In my own career I have found “Romanticism” especially constraining, at least until quite recently (for a long time you weren’t allowed to be a Romanticist if you worked on Scott, or for that matter on the novel, always excepting ): but also—therefore—stimulating, intellectually productive, a point of resistance.
So yes, let us by all means be “one people,” if that brings a salutary alienation from these categories, whether we work within a particular period or across both of them.
On the contrary, our current courting practices — if they can be called that — yield an increasing number of those aging coquettes, as well as scores of unsettled bachelors.
On college campuses, young men and women have long since ceased formally dating and instead participate in a “hooking up” culture that favors the sexually promiscuous and emotionally disinterested while punishing those intent on commitment.
This relation includes but is not limited to reading; indeed, it was sometimes taken to preclude reading for more perverse modes of interaction, such as the acquisition of old black-letter books that were, strictly speaking, unreadable.
Alongside the romantic aura of the literary, then, this affective complex precipitates the book itself as an object of value, in the early nineteenth-century collecting craze nicknamed “the Bibliomania.” Romance, to paraphrase and condense drastically, thus plays its indispensable role as realism’s excess, at once the transcendental surplus (“the literary absolute”) and material residue (books, the machinery of production, mediation and possession) of the mimetic act.Their sets of associations predict approaches and methodologies as well as what gets included and how it is valued.“Victorian,” at least, is so clearly contingent and arbitrary that it can work as a synecdoche for “history,” making historicism a default setting for Victorian studies; while Romanticism has traditionally named a resistance to history – history as “normal change” (in Jerome Christensen’s formulation, after Immanuel Wallerstein [11-13]), silting up the revolutionary opening of the 1790s, paving it over with that quintessentially Victorian technology, realism. Romanticism, rhetoricity, lyric, versus history, realism and (to use Clifford Siskin’s term) “novelism”: these oppositions return with an impressive tenacity to inflect our thinking across the nineteenth century.To know when it is “right” is another way of phrasing a concern that has been repeatedly addressed in the show: the concept of the “One” or the soul mate.The roots of this idea might be traced back as far as Aristophanes’s famous account of love in Plato‘s Symposium, but it has grown pervasive in late-20th / early 21st-century American popular culture [...] - Beatriz Oria Whether one laments or praises courtship’s decline, it is clear that we have yet to locate a successful replacement for it — evidently it is not as simple as hustling the aging coquette out the door to make way for the vigorous debutante.Realism / romance, Romantic / Victorian: the dyads don’t quite line up.It is easier to parse the difference between romance and realism as an opposition, sometimes dialectical, sometimes not; but the difference between Romantic and Victorian is scandalous, and not just because it renders a historical relation as a rhetorical relation, an antithesis.Scott’s novel supplies what is still, today, the most fertile thinking-through of the terms, for Romanticists and Victorianists alike. - Relevant Magazine Do you really know when it’s right? In matters of love, how do you know when it’s right? Is hesitation a sign that it’s not right or a sign that you’re not ready? Is it right when it feels comfortable or is that a sign that there aren’t any fireworks?