Susan Goodman (1) (1951–)

Others have said it, but I have to echo the opinion: This is a fascinating book. I used to be a regular reader of The Atlantic Monthly back in the '60s and '70s, but didn't really know anything about its beginnings and history until now. Goodman's book is a thoroughly enjoyable read for anyone interested in American literary history. I really do wish she'd continued her story into the 1930s and beyond, but maybe that's material for a second book still to come. I'll definitely be recommending this one.… (lisätietoja)

I received this book through the LibraryThing Early Reviewers program, which requires reviews but does not reward or punish positive or negative reactions to a book.

Republic of Words takes the history of the Atlantic Monthly from its founding in 1857 to the late 1920s as a window on American intellectual life. Chapters are focused on one or more personalities -- writers who published in the Atlantic or editors at the periodical's helm. Some of the authors and editors are still famous today: Robert Lowell; Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Henry James, Edith Wharton, W. E. B. Du Bois. Others would be familiar to a student of the era, but perhaps less so to most modern readers: William Dean Howells; Lafcadio Hearn; Mary Austin. For me, a number of the famous authors were familiar names, along with a few of their works, but without much historical context. Republic of Words provides that context, quoting from authors' letters and diaries to show how the figures related to one another and how they caused and reacted to the cultural and political developments of their day.

In its reliance on episodic chapters, the book lacks a strong overarching narrative arc; the last chapter, which attempts to sum up the book, is the least effective (and least well edited). The book also lacks the depth and historical insight of say, Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club, which focuses on a handful of turn of the century thinkers, or Carlos Baker's Emerson Among the Eccentrics, which focuses on the era of Emerson, Thoreau, and Hawthorne. But it is also a faster read, and what the Republic of Words lacks in depth, it makes up in breadth. Its portraits provide a great armature for understanding the progression of liberal American thought from the generation of Emerson through the turn of the century to the 1920s. The book is well sourced, and will make a fine jumping off point for further reading, both of biographies of the most interesting writers, and of some of their works.… (lisätietoja)

Two questions to guide me through Goodman's Republic of Words:
1. How influential and important is the Atlantic Monthly to American literature of the 18c & 19c?
2. Does it have a parallel institution in the 21c?

I was curious whether Goodman would craft an argument capable of persuading me the Atlantic is justified in its reputation, vague as that was for me. I was not expecting the deck of cards she brought to the table: short chapters highlighting a specific writer or editor, often pleasantly tangential, in a conversational tone as though relaying a story of mutual acquaintance. Republic of Words presents a narrative history of U.S. literature steeped in personality and tentatively structured around principles of democracy and progressive humanism, and it seems clear the Atlantic published more than its share of respected and influential authors, and that a great many of them seemed to view publication in its pages a personal literary achievement.

Goodman's structure offers outlines of themes and trends as they surfaced in the Atlantic: the identity of U.S. literature, especially vis-a-vis British and Continental traditions; U.S. regionalism, with the Boston influence of the Eastern Seaboard steadily giving ground to the South and West; the role of women and the question of a woman's voice in letters; abolition and subaltern identities; the emergent influence of ecology and the American landscape. These are evoked as much as described, so again I cannot make out any precise argument or position on Goodman's part, and this seems deliberate.

Enjoyable as it was to read, I'm not certain the book answers either of my questions. It seems evident the Atlantic was indeed important, but was it more important than its rivals -- say, Harper's Weekly or Scribners, or later the New Yorker? The Atlantic boasted an impressive stable of contributors, but many important authors were not or would not be published in it. From the beginning, its various editors were explicitly progressive in outlook, striving to be a "national conscience" to the U.S. -- but by no means without contradiction nor in a single voice, and it's an open question whether the nation considered that aim fulfilled. Its circulation poses an intriguing question: unconsciously I looked for a tabular summary of subscription rates for the Atlantic and its chief competitors over the timeframe Goodman covers. Eventually it became clear Goodman sidestepped that direct a question, though not because she could not have marshalled the requisite statistics. Rather, Goodman chooses to note the Atlantic's circulation rate at a specific time in its history, and does so more than once but never in a contiguous discussion. The Atlantic was always, always the less widely subscribed to if not less frequently read of those publications Goodman discusses, but Goodman avoids framing the question as one of press run or subscriptions. The result? The impression is the Atlantic made a lasting impression on U.S. literature despite a modest circulation for much of its history.

It's difficult to answer the second question given I can't answer the first more definitely. For her part, Goodman does not address it directly. Interestingly, though Goodman's account ends in 1925, the Atlantic continues to publish in the 21c. I have the impression today's Atlantic puts less emphasis upon literature and more upon culture and politics writ large.… (lisätietoja)