closely. They might have more fully embraced decades of criticism that moves beyond an exclusively Anglo-American focus by examining circum-Atlantic circulation or the performative work of translation and adaptation. They might have read more of the actual writing that surrounded these novels, asking why we should turn to novels (rather than any other genre) to look for “links between what were then scattered regional and local readerships” (185). In asserting rather than demonstrating that novels created such links, they all but ignore the fact that the local print cultures they repeatedly invoke dealt unevenly in English language and literature. Too concerned with outlining the “tactical maneuvers” by which American novels became American (11, 120), the authors perhaps unwittingly hew too closely to a familiar narrative of early US literature as obsessed with English forms or nation-making. (Imagining the US as a “network of networks” is still, after all, a strategy for conceptualizing and binding a nation.) In their persistent commitment to rethinking paradigms, however, they continue to provide valuable inroads for others who will explore these texts in additional ways.

中文翻译：

---

教授查尔斯·W·切斯纳特 (Charles W. Chesnutt) 作品的方法。作者：苏珊娜·阿什顿、比尔·哈德维格

密切。他们可能更全面地接受了数十年的批评，这些批评超越了仅以英美为焦点的批评，通过检查环大西洋流通或翻译和改编的表演工作。他们可能已经阅读了更多围绕这些小说的实际作品，问我们为什么要转向小说（而不是任何其他类型）来寻找“当时分散的地区和当地读者之间的联系”（185）。在断言而不是证明小说创造了这种联系时，他们几乎忽略了这样一个事实，即他们反复援引的当地印刷文化在英语语言和文学中的处理不平衡。过于关注概述美国小说成为美国小说的“战术策略”（11, 120），作者可能在不知不觉中过于接近熟悉的早期美国文学叙事，因为他们沉迷于英语形式或国家建设。（毕竟，把美国想象成一个“网络的网络”仍然是一种概念化和约束一个国家的策略。）然而，在他们对重新思考范式的持续承诺中，他们继续为其他将探索这些文本的人提供宝贵的途径以其他方式。