Reader-response criticism, in its general form, is defined as a “theory of interpretation that asserts the meaning of a text does not lie in the author’s intended message but in the thoughts and feelings of readers as they encounter the text.”[1]It emerged as a reaction to the text-centered views of the New Criticism which gradually came to be viewed as grossly inadequate. The role of the reader could not simply be marginalized or ignored, for readers were active participants in the determination of literary meaning and creative contributors to the interpretative process. The subject (reader) and the object (text) were indivisibly bound together, and the relationship between them was a dynamic process, for texts only became alive and meaningful when people became involved with them and responded to them. The reader-response critics argued that the interplay between text and reader was of considerable significance for the interpretation of a literary work.[2]
Emergence
of Reader-Response Criticism
Reader-Response Criticism met its climax in cultural and literary theory
in the late 1970s. Its origins could be traced back to the early 1940s when
attention to the reading process emerged as a reaction against the rejection of
the reader’s role in creating meaning in the views of the so-called American ‘New Critics.’ For the New Criticism, the interpretation begins with
the text and deals exclusively with the reality of the text. The whole pursue
for meaning has to do with understanding the significance of the words in their
context. In the interpretive process, the author is cut off from the text and
the reader is subjected to the text.[3]
It was thus a
‘fallacy’ to believe that the meaning of a literary composition should
correspond to the author’s intention; on the contrary, once the author
had written his text, the umbilical cord had
been broken and he or she no longer had any control
over how it was to be interpreted.[4] Hence the emphasis on the
reader has resulted not only as a reaction to previous hermeneutical theories,
but also as an effect of the discussions in culture and politics regarding
human identity and the different ways in which each type of community relates
to reality. The interpretive theories resulted from this approach – namely, the
reader-response theories – take the attention away from the meaning of the text
in relation to its author and its context, and place the reader in the center
of the hermeneutical process.
The Philosophical Background
Reader-Response Criticism found its
origin in the phenomenological tradition which runs from Edmund Husserl to Martin
Heidegger and correspondingly, it was amended by the practice of hermeneutics
in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s framework of thought.
Husserl’s
main phenomenological method was ‘bracketing.’ We should
put in brackets, anything which
is beyond our immediate experience; we should reduce the external
world to the
contents of our consciousness. This
is what ‘phenomenological reduction’
points to; therefore, everything
not ‘immanent’ to consciousness must be excluded; all realities must be treated as pure ‘phenomena’ in terms of their
appearances in our mind.[5]
‘Being’ and ‘meaning’ are always bound up with one another. There is no object
without a subject, and no subject without an object. As with Husserl’s ‘bracketing’
of the real object, the actual historical context of the literary work, its author, conditions of
production and readership are ignored; phenomenological criticism aims instead
at a wholly ‘immanent’ reading of the
text, totally unaffected by anything outside it. Based on the premise
that we can achieve a pure, transcendental, immanent description of our
experience of things, offered in a rigorous and presupposition less fashion,
Husserl claims that the transcendental subject can reflect upon the contents of
an experimental consciousness and achieve both necessary and apodictic
knowledge of the meaning of what is experienced.[6]
The
hermeneutic conceptions of Martin Heidegger have also been pivotal to the development of
Reader Response theory. Heidegger argued that 'being' meant being-in-the-world.
We are human subjects only because we are bound up with others and the material
world and these relations are constitutive of our life. The world is not an object
‘out there’ to be rationally analyzed. It is never something we can get outside
of it. We emerge as subjects from inside a reality which we can never fully
objectify, which encompasses both the ‘subject’ and ‘object.’ Heidegger
described his philosophical enterprise as a ‘hermeneutic of Being.’ The word
‘hermeneutic’ means the science or art of interpretation.[7] Hermeneutics was
originally referred to the interpretation of sacred scripture,
but during the nineteenth century it
broadened its scope to encompass the
problem of textual interpretation
as a whole. Heidegger described his philosophical enterprise as a ‘hermeneutic
of being.’
