MLR, I03.1, 2oo8 219 fiction ofpost-World War IIEnglandfor turning its backon the modernist revolution but his story has strange conjunctions and lacunae reflectinghis 'point of view'. Arguably,Wayne Booth fellvictim to themodernist-inspired belief that technique itselfproduces, and therefore defines, literary significance and quality. This belief is the nub of the present book, which will attract or disengage readers according to their broader view of the relation of technique and significance, as well as their understanding ofmodernism. For thepresent reviewer,Levitt's conception of criti cism is as narrowly formalist as his conception ofmodernism is reductive, and the two go naturally together. Writers in this study are judged by theirproximity to the modernist template. Henry James,who keeps ameasure of narratorial omniscience, is clearly felt to be flawed. D. H. Lawrence, who authorializes directly, ismentioned only to indicate the limitsofmodernism. In fact, Wayne Booth was later to realize that he had badly misread Lawrence in not seeing that the narrative voice inLawrence is itself subjected to an internal relativity.Levitt cites only The Plumed Serpent, a generally acknowledged failure in Lawrence's ceuvre, and his passing over Women inLove indicates a narrow definition ofmodernism. Whereas many observers now speak, not ofmodernism, but of overlapping modernisms, Levitt maintains a self fulfillingcircularitywhereby the technical preoccupation with point of view finds the works which confirm itscentral importance. It isonly too true that 'The Modernist achievement in thenovel [. . .]begins and always return [sic] topoint of view' (p. 47). Levitt is critical of the swerve frommodernism inBritish fiction at the time of Kinglsey Amis and Charles Snow. But to study this,other writers, such asWilliam Golding, would have to be considered and the broader context would need to be explored. Levitt sees thepost-war attack onmodernism as conducted by the combi nation of F. R. Leavis and C. P. Snow and, although he acknowledges that theywere enemies, he does not distinguish their relative significance. Snow is indeed open to the charge of rejectingmodernism, unless one makes Leavis's broader charge thathe did not know what imaginative literaturewas at any time. Leavis, on theother hand, was a product of, and a proselytizer for,themodernist revolution, although thiswas a differentmodernism which did not block the appreciation of nineteenth-century fiction. In short,Levitt's too narrowly drawn conception ofmodernism, and his con sequent emphasis on technique, prevent his argument frombreaking sufficientlyfree of the self-imposed and self-fulfillingcircle of itsown terms,yetwithin these terms he has illuminating things to say. UNIVERSITY OFWARWICK MICHAEL BELL Approaches toTeaching the 'Song ofRoland'. Ed. byWILLIAM W. KIBLER and LESLIE ZARKERMORGAN. New York: Modern Language Association ofAmerica. 2oo6. 3I7 pp. $I9.75. ISBN 978-o87352-990-0. The essays in this volume, written by over thirtycontributors, mostly reflect the experience of teachers in theAmerican higher education system, inwhich theSong of Roland is taught inawide variety of courses at different levels, either in theoriginal or through the medium of translation, and either in itsentiretyor fromselected extracts. Nevertheless, the issues raised and discussed are also relevant to the courses, literary or historical, inwhich thepoem isusually taught inBritish universities. The firstpart of the book provides a useful survey of editions, translations, and criticalworks best suited to teaching the text, togetherwith information on a range of available audiovisual material. There is also an introductory guide to the disc which accompanies thevolume and contains attempts to give a flavour of how the oral per formance of thepoem might have sounded. A basic reference section isalso provided, 220 Reviews which gives students concise information on thehistorical and literarycontext of the Roland: an account of Charlemagne's life; the events at Rencesvals according to the chronicles; theRoland contextualized within the fieldofOld French epic and in rela tion toother versions of thepoem; and feudal relationships andmilitary organization. The contextual field is then broadened to take in the development of theRoland legend within the Italian tradition and inSpain. A topic less likely to be explored in British undergraduate courses, unless it is one dealing with reception history, is the nineteenth-century French nationalistic response to theRoland, inwhich the poem became caught up in political and social issues of the day. In general there appears to be a tendency to...