'Fairy Tale and Folklore in the Nineteenth Century', Blackwell Literature Compass, 6.3 (April 2009) 785-98

Fairies and fairy tales continue to intrigue both academic and popular audiences. This article, while exploring the diverse approaches of recent scholars in this field, also raises disciplinary questions. Should the study of folklore and of the literary fairy tale be seen as separate research areas, one the preserve of the cultural historian and folklorist, the other the remit of the literary scholar? Can we even make a clear distinction in the nineteenth century between authored, literary fairy tales and orally collected supernatural folktales? If it is reductive to assume that the fairy tale can always be classified (and potentially dismissed) as children's literature, how might recent trends in Victorian studies suggest new ways of seeing and teaching the genre? Discussing the fairy tale in the context of debates over orality and authenticity, literature and science, all of these questions will be examined below.

"Stone and Timber Cirlces in Britain and adjacent Countries" Review article of Burl, A. 2000 The Stone Circles of the British Isles. (Yale UP), Gibson, A.2000 Stonehenge and Timber Circles (Tempus). and Pitts, M. 2000. Hengeworld. (Century)

M

Becoming private property: custom, law, and the geographies of ‘ownership’ in 18th- and 19th-century England

The making private of hitherto public goods is a central tenet of neoliberalism. From land in Africa, Asia, and South America to the assertion of property rights over genes and cells by corporations, the process(es) of making private property matters more than ever. And yet, despite this importance, we know remarkably little about the spatial plays through which things become private property. In this paper I seek to address this imbalance by focusing upon the formative context of 18th- and early-19th-century England. The specific lens is wood, that most critical of all ‘natural’ things other than land in the transition to market-driven economies. It is shown that the interplay between custom, law, and local practices rendered stable and aspatial definitions of property impossible. Whilst law was the key technology through which property was mediated, the cadence of particular places gave these mediations distinctive forms. I conclude that not only must we take property seriously, but we must also take the conditions and contexts of its making seriously too.