reviews.indd


is fluent in discussion of literature on 
several continents and the range of her 
references is often astonishing. However, 
the work has some fl aws, particularly 
from the perspective of an Anglophone 
reader who may be more accustomed to 
thinking of New York and London, and to 
a lesser extent Paris, as the centers of the 
literary world. Some English-language 
authors one would expect to fi gure in 
Casanova’s account are barely mentioned 
(e.g., Joseph Conrad, who seems a para-
digmatic figure of the artist from the mar-
gins of Europe struggling with choices 
as basic as whether to write in English or 
French). Another conspicuous absence 
from Casanova’s work is any mention of 
the work of scholars engaged in projects 
similar to her own, such Franco Morett i’s 
Modern Epic: The World-System from Goethe 
to García Márquez (Verso 1996) and Atlas of 
the European Novel (Verso 1998).

 There are also some issues with the 
premises and intellectual framework of 
Casanova’s project. Her presupposition 
that the world of literature is a global unit 
would seem to be at odds with experience 
and reality, which would suggest a con-
figuration more like a Venn diagram, in 
which the various literatures of the world 
overlap in places, with a central group-
ing of writers translated into virtually all 
languages, but with most belonging to 
semiautonomous regional and linguistic 
groups. The implication of Casanova’s 
account is that the definition of success 
for a writer, from whatever part of the 
world, is acceptance by the Western lit-
erary establishment, when clearly there 
are forms of international success that do 
not involve the imprimatur of Paris (i.e., 
literary texts with wide distribution in 
non-Western languages that, for whatever 
reason, do not translate well or conform 
to the norms of Europe). 

The World Republic of Letters has al-
ready received a considerable amount 
of attention in the form of reviews and 
was even the occasion for a book-length 
collection of essays edited by Christopher 
Prendergast and Benedict Anderson, De-

Book Reviews 553 

bating World Literature (Verso 2004). One 
expects that it is likely to become required 
reading for graduate students in literary 
studies now that it is available in English 
translation. Its interest for research and 
academic librarians probably would have 
been greater if, instead of thinking about 
the ways in which politics and economics 
can supply us with metaphors for think-
ing about rivalries in the world of letters, 
more attention had been devoted to the 
actual mechanics of book fi nancing, print-
ing, and distribution (e.g., the difficulties 
faced by writers from countries without a 
developed publishing industry in finding 
an overseas publisher) and their eff ect on 
literary production.—David Mulrooney, 
Harvard University. 

Crowley, Bill. Spanning the Theory-Practice 
Divide in Library & Information Science. 
Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, 2005. 239p. 
alk. paper, $45 (ISBN 0810851652). LC 
2004-14050. 

Bill Crowley addresses a genuine and 
complex concern in the discipline and the 
profession. In describing how little of the 
theory developed and tested by teaching 
faculty is viewed as relevant or useful by 
practitioners, Crowley makes the impor-
tant argument that “university faculty 
members and nonacademic professionals 
… exist within divergent subcultures.” 
Though they support similar profes-
sional principles and societal goals, these 
individuals participate in two relatively 
distinct organizational cultures with vary-
ing requirements. On the one hand, the 
author focuses on theory development 
and research done by teaching faculty 
and, on the other, on the downside of the 
higher education paradigm that fosters 
research and theory development, which 
lacks direct applicability to practice. 

Expanding the discussion to include 
ways in which practitioners can be in-
volved in theory development, practice-
based research done by those working in 
information organizations, and the way in 
which faculty members, including those 
who serve as consultants, can foster the 



554 College & Research Libraries 

communication of theory and research 
findings would have made Crowley’s 
book more useful. There also appears to 
be a need for more discussion of research 
related to practitioners’ apprehension 
about being consumers and producers 
of research, particularly as described by 
R. R. Powell, L. M. Baker, and J. J. Mika 
in their article, “Library and Informa-
tion Science Practitioners and Research” 
(Library & Information Science Research, 
2002). Such a shift in emphasis would 
likely require editing of other portions of 
the manuscript. 

The discussion of the issues is present-
ed within the context of academic pro-
grams in library and information science 
(LIS), as well as those of other disciplines. 
However, the presentation would have 
been enhanced if Crowley had integrated 
the LIS examples with those from busi-
ness schools and other disciplines in order 
to create greater clarity in the conclusions 
and for succinctness. He does provide an 
interesting discussion and analysis of the 
evolution of pragmatism, empiricism, 
modernism, postmodernism, and critical 
theory. This timely consideration of the 
context that surrounds theory develop-
ment is most useful. 

The author spends a significant 
amount of time addressing the relevance 
of religion to theory development, re-
search, and analysis. However, it seems 
that the impact of religion relates more 
directly to the formation of ethical prin-
ciples that define professions and less so 
to the theories that define the work of the 
professions. 

Major and minor areas of focus, such 
as the definition of theory in this con-
text and recent changes in professional 
schools reflecting changes in the overall 
academic environment, are presented 
in segmented discussions in various 
chapters. In the case of the concept of 
theory, there might be an advantage 
to beginning the first chapter with the 
working definition, which only appears 
in part three of that chapter. Also, there 
are examples of combining the concepts 

November 2005 

of theory and research, which, in fact, are 
not always inextricably linked, and which 
should have had separate definitions 
early on in the book. It should be noted 
that the work does include an “extended 
glossary,” which provides defi nitions of 
general, theoretical, and philosophical 
terms, as well as specialized terminology 
used by the author. There are distinctions 
between theory and representations of 
theory, but distinctions between “theories, 
hypotheses, models, slogans, aphorisms, 
and other mental constructions” are not 
delineated. 

The primary audience for this publica-
tion is likely to be LIS teaching faculty and 
students in doctoral seminars in theory 
development and university teaching. 
It may serve as a supplemental text for 
courses in research methods and be of 
interest to some practitioners. 

 The two major strengths of Spanning 
the Theory-Practice Divide in Library & 
Information Science are that (1) the work 
addresses an important area of discon-
nect in the discipline and the profession 
and (2) the discussion is supported by 
the presentation of broader philosophi-
cal and theoretical principles that have 
defined a range of disciplines. In addi-
tion, Crowley’s inclusion of examples 
and analogies from his professional life 
and the analysis of issues from a variety 
of disciplines provides for an interesting 
and timely publication.—Mark Winston, 
Rutgers University. 

Kong, Shuyu. Consuming Literature: 
Best Sellers and the Commercialization 
of Literary Production in Contemporary 
China. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. 
Pr., 2005. 241p. alk. paper, cloth $55 
(ISBN 0804749396); paper $21.95 (ISBN 
080474940X). LC 2004-17604. 

Most librarians and lovers of the written 
word might be distressed by the subtitle 
of this new survey of literary publishing 
in late twentieth and early twenty-first-
century China. The author herself seems 
conflicted about what she calls the “mar-
ketization” of literature: although she