7 March 2025 in the Lucy Ellis Lounge (FLB)
9:45AM-4:30PM
Presented by the Trowbridge Initiative in American Cultures

Now Unfashionable is a symposium that will be hosted in the Lucy Ellis Lounge on Friday, March 7. Invited panelists will address ostensibly outmoded methods of literary study in the field of American literary history. The event will be open to the public. Food and refreshments will be served.
Papers will include:
Michael Dango – “What Was Genre?”, 9:45AM
This essay compares a recent turn to genre in literary studies with that of the midcentury Chicago Critics, a onetime rival who ultimately lost to the New Critics. This is a shame because the skill of close reading we associate with the New Critics is logically incoherent without the Chicago Critics’ skill of taxonomy. Rather than understand close reading as a species of reading, we should better understand it as a subprotocol of taxonomy. Moreover, the Chicago Critics’ inductive interrogation of genre systems, including naming new genres, challenges genre criticism today. Especially in post-1945 studies, our focus on the genres of fiction named by publishers allows the market to organize our study for us.
Susan Gillman – “Always Always Historicize!”, 10:45AM
Updating Fredric Jameson’s influential 1981 imperative, my talk goes with and against the grain of our symposium’s interest in “now unfashionable methods.” Because they are shape-shifters, historicisms, dialectical, material, new and otherwise, are always always fashionable. A timeline of the major historicist moments since the first issue of ALH in 1989 chronicles the ever-changing text-context companions that emerge with each methodological development, including Jameson’s dialectical materialism and Jaws (1979) and utopian Science Fictions (2005); Stephen Greenblatt et al’s New Historicism and Renaissance literature, paired in the 1980s-90s; and C.L.R. James’s revolutionary cultural Marxism, especially his The Black Jacobins (1938). Each of these literary-historical milestones could conceivably be date-stamped, in a calendar cued to various historicisms, the different critical Marxist methods that have always always been (un)fashionable.
Jennifer Greiman – “The End of Dissensus; or, Aesthetics and Politics in an Age of Realism,” 1:45PM
The destituent paradigm, formlessness, paradox: critical methods of taking things apart have become decidedly unfashionable since the earliest interventions of postcritique nearly two decades ago. But whereas criticism in the early 2000s focused on methods of symptomatic reading allied with Fredric Jameson, scholars more recently have identified Jacques Rancière’s concept of “dissensus” as paradigmatic of a prevailing tendency, in Anna Kornbluh’s words, “to elevate disruption and unsettling above forming and building” and thus to privilege “a vision of politics as finally about disruption itself.” I will consider the now-unfashionable status of “dissensus” by examining, through critics like Kornbluh, Elizabeth Anker, David Lloyd, and Caroline Levine, its “ends” – both its conceptualization of the aesthetics of politics and its potential exhaustion as a critical concept – and by attending to the aesthetics of realism in Charles Chesnutt’s The Marrow of Tradition (1901).
Claudia Stokes – “Moralistic Criticism Revisited,” 2:45PM
The moral evaluation of texts is perhaps the oldest, most enduring form of literary criticism. Promoted by Aristotle and practiced by such influential critics as Samuel Johnson and Matthew Arnold, the New Critics suddenly rendered moral criticism obsolete by the New Critics by insisting it had no role to play in literary criticism. I reexamine the purview of moral criticism by showing its continued influence among both lay and professional readers. I further contend that, under the more respectable sign of critique, we continue to practice moral criticism, though it remains virtually invisible to us.
Kinohi Nishikawa – “A Self-Consuming Artifact: How Publication History Deepens Narrative Meaning,” 3:45PM
Originally published in 2001, Percival Everett’s Erasure is perhaps the single most written-about work of contemporary American fiction. The novel holds up a mirror to critics’ judgment and beliefs, anxieties and bad faith. We write about Erasure because Erasure is about us. Yet there has been no account of exactly whose Erasure is being read at any given moment. The work has gone through multiple editions in a short timeframe, and the way each edition is packaged adds a layer of paratextual irony to the narrative. Bibliographical analysis of recent works sometimes feels like a mismatch of method and object. But when applied to Erasure, this antiquarian method yields fresh insight into Everett’s satire of race, publishing, and the economy of prestige.
Speakers




