Michael Wilding

The Historical Novel: Jack Lindsay's 1649

Introduction

The historical novel: jack lindsay's 1649. Explore Jack Lindsay's historical novel "1649," analyzing how it uses the English Revolution to critique 1930s society and reflect contemporary crises through a dialectical lens.

Abstract

In Fanfrolico and After Jack Lindsay discusses the historical novels he began to write in the mid 1930s. 'I still, however, could not handle the contemporary scene.' 1 When contemporary society proves too resistant, then a recourse to history can be a way of approaching it from another direction, an approach to catch it off guard, unprotected. So it was in the mid-seventeenth century, both before the English Revolution and in the Restoration aftermath of repression, that poets turned to Old Testament themes: to search for a model that would illuminate the current complexities; and to evade the complex of repressions that effectively discouraged an accurate expression of the present moment. To turn to the historical is not to flee in escapism from the present, but to confront it by a negation that will allow a true perception of the negated present to emerge dialectically. The inexpressible crisis of the nineteen-thirties thus finds itself revealed in Lindsay's 1649: A Novel of A Year (1938);2 the emergent centralized, military-based, repressive Junto of Cromwell images the emergent dictatorships and national governments and the destruction of the radical impulses of cooperation and freedom at this moment in twentieth-century history.

Review

This paper presents a compelling analysis of Jack Lindsay's historical novel *1649*, arguing that its recourse to the mid-seventeenth century English Revolution was not a form of escapism but a sophisticated, dialectical engagement with the "inexpressible crisis" of the 1930s. The central thesis posits that when contemporary reality is too "resistant" or "repressed" for direct commentary, historical analogy serves as a potent tool to "catch it off guard." The abstract effectively draws parallels between the poets of the Restoration turning to Old Testament themes to illuminate current complexities, and Lindsay's use of Cromwell's emergent "centralized, military-based, repressive Junto" to mirror the rise of dictatorships and the suppression of "radical impulses of cooperation and freedom" in his own time. A significant strength of this abstract lies in its clear articulation of a robust theoretical framework, positioning historical fiction as a form of "negation" that allows for a "true perception of the negated present to emerge dialectically." This perspective promises to move beyond a simplistic view of historical novels as mere period pieces, instead presenting them as dynamic critiques of contemporary power structures. The explicit link between Lindsay's narrative choices and the sociopolitical climate of the 1930s offers a rich interdisciplinary avenue for exploration, contributing to both literary criticism and historical understanding of the interwar period. Furthermore, focusing on a figure like Jack Lindsay, whose extensive body of work often intersects with political and social commentary, is a valuable endeavor. To further enhance the argument, the full paper would ideally delve deeply into *how* Lindsay achieves this dialectical revelation within *1649*. For instance, a detailed textual analysis exploring Lindsay's narrative strategies, character development, and thematic emphasis would strengthen the claim that the novel facilitates a "true perception." It would also be beneficial to situate Lindsay's approach within the broader context of historical fiction during the 1930s, perhaps comparing his methods to contemporaries or tracing the intellectual influences that shaped his specific brand of historical critique. Exploring the extent to which Lindsay's own political ideology informs this "negation" and how effectively he transcends simple allegorical representation would further enrich the discussion.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.