A collection of thirteen original essays by leaders in the emerging field of ecocriticism,The Greening of Literary Scholarship is devoted to exploring new and previously neglected literatures, theories, and methods in environmental-literary scholarship. Each essay in this impressive collection challenges the notion that the study of environmental literature is separate from traditional concerns of criticism, and each applies ecocritical scholarship to literature not commonly explored in this context. New historicism, postcolonialism, deconstructionism, and feminist and Marxist theories are all utilized to evaluate and gain new insights into environmental literature; at the same time, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Leslie Marmon Silko, and Susan Howe are studied from an ecocritical perspective. At its core, The Greening of Literary Scholarship offers a practical demonstration of how articulating traditional and environmental modes of literary scholarship can enrich the interpretation of literary texts and, most important, revitalize the larger fields of environmental and literary scholarship.

Public Scholarship in Literary Studies demonstrates that literary criticism has the potential not only to explain, but to actively change our terms of engagement with current realities. Rachel Arteaga and Rosemary Johnsen bring together accomplished public scholars who make significant contributions to literary scholarship, teaching, and the public good. The volume begins with essays by scholars who write regularly for large public audiences in primarily digital venues, then moves to accounts of research-based teaching and engagement in public contexts, and finally turns to important new models for cross-institutional partnerships and campus-community engagement. Grounded in scholarship and written in an accessible style, Public Scholarship in Literary Studies will appeal to scholars in and outside the academy, students, and those interested in the public humanities. "There are books of literary criticism that attempt to reach crossover audiences but none that take this particular public-humanities-focused-on-literary criticism perspective."—Kathryn Temple, Georgetown University Contributions by Rachel Arteaga, Christine Chaney, Jim Cocola, Daniel Coleman, Christopher Douglas, Gary Handwerk, Cynthia L. Haven, Rosemary Erickson Johnsen, Anu Taranath, Carmaletta M. Williams, and Lorraine York.

Literary Learning explores the nature of literary knowledge and offers guidance for effective teaching of literature at the college level. What do English majors need to learn? How can we help them develop the skills and knowledge they need? By identifying the habits of mind that literary scholars use in their own research and writing, Sherry Lee Linkon articulates the strategic knowledge that lies at the heart of the discipline, offering important insights and models for beginning and experienced teachers.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the study of English literature began to be divided into courses that surveyed discrete "periods." Since that time, scholars' definitions of literature and their rationales for teaching it have changed radically. But the periodized structure of the curriculum has remained oddly unshaken, as if the exercise of contrasting one literary period with another has an importance that transcends the content of any individual course. Why Literary Periods Mattered explains how historical contrast became central to literary study, and why it remained institutionally central in spite of critical controversy about literature itself. Organizing literary history around contrast rather than causal continuity helped literature departments separate themselves from departments of history. But critics' long reliance on a rhetoric of contrasted movements and fateful turns has produced important blind spots in the discipline. In the twenty-first century, Underwood argues, literary study may need digital technology in particular to develop new methods of reasoning about gradual, continuous change.

"The turn of the twentieth century was a decisive moment in the institutionalisation of Russia's literary scholarship. This is the first book in the English language to provide an in-depth analysis of the emergence of Russia's literary academia in the pre-Revolutionary era. In particular, Byford examines the rhetoric of self-representation of major academic establishments devoted to literary study, the canonisation of exemplary literary historians and philologists (Buslaev, Grot, Veselovskii, Potebnia, Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii), and attempts by Russian literary academics of this era to define their work as a distinct form of scholarship (nauka). By analysing a range of academic rituals, from celebrations of institutional anniversaries to professors inaugural lectures, and by dissecting the discourse of scholars' obituaries, commemorative speeches and manuals in scholarly methodology, Byford reveals how the identity of literary studies as a discipline was constructed in Russia. He provides not only a unique insight into fin-de-siecle Russian literary scholarship, but also an original approach to academic institutionalisation more widely."

Describes the historical growth of the movements toward organized literary study in the 19th century and their influences upon the scholarship of their day and our own.