According
to Gadamer the meaning of a literary work is never exhausted by the intentions
of its author; as the work passes from one cultural or historical context to
another, new meanings may be emerged and they were never anticipated by its
author or contemporary audience.[8]
All interpretation is situational, shaped and constrained by the historically
relative criteria of a particular culture. For Gadamer, all interpretation of a
past work consists in a dialog between past and present. The present
is only understandable through
the past, with which it forms a living continuity; and the past is always
grasped from our own partial viewpoint
within the present. Both the text and the interpreter find themselves
within a particular historical tradition, or “horizon.” Each horizon is
expressed through the medium of language, and both text and interpreter belong
to and participate in history and language. This “belongingness” to language is
the common ground between interpreter and text that makes understanding
possible. As an interpreter seeks to understand a text, a common horizon
emerges. This fusion of horizons does not mean the interpreter now fully
understands some kind of objective meaning, but is “an event in which a world
opens itself to him.” [9]
Chief Advocates and Methods of Reader-Response Criticism
Reader-response theory could be categorized into several modes including: (1) “Transactional” approach used by Wolfgang Iser and Louise Rosenblatt (2) “Historical context” favored by Hans Robert Jauss (3) “Affective stylistics” and “Social” approach presented by Stanley Fish (4) “Psychological” approach employed by Norman Holland and (5) “Subjective” approach in the work of David Bleich.
i)
Wolfgang
Iser argues that the study of a
literary work should concern not only the actual text but also, and in equal
measure, the actions involved in responding to that text. Such actions were determined, in large measure, by the
literary text itself, for the text was usually full of gaps and
indeterminacies, and it was precisely these gaps that activated readers’
faculties and stimulated their creative participation. Without being filled, these ‘gaps’ in the textual
meaning “remain only potential rather than actual.” Instead of looking behind
the text for the meaning, the meaning was to be found in front of the text, in the active participation of the reader.[10]
He also points out at the artistic (author oriented) and aesthetic (reader
oriented) poles in any literary work through which meaning is negotiated. Thus,
meaning can never be imagined solely by the reader or generated alone by the
text but rather generated through the active process of reading since ‘the
literary work cannot be completely identical with the text, or the realization
of the text, but in fact must lie halfway between the two.’[11]
ii) Louise
Rosenblatt views the text ‘as an object of paper and ink until some
reader responds to the marks on the page as verbal symbols.’[12]
It is the reader’s activities on the text that creates meaning out of the
inkblots by what Rosenblatt posits as a transaction between the reader and the
text. For him a written work does not have same meaning for all the readers,
and that each individual brings background knowledge, belief, values, cultural
expectation and reading context to the act of reading.[13]
In order for this transaction between text and reader to occur, however, our
approach to the text must be, in Rosenblatt’s words, aesthetic rather than
efferent. When we read in the efferent mode, we focus just on the information
contained in the text, as if it were a storehouse of facts and ideas that we
could carry away with us. In contrast, when we read in the aesthetic mode, we
experience a personal relationship to the text that focuses our attention on
the emotional subtleties of its language and encourages us to make judgments.
iii) Hans Robert Jauss uses the term
‘horizons of expectations’ to describe the socio-cultural norms and assumption
that mold a reader’s interpretation of any literary work in a given historical
moment. For Jauss, any literary text is linked to a historical past and
therefore any interpretation and meaning are tied to the prevailing cultural
environment. Instead of the literary work standing alone, Jauss underscore the
fact that a literary work depends upon the reader to assimilate and actualize
the text. Readers began to realize
that it was not enough to ask, simply, ‘What does the text say?’;
rather, they were
encouraged to pose more pertinent and penetrating questions, such as,
‘What does the text say to me?’ and
(even more importantly), ‘What do I say
to it?’[14]
iv)
David Bleich In stark contrast
to all forms of transactional reader response view, Bleich claims that readers’
responses are the text, both in the sense that there is no literary text beyond
the meanings created by readers’ interpretations and in the sense that the text
the critic analyzes is not the literary work but the written responses of
readers. Like many other reader-response critics, Bleich differentiates between
what he calls real objects and symbolic objects. The printed pages of a literary text are real
objects. However, the experience created when someone reads those printed
pages, like language itself, is a symbolic object because it occurs not in the
physical world but in the conceptual world, that is, in the mind of the reader.
