The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Form and Fiction, 1980–2018

Form and Fiction, 1980–2018
Form and Fiction, 1980–2018
Form is one of the more slippery concepts in literary criticism: elusive of definition, unavoidable in practice. Even the most doctrinaire of political critics, questioned as to why they are writing about novels to expose economic injustice, rather than about the more obvious evidence of income distribution, must justify their choice, in the end, by claiming there is something distinct about the novel as a form that offers insights unavailable elsewhere. That distinction has often been a dubious one. In a claim that set the tone for attitudes towards form at the beginning of the period covered by this Companion, Fredric Jameson argued that form named a special kind of deception: ‘the production of aesthetic or narrative form is to be seen as an ideological act in its own right, with the function of inventing imaginary or formal “solutions” to unresolvable social contradictions’. This inverted the tradition, beginning with Kant and Schiller, of using form to name what distinguished literature in a positive sense from other uses of language. This use of form was dubious in its own way, acquiring so many contradictory meanings that it became, as Angela Leighton observes, ‘a noun lying in wait of its object’. Yet whether the target of censure or praise, literary critics have never strayed far from using form to talk about the relationship between what Raymond Williams identified as two persistent but different meanings: a ‘visible and outward shape’ and an ‘essential shaping principle’. The attempt to talk about both at once is what makes the concept of fictional form so slippery. In trying to analyse as tangible that which can only be virtual, form must always evade our grasp. You can’t point to linear causality, just as you can’t touch first-person narration, but these are the shapes and shaping principles we use form to name. Form is an attempt to talk about what enables language to mean by imagining something tangible and material lying between words and their referents, be they themselves real or imaginary.
89-104
Cambridge University Press
Brazil, Kevin
36fb33dd-0bba-43b7-a885-775ed8acfcda
Boxall, Peter
Brazil, Kevin
36fb33dd-0bba-43b7-a885-775ed8acfcda
Boxall, Peter

Brazil, Kevin (2019) Form and Fiction, 1980–2018. In, Boxall, Peter (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to British Fiction 1980 – 2018. Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-104. (doi:10.1017/9781108649865).

Record type: Book Section

Abstract

Form is one of the more slippery concepts in literary criticism: elusive of definition, unavoidable in practice. Even the most doctrinaire of political critics, questioned as to why they are writing about novels to expose economic injustice, rather than about the more obvious evidence of income distribution, must justify their choice, in the end, by claiming there is something distinct about the novel as a form that offers insights unavailable elsewhere. That distinction has often been a dubious one. In a claim that set the tone for attitudes towards form at the beginning of the period covered by this Companion, Fredric Jameson argued that form named a special kind of deception: ‘the production of aesthetic or narrative form is to be seen as an ideological act in its own right, with the function of inventing imaginary or formal “solutions” to unresolvable social contradictions’. This inverted the tradition, beginning with Kant and Schiller, of using form to name what distinguished literature in a positive sense from other uses of language. This use of form was dubious in its own way, acquiring so many contradictory meanings that it became, as Angela Leighton observes, ‘a noun lying in wait of its object’. Yet whether the target of censure or praise, literary critics have never strayed far from using form to talk about the relationship between what Raymond Williams identified as two persistent but different meanings: a ‘visible and outward shape’ and an ‘essential shaping principle’. The attempt to talk about both at once is what makes the concept of fictional form so slippery. In trying to analyse as tangible that which can only be virtual, form must always evade our grasp. You can’t point to linear causality, just as you can’t touch first-person narration, but these are the shapes and shaping principles we use form to name. Form is an attempt to talk about what enables language to mean by imagining something tangible and material lying between words and their referents, be they themselves real or imaginary.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 509576
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/509576
PURE UUID: 95dd09d9-3cc5-49ae-bf41-ba50fa9cce46

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 25 Feb 2026 18:01
Last modified: 25 Feb 2026 18:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Kevin Brazil
Editor: Peter Boxall

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×