- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 75,204
- Reaction score
- 47,435
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think overview texts that hit the biggies are great at that level. I have a textbook from 1936 that is very interesting for this reason because the editor's definition of "important" can be highly subjective with too much slant. For example, James Whitcomb Riley was tremendously popular at that time, but I think most people today are unfamiliar with his name.You reminded me of my high school English class with the mention of these authors, not that we read any Shakespeare in that class. We used a text book called English Literature and Its Backgrounds by Bernard D.N. Grebanier. I believe it was used for three years to teach high school students English literature from "Paradise Lost" up to the War Poets of World War I. I had an excellent teacher with a background that was somewhat English. It was a good book.
Your text was first published in 1948 and went through six editions. His Wiki entry states that Grebanier's were the most popular courses at Brooklyn College, and when I poked around a little more, I found a more extensive list of some of his publications: https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL1765461A/Bernard_D._N._Grebanier
I don't know how it was back in his day, but in academia today, "popular" is often used condescendingly. There is a bit of contempt for those who are "dilletantes" (as you can see from the publication topics, Grebanier had broad interests!) or wildly successful with "the masses." I worked with an older scholar who had become Mr. Ellery Queen, and a lot of our colleagues looked down on him because he had "sold out."