Archives of the Royal Literary Fund, 1790-1918.
Andrew Becket
Standard Name: Becket, Andrew
Connections
| Connections Sort descending | Author name | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|
| Literary responses | Susanna Haswell Rowson | Andrew Becket
's in the Monthly is a less remarkable review. He denies that the book has novelty or any particularly striking features, though it shows a feeling heart and some skill in delivering its... |
| Literary responses | Regina Maria Roche | This novel was written at such an early age, said RMR
, that some people thought it was really the work of her father
. |
| Literary responses | Phebe Gibbes | Andrew Becket
in the Monthly Review thought this novel dull and derivative; confronted with Elizabeth Bonhote
's anonymous Olivia a few months later he thought the two suspiciously similar. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 379-80, 403 |
| Literary responses | Phebe Gibbes | This book divided the reviewers. The Critical thought it ill-written, worse printed; without ingenuity, novelty, or pathos, while Andrew Becket
in the Monthly judged the author (whom he supposed to be male) superior to most... |
| Literary responses | Phebe Gibbes | The Critical Review thought the moral good, some characters and the structure original in conception, but the dream of novelty a delusion and the execution weak and abortive. Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series. 64 (1787): 481 |
| Literary responses | Cassandra Lady Hawke | Some reviews were highly respectful. The Critical, while it just touched on too great a profusion of ornamental description, concentrated on good points. The story is conducted with great skill; intricately entangled, without too... |
| Literary responses | Elizabeth Helme | EH
wrote later that she did not find the Gentlemen Reviewers terrible, as described. Helme, Elizabeth. Clara and Emmeline. G. Kearsley, 1788, 2 vols. 1: ii |
| Literary responses | Elizabeth Helme | The Critical Review was a little harsher this time. Though it approved EH
's motivation as a mother, it judged second attempt not equal to her first, and warned that if she was to go... |
| Literary responses | Elizabeth Hervey | The Critical found this work entertaining, although lacking in novelty and having characterss who were not particularly interesting. It uttered some scathing comment on novels in general, and placed this work low in the first-class... |
| Literary responses | Anna Maria Bennett | The Critical Review thought this the first of AMB
's novels to achieve excellence. This time, it said, the intricate story was well woven (at least in the first two volumes) and the plot and... |
| Literary responses | Anna Maria Mackenzie | Neither the Critical nor the Monthly reviewer (the latter of whom was Andrew Becket
) seems to have looked back at notices of The Gamesters, since both assumed that the author of this novel... |
| Literary responses | Elizabeth Bonhote | The Critical Review placed this novel in the middle of the first rank of fiction, calling it very interesting and pleasing qtd. in Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 468 Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 468 |
| Literary responses | Anne Burke | Again the reviews were favourable. The Critical praised the simplicity and pathos of the little Tale and its adminstering of morally salutary distress. qtd. in Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 404 |
| Literary responses | Anne Burke | With this book AB
began to lose the sympathy of the reviewers. The Critical thought not only that the story was sometimes improbable and obscure but even that the moral tendency was questionable. Andrew Becket |
| Literary responses | Jane West | When the fourth volume appeared in 1789, the Critical found it heavy, languid and uninteresting, and judged the serial publication to have been a mistake. Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series. 68 (1789): 495 |
Timeline
No timeline events available.
Texts
No bibliographical results available.