Leavis


Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

Leavis

F(rank) R(aymond). 1895--1978, English literary critic. He edited Scrutiny (1932--53) and his books include The Great Tradition (1948) and The Common Pursuit (1952)
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005
References in periodicals archive ?
Schumacher joined Leavis and the growing chorus of Snow's critics with the publication of his book Small is Beautiful.
Leavis thought that Mansfield Park exolved from Lady Susan, but if that were the case, the Lady Susan manuscript would have been destroyed, and, as Leavis herself admitted, the "plot, intrigues and characterization [of Lady Susan and Mansfield Park] are superficially so different" (32).
affirmative perspectives of Leavis and his co-religionists.
As scholars, Lewis and Tolkien defended an open-minded approach toward learning that stressed a holistic and humane attitude as opposed to the "scientific" and activist approaches that arose with the work of Richards and Leavis. Despite the popular success of the Inklings' fiction (and in Lewis's case, nonfiction) among a general readership, their scholarly work was far from inconsiderable, and it was especially important for the example it set as a defense of a humane approach to learning based on erudition and general intelligence rather than abstract theory.
Leavis's replies on behalf of a religion-literature dialogue.
Leavis at Cambridge and working for the British Film Institute, he came home to Canada to found one of the first film programmes in the country at Queen's University in Kingston in 1969.
Leavis's thought as his closest theoretical companion, sympathizing with his view of criticism as a political act performed by endless readings, and sharing with him the sense of the importance of critical evaluation and the critic's role in forming a literary tradition.
Though it recognises a distinction between style and evaluation, and openly invites a range of voices to the debate (eschewing the universal spectator of earlier film studies) the book aligns itself in the wake of earlier evaluative critical traditions (Leavis, Richards, Cavell, Gibbs and Pye).
This humanistic view was subsequently echoed by Arnold, Leavis, Pound and Read.