[first paragraph in lieu of abstract:]
George Gissing's understanding of specific London districtswas rich and complex.He is self-aware and often ironic when he writes of the East End, Clerkenwellor Camberwell. But critical approaches to the portions of London which Gissingdescribes remain under-sophisticated. Since the 1890s, these approaches havemost often consisted merely in repeating the place names given in Gissing’stexts as if the reader knew what they signified.It is always tempting to blur the distinction between the place settingscharacterised in certain ways in realist and naturalist novels such as thoseof Gissing, and the actual places on the world’s map bearing the same names.Establishing the relationships of writers and readers with the city spaces theformer write about and the latter occupy or could potentially visit ischallenging because of the near-limitless multiplicity of individualrelationships to a city. Whereas Charles Dickens was a Londoner from the age often, Gissing moved there aged nineteen following youthful but adult spells inManchester, Boston, and Chicago, so was perhaps not aLondoner but a migrant to London. Dickens and Gissing both presented themselvesas London experts to a readership among whom Londoners were numerous but not ina majority. This meant a balancing of rich and accurate detail withcomprehensibility.
|Julkaisu||The Gissing Journal|
|Tila||Julkaistu - 2018|
|OKM-julkaisutyyppi||B1 Artikkeli tiedelehdessä|