George Soule
Four British Women Novelists: Anita Brookner, Margaret Drabble, Iris Murdoch, Barbara Pym
Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 1998. Pp. 536. $62.00
Reviewed by Lisa Fiander
In the introduction to George Soule’s bibliography, the author asserts that his book will prove useful to a wide variety of readers: “researchers, general readers, students, and teachers.” Soule’s approach to the art of compiling bibliographies, however, is such that the book is not likely to satisfy everyone. It is surprising that in his acknowledgments Soule indicates that he is “particularly indebted” to Cheryl K. Bove and John Fletcher’s Iris Murdoch: A Descriptive Primary and Annotated Secondary Bibliography (1994), since Soule’s philosophy is obviously rather different from their own. Whereas Bove and Fletcher’s bibliography is exhaustive, Soule’s criteria for inclusion are particularly strict. While Bove and Fletcher’s annotations are neutral in tone, Soule’s commentary is more opinionated than one expects of this genre. This doubly unusual approach might alienate as many readers as it pleases.
Although Soule blames space restrictions for the severity of his criteria, it can not be denied that bibliographers make informed choices about what they will and will not include. Perhaps most surprising is the fact that Soule omits material which does not deal specifically with novels: the book consists of twenty-five hundred entries on seventy-three novels, but he omits critical treatments of these authors’ short stories, drama, literary criticism, children’s literature, poetry, philosophy, and so on. He also omits very short articles, brief mentions in books and articles on other subjects, introductions and afterwords, dissertation abstracts and most book reviews, although he does include selected reviews of recent works. He omits articles in newspapers and what he calls “popular magazines,” which is unfortunate, since these often prove useful to the casual reader and the scholar alike. He omits nearly everything not written in English. While Soule’s criteria will not satisfy every reader, some will find a place for his book in their hearts; his omissions will save them much of the sifting and sorting that more conventional bibliographies necessitate.
The structure of this bibliography also facilitates research. Soule’s section on each of the four authors begins with a category entitled “General Studies,” which lists critical works dealing with more than one of the author’s works, or approach the author’s career generally. The reader can glance through this section in order to become familiar with popular responses to an author’s work. Following “General Studies,” materials dealing closely with only one novel are grouped according to the novel they engage with; the novels are listed chronologically and the relevant criticism alphabetically by the critic’s last name. In addition, Soule informs the reader if a certain book or article, whose title might lead one to believe it deals with the author generally, actually concentrates on specific works. One also appreciates that books treated in the “General Studies” section are mentioned again in the section listing criticism on a specific work, if that work is handled in the book. Entries on books often include an outline by chapter and mention the book’s special features, such as a bibliography or appendix.
What really sets Soule’s bibliography apart is not its organization, but the fact that his annotations on critical works are more opinionated than is typical of this lackluster genre, and some of his opinions are harsh. The book is therefore more entertaining than one would expect of a reference work. It is to his credit, however, that when Soule admires a critical work, it is the argument that he praises, but when he finds a critic wanting, his criticisms have more to do with the writer’s perceived lack of professionalism than with his or her opinions. Thus, a work he values might be described as having “an important argument” (153) or being “full of unique insights” (198), while a work he does not value will be criticized not for its argument, that is, because its perspectives are at odds with his own, but rather for its clarity and overall style, for example, because the work is “confusing” (168), “difficult” (202), “badly organized and awkward” (178), or “does not provide clear answers” (202). Like everything else about Soule’s book, this important distinction facilitates research.
Most entries are afforded a short paragraph, even where it is obvious that a critic has failed to engage Soule’s interest. Also, his commentary is very often more astute than that which one normally encounters in reference works. Note, for example, his comments on a book on language theory and the novel, which is listed in the section on Iris Murdoch; recognizing that the book might alienate readers because it appears specialized, Soule argues that ultimately its author “makes his seemingly narrow linguistic investigations … relevant to Murdoch’s deepest concerns” (148). It is in places like this, where Soule’s intelligence and generosity are made most apparent, that the book really shines. In his introduction the author expresses his regret that his bibliography could not accommodate critical treatments of other English women writers whose work he appreciates, such as Muriel Spark, Angela Carter, A. S. Byatt and Fay Weldon, and given the very high quality of work in this volume, many readers of contemporary English fiction by women will share those regrets.