LAUSR

this lack of argumentative arc is, perhaps, in line with the theoretical tenets of his project, the book would have been stronger with a coda or epilogue that proposed a longer historical trajectory for his theoretical construct. As it stands, Howell’s chapter on Herman Melville seems out of place in a book otherwise concerned with the early republic, and out of step in its narrow focus on critical debates within literary studies. On the whole, though, Howell’s work presents a theoretical call-to-arms for countering standard liberal interpretations of the development of the United States, drawing our attention to the importance of the imitative, quotidian, and dependent as crucial components in the construction of everyday life.