This is why Bleich calls reading—the feelings, associations, and memories that
occur as we react subjectively to the printed words on the page—symbolization:
our perception and identification of our reading experience create a
conceptual, or symbolic, world in our mind as we read. Therefore, when we
interpret the meaning of the text, we are actually interpreting the meaning of
our own symbolization: we are interpreting the meaning of the conceptual
experience we created in response to the text. He thus calls the act of
interpretation re-symbolization. Re-symbolization occurs when our experience of
the text produces in us a desire for explanation. Our evaluation of the text’s
quality is also an act of re-symbolization: we don’t like or dislike a text; we
like or dislike our symbolization of it. Thus, the text we talk about isn’t
really the text on the page: it’s the text in our mind.[15]
v)
Norman Holland also believes
that readers’ motives strongly influence how they read. Holland believes that
we react to literary texts with the same psychological responses we bring to
events in our daily lives. The situations that cause my defenses to emerge in my
interpersonal life will cause my defenses to emerge when I read. Holland’s
definition of interpretation can thus be summarized as a process consisting of
three stages or modes that occur and recur as we read. First, in the defense
mode, our psychological defenses are raised by the text. Second, in the fantasy
mode, we find a way to interpret the text that will tranquilize those defenses
and thus fulfill our desire to be protected from threats to our psychological
equilibrium. Third, in the transformation mode, we transform the first two
steps into an abstract interpretation so that we can get the psychological
satisfaction we desire without acknowledging to ourselves the anxiety-producing
defenses and guilt-producing fantasies that underlie our assessment of the text.[16]
Holland further points out that this identity is achieved when the reader fully
expresses his own drives and through this, he arrives at an interpretation
which is a recreation of his psychological process.[17]
vi) Stanley E.
Fish: Just like Holland and Bleich, theorizes that meaning
is created by the reader without the control of the text. Far from playing a passive, submissive role, readers
were active agents in the making of meaning and were encouraged to reflect upon
the impact that the literary work had had upon them. The literary text was not
so much an object to be analyzed as an effect to be experienced. Consequently,
the fundamental question that should be asked of any text was not, ‘What does
it mean?’ but ‘What does it do?’ and
the task of the critic was to analyses ‘the
developing responses of the reader in relation to words as they succeeded one
another in time.’[18]
Fish uses the term ‘interpretive communities’ that dictates how a text should
be understood and strongly believes that knowledge is not always objective but
conditioned by the social context in which one lives. According to Fish ‘there
is no subjective element of reading because the observer is never individual in
the sense of unique or private, but is always the product of categories of
understanding that are his by virtue of his membership in a community of
interpretation.’[19] In Fish’s theory, R. M. Fowler
identifies three processes that take place simultaneously in the interaction
between the community, the text and the reader: (1) the community defines the
text and the strategies to be used in interpretation; (2) the text shapes its
reader and the expectations of the community; (3) the reader, under the
community’s instruction, construes the text and generates changes in the
critical community.[20]
Reader-Response
Criticism in Biblical Studies
It
was not until the 1980s that Biblical scholars began seriously to examine how
texts affected their readers. Influenced by the secular literary criticism, Biblical
scholars felt that the historical-critical approach
did not always do full justice
to the texts. Since then attention has been focused on the text and the
reader. Most of the scholars who have
approached the biblical text in the light of reader-response theories have used
a moderate or a conservative form of reader-response criticism. Perhaps
most reader-oriented biblical scholars would locate their approaches somewhere
near the middle of the spectrum between text and reader. These critics take
their cue from W. Iser, who argues that ‘one must take into account not only
the actual text, but also and in equal measure, the actions involved in
responding to that text.’[21]
An aspect of Iser’s approach that has attracted biblical critics is its ability
to embrace at one and the same time the possibility (indeed, probability) of
divergent readings (because the text is schematic) and a means by which one can
adjudicate among and delimit valid readings (the text as constant along with a
set theory of reading). One thus, it would seem, avoids objective determinism,
on the one hand, and sheer relativism, on the other.[22]
Reading
activities that reader-oriented biblical interpreters have begun to take into
account are: [23]
(a) anticipation and retrospection; (b) consistency building; (c) identification
and distancing; and (d) de-familiarization. Anticipation and retrospection are
complementary, continuing activities. Moving forward through the text, the
reader is constantly forming expectations and opinions, and then reassessing
and revising them in light of new insights and data. Each new word or sentence
establishes expectations about what is to come and also illuminates what has
already been read. Consistency building refers to the proclivity of readers ‘to
fit everything together in a consistent pattern.’[24]
In other words, readers attempt to correlate discrete and schematic textual
elements into consistent, meaningful patterns and will seek the most logical
and efficient means of doing so. Identification and distancing involve the
reader’s tendency to form positive or negative opinions of narrators or
characters. The reader’s ability to perceive new significance when the familiar
(conventional norms, values, and traditions) is placed in an unfamiliar context
is referred to as de-familiarization.
Reader-Response Criticism
and New Testament
Many New Testament scholars have employed Reader-Response
criticism primarily as a literary technique in their work.[25]
Reader-Response critical study, for
example, on gospel of Mark has brought out many features of the gospel. The
inclusion of two similar feeding stories in Mark (6:30–44 and 8.1–10)
is no longer viewed as a botched
job by an incompetent author or editor who failed to realize that virtually the
same story had been included twice in the same gospel; rather, the repetition
is regarded as a rhetorical strategy deliberately deployed by the narrator to
emphasize the stubbornness and lack of understanding of the disciples who
seemingly have learnt nothing from past experience. As
readers of Mark’s gospel, we are drawn into the narrative not only by what the text spells out but
also by what it withholds. We are invited to fill in the ‘gaps’ in the text and
to infer what is not explicitly stated. As we have seen, by ‘gaps’ or
‘indeterminacies’ Wolfgang Iser meant a lack of continuity between different
parts of a text; in the linear process of reading there is a movement from one
literary unit to another and it is up to the reader to bridge the ‘gap’ between
the units. Mark’s gospel provides a paradigm example of a text which is replete
with ‘gaps’ that we, as readers, are expected to fill in. The most obvious
‘gaps’ are those between different episodes which are frequently juxtaposed to
one another without any clear linkage between them. Unlike the other three
gospels, Mark’s account ends with the empty tomb and nothing is said about the
subsequent appearances of Jesus to his disciples. As John R. M. Fowler has
remarked, this is ‘a narrative gap par excellence’[26]
Merits and Demerits of
Reader-Response Criticism
The
fear raised by some biblical scholars[27]
that the application of reader-response criticism might result in a seemingly
uncontrollable proliferation of subjective and idiosyncratic readings, and that
readers might abuse their new-found authority by arbitrarily imposing
their own meaning on the text and riding rough-shod
over the aims and intentions of the
original author.[28] Moreover,
readers of the Bible will have their
reading experience shaped by the community of which they are members and they will be constrained in their reading by
their tacit awareness of what is and what is not a reasonable thing to say. There is thus no reason to suppose
that the application of reader-response criticism to biblical studies will result in an irresponsible eclecticism, for the interpretative community will provide
a restraint upon interpretations that are whimsical and irresponsible and will ensure that individual fancy will eventually give way to general acceptance.
Another main drawback of reader-response
criticism, at least in its radical form, is that it affects the essential
Christian belief that sees the Bible as the Word of God. If the historical and
the conceptual gap between the author and the reader rule out the possibility
of a meaning transmitted from one to the other, then how much more the
ontological and epistemological “gap” between a transcendent God (as Author)
and a human being limited in time and space (as reader) makes the reader
totally incapable to see anything else in the text than his or her mind.
Therefore, without God as the Author, the Bible can no longer be regarded as
the revelation of God. It becomes just a literary product of a certain culture,
written throughout several centuries. With each reading of the biblical text, a
new meaning would emerge and actually a new text would be created.[29]
The positive side of the reader-response
criticism at its most basic level is it considers readers' reactions to
literature as vital to interpreting the meaning of the text. Readers do not
passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text;
rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature. Reader Response allows readers to interpret
the text in various ways and allows readers to bring personality traits, memories
of the past and present experiences to the text. It helps readers read with
greater awareness and self