Lise Jaillant
Lise Jaillant is Professor of Digital Cultural Heritage in the School of Social Sciences and Humanities at Loughborough University, UK.
Since 2020, she has led several AHRC-funded projects on Archives and Artificial Intelligence:
(1) LUSTRE (Unlocking our Digital Past with AI), in partnership with the Cabinet Office. https://lustre-network.net/
(2) EyCon (Visual AI and Early Conflict Photography), in partnership with French researchers. https://eycon.hypotheses.org/
(3) AEOLIAN (UK/ US: Artificial Intelligence for Cultural Organisations). https://www.aeolian-network.net/
(4) AURA (Archives in the UK/ Republic of Ireland & AI). https://www.aura-network.net/
She previously completed a major AHRC Leadership Fellowship: https://www.poetrysurvival.com/
She was previously awarded a British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award, and numerous fellowships from funding bodies in the United States, Britain and Continental Europe.
Lise specialises in Anglo-American literary modernism and book history/ digital humanities.
Her first monograph was Modernism, Middlebrow and the Literary Canon: the Modern Library Series, 1917-1955 (Routledge, 2014). She then wrote Cheap Modernism: Expanding Markets, Publishers’ Series and the Avant-Garde (EUP, 2017) and she edited Publishing Modernist Fiction and Poetry (EUP, 2019). Taken together, these three books offer a broad overview of Anglo-American publishers in the early-twentieth-century, and their influence on the diffusion of modern literature. Her latest monograph (a transatlantic history of creative writing programmes) was published by Oxford UP in 2022.
Lise is particularly interested in the issue of born-digital archives, with a focus on literary and publishers' archives. The transition from print to digital has created huge challenges, and we urgently need to find solutions to (1) preserve born-digital records such as emails (2) make them accessible (3) produce new knowledge.
Since 2020, she has led several AHRC-funded projects on Archives and Artificial Intelligence:
(1) LUSTRE (Unlocking our Digital Past with AI), in partnership with the Cabinet Office. https://lustre-network.net/
(2) EyCon (Visual AI and Early Conflict Photography), in partnership with French researchers. https://eycon.hypotheses.org/
(3) AEOLIAN (UK/ US: Artificial Intelligence for Cultural Organisations). https://www.aeolian-network.net/
(4) AURA (Archives in the UK/ Republic of Ireland & AI). https://www.aura-network.net/
She previously completed a major AHRC Leadership Fellowship: https://www.poetrysurvival.com/
She was previously awarded a British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award, and numerous fellowships from funding bodies in the United States, Britain and Continental Europe.
Lise specialises in Anglo-American literary modernism and book history/ digital humanities.
Her first monograph was Modernism, Middlebrow and the Literary Canon: the Modern Library Series, 1917-1955 (Routledge, 2014). She then wrote Cheap Modernism: Expanding Markets, Publishers’ Series and the Avant-Garde (EUP, 2017) and she edited Publishing Modernist Fiction and Poetry (EUP, 2019). Taken together, these three books offer a broad overview of Anglo-American publishers in the early-twentieth-century, and their influence on the diffusion of modern literature. Her latest monograph (a transatlantic history of creative writing programmes) was published by Oxford UP in 2022.
Lise is particularly interested in the issue of born-digital archives, with a focus on literary and publishers' archives. The transition from print to digital has created huge challenges, and we urgently need to find solutions to (1) preserve born-digital records such as emails (2) make them accessible (3) produce new knowledge.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (17)
Uploads
Book by Lise Jaillant
_Sheds new light on the relationship between writers and scholars from the 1930s to the present day
_Draws on extensive work in neglected archives and oral history interviews with distinguished creative writers
_Offers a new model of scholarship in hybrid archives, comprising paper and born-digital documents
_Written in a clear, engaging style for anyone interested in creative writing programmes
_Includes an Afterword by Mark McGurl, the author of The Program Era
Publishing houses are nearly invisible in modernist studies. Looking beyond little magazines and other periodicals, this collection highlights the importance of book publishers in the diffusion of modernism. It also participates in the transnational turn in modernist studies, demonstrating that book publishers created new markets for modernist texts in the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.
The doctoral dissertation, on which the book is based, can be downloaded here: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/44577
Articles by Lise Jaillant
What progress has been made to preserve digital archives? How can we improve access to born-digital collections? And how can scholars produce new research using emails and other born-digital records?
_Sheds new light on the relationship between writers and scholars from the 1930s to the present day
_Draws on extensive work in neglected archives and oral history interviews with distinguished creative writers
_Offers a new model of scholarship in hybrid archives, comprising paper and born-digital documents
_Written in a clear, engaging style for anyone interested in creative writing programmes
_Includes an Afterword by Mark McGurl, the author of The Program Era
Publishing houses are nearly invisible in modernist studies. Looking beyond little magazines and other periodicals, this collection highlights the importance of book publishers in the diffusion of modernism. It also participates in the transnational turn in modernist studies, demonstrating that book publishers created new markets for modernist texts in the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.
The doctoral dissertation, on which the book is based, can be downloaded here: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/44577
What progress has been made to preserve digital archives? How can we improve access to born-digital collections? And how can scholars produce new research using emails and other born-digital records?
There are two central ideas in the article: (1) First, I argue that we should pay more attention to would-be writers – because we learn a lot about the functioning of the book trade when we look at those who were excluded from publication. (2) Faulkner’s coldness towards Culpepper is characteristic of his attitude towards would-be writers. In a Cold War context, Faulkner repeatedly claimed that there was no writing community, just individual writers who had to take care of themselves. This individualistic view of the writer was completely at odds with his own experience (as a young writer, he had benefited from the help of many people, including Anderson).
Drawing on extensive archival research in the Macmillan collection at the New York Public Library and the Annie Laurie Williams papers at Columbia University Library, this article shows that a “middlebrow” bestseller such as Forever Amber played an important role in the fight against censorship in the United States and in Canada. Yet, the cultural impact of Forever Amber has been largely neglected, in part because scholars have focused on controversial “highbrow” fiction such as Ulysses and Lady Chatterley’s Lover.""
This chapter focuses on the diversity of American modernist presses – from avant-garde imprints to long-established houses, from limited editions to inexpensive reprints. The period between the wars has been mythologized as a “golden age.” This essay scraps the gold to reveal a more nuanced picture of the publishing landscape. As Bennett Cerf (the owner of the Modern Library) declared, flamboyant but dysfunctional houses had no chance of surviving: publishing was a business, and the fun and excitement of discovering new authors would always compete against the necessity of making a profit.
Publishing history is also a productive way of approaching Ford. In particular, his relationship with commercial publishers has seldom been examined. This is a general characteristic of modernist studies, which tends to privilege small-scale “institutions of modernism” (little magazines and small presses). In the case of Ford studies, the focus has mostly been on magazines that Ford edited for less than three years of his life (1908-1910 for the English Review; 1924 for the transatlantic review). During the course of his life, he published seventy-eight books – the first one in 1891 with T. Fisher Unwin and the last in 1938 with the Dial Press. This forty-seven-year-long experience of working with book publishers has so far attracted little attention. To paraphrase John Sutherland, I would say that publishing history is a hole at the center of Ford studies.
In this essay, I want to explore Ford’s position in the literary canon, in relation to publishing history. My central argument is that his constant change of publishers, his inability to have a collected edition of his work published during his lifetime, and his exclusion from prominent series of classics had a significant impact on his canonicity. Writing about Virginia Woolf’s Uniform Edition published by the Hogarth Press from 1929, J. H. Willis argues that “to put a living novelist’s works into a standard edition is to make a claim for the permanence and importance of the writer’s work, to establish a canon, to suggest the classic.” Woolf was not the only modernist writer to be marketed as “classic” while she was still alive. As early as 1926, James Joyce’s Dubliners was included in uniform series of reprints (the Travellers’ Library in the UK and the Modern Library in the US). By the late 1920s and early 1930s, younger writers that Ford had helped at the beginning of their careers (D. H. Lawrence, Wyndham Lewis, Ernest Hemingway) also appeared in well-known series of classics. Ford’s marginalization in this publishing context meant that it was difficult for instructors to teach his work, and partly explains his delayed entry into the literary canon.
This chapter has two objectives. First, it will offer a more subtle account of the positioning of the new publishers. They certainly took risks by selecting overlooked authors that later became part of the canon of modern literature. But in doing so, they were competing not only between themselves, but also, to a certain extent, with traditional publishers. Scribner, one of the most staid and conservative publishing houses, signed both F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. The second point is that the new publishers were commercial publishers interested in selling their titles to the widest possible audience while preserving an aura of exclusivity and sophistication. They made no difference between books that we now see as “high,” “low” or “middlebrow.” Liveright published both Eliot’s The Waste Land and Anita Loos’s Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, for example. They sold modern literature not as a difficult movement for an elite, but as an appealing product that anyone could enjoy.
On the one hand, the World's Classics was a very conservative series that shied away from literary modernism. And on the other, modernist writers were often hostile to the academic system. So why did the Oxford University Press commission introductions to Woolf and Eliot? And why did these writers agree to contribute to the series?
My central argument is that by 1928, Eliot and Woolf had become “consecrated writers” whose names could be used to sell books. And Eliot and Woolf were interested in widening their audience. The Oxford Word's Classics allowed them to reach “common readers” (in Britain and in the British Empire, but also in the United States).