The Social-Problem Novel and Literary History

Abstract

Two kinds of critical practice which consciously set out to minimise the role of historical knowledge in literary evaluation are the so-called ‘humanist’ criticism of F. R. Leavis and structuralist criticism, particularly that practised by David Lodge in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Both Lodge and Leavis wrote essays on Hard Times; indeed Hard Times has probably received more attention and been the subject of more disputes than any of the other social-problem novels. A close examination of Lodge’s and Leavis’s arguments reveals some fundamental limitations in their ‘ahistorical’ approach. In particular, their tendency to ignore or marginalise the novel’s topical reference leads them both to partial and in some ways tautologous readings. This shortcoming is most apparent in their attempts to explain weaknesses in the novel’s plot and characterisation. For my purposes, though, the significance of their readings of Hard Times lies in some features which they share with the historical accounts, despite the fact that these accounts seem to be diametrically opposed.