary theory and cultural studies you might like this one.

[Emma Lynn]

I read this book to learn about the basic theories and methods of comparative literature. The first few chapters were helpful in this regard, while the last few were primarily focused on the history and evolution of the discipline itself.

[Nicolas Name · Rating 1 out of 5]

Trash and everything wrong with getting a Master’s or Ph.D degree in English, where you’ll just say nonsense and have zero valid insights, and also not say anything entertaining at the same time as well.

[Akapan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now I know that Comp. Lit is similar to Film Studies, what I studied. To study it, you have to study everything. A book that explains something so abstract.

read all in blog
https://wp.me/pgG1ce-1zm

[Birch · Rating 2 out of 5]

:/

[Adriana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and useful. Slightly repetitive. Includes a useful book reference list.