Style

Abstract This article reads Hernan Diaz’s Trust as a contemporary commentary on, and reimagining of, literature’s entanglements with capitalism, liberalism, finance, and law. Beginning with an outline of the history of legal and corporate trusts and connecting that history to the rise of the modern novel, the article spotlights the complex role played by the notion of trust in Diaz’s metafictional text. Trust tells the story of a Wall Street financier, his philanthropist wife, and the ghostwriter of his memoir through a four-part structure, moving from a realist novel called Bonds through two memoirs and ending with a diary titled Futures. This structure serves the aim, reaffirmed in Diaz’s interviews, of teaching his novel’s reader about the ideological implications of literary forms and about the kinds of power—financial and patriarchal—involved in turning reality into fiction. The article explores Trust’s revision of these forms and the ways in which its aesthetics forge an alignment among modernism, feminism, and financial expertise. Reflecting on the novel’s metacommentary on its own values and operations, the article concludes by asking whether Trust’s liberal pedagogy offers a persuasive alternative to the narrative forms it sets out to critique.

Abstract This review essay considers the edited collection American Literature in Transition: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1770-1828, in relation to current shifts in the field of early American literary studies away from New Historicist methodologies toward a concern with topics such as form, genre, and networks. Seeking to interrogate longstanding critical assumptions about the danger of “grand narratives” and “bounded wholes,” it asks whether potentially progressive alternatives to concepts of transition and contingency are possible. At a moment when early Americanist scholarship, and the institutional and political contexts for it, are in a heightened state of flux, what emerging lines of inquiry are likely to have an ongoing influence and to what degree are critics working on the long eighteenth century engaged in a shared project?