The year’s work in stylistics 2011

Abstract

At the heart of stylistics is creativity. Certainly most research in stylistics focuses on the analysis of creative work but it is also the case that stylistic analysis requires creative thought. Doing good stylistics means balancing the rigour of the linguist with the sensitivity of the literary critic. It involves shifting deictically between the minds of readers, writers, narrators and characters. And it can mean crossing disciplinary boundaries if that is what the analysis requires. A good place to start this year's review, then, is with Swann et al.'s (2011) edited volume, Creativity in Language and Literature: The State of the Art. This is a book that is certainly not bound by disciplinary conventions. This much is clear from Rob Pope's 'Prologue' (2011) which takes the form of something akin to free verse, using a creative form to make some erudite points about what creativity actually is. Following on from this, Pope and Swann's introduction (2011) outlines the remit of the book, which is to bring together a wide range of opinions about and attitudes to creativity, linked by a common concern with language. Thus, the chapter authors include linguists, literary critics, creative writers, storytellers and filmmakers. Some of the chapters are conventionally academic while others take the form of interviews, discussions of practical educational projects, reflective commentaries and creative writing. What you are likely to get out of the book depends very much on your disciplinary sensibilities. Hence, I appreciated Semino's (2011a) and Stockwell's (2011a) characteristically detailed analyses of, respectively, creative metaphors for pain and sympathy and empathy in literary reading. I was less convinced of the value of some of the less obviously academic contributions. For example, Wandor's (2011) discussion of her own creative processes is an entirely subjective account that raises only questions. This is true of many of the contributions from creative writers. And while it may well be interesting to hear about the creative process from writers themselves, as a linguist I find myself frustrated; not so much by the lack of answers, but by the seeming