INTERVIEW: DANIEL O’GORMAN

Abstract

Q: Literary history, be it national, local, or regional, is perhaps the most conservative form of literary study, with many claiming that the method is outmoded. What can literary histories do to overcome both the risk of obsolescence and their inherent conservatism?

A: I would not describe myself as a literary historian and have at times actively resisted this approach in my own work, in line with influential recent arguments made by the likes of Eric Hayot and Susan Stanford Friedman, both of whom I have discussed with my students in class. Having said that, I don’t think that literary histories are necessarily inherently conservative. What the recent, period-sceptic approaches to historical scholarship have shown, crucially, is that there are other ways of organising literary study that produce different insights and enable access to different forms of knowledge, including insights into forms of knowledge and experience that would have been marginalised by traditional forms of literary history (hence the perception that literary history is an outmoded and politically conservative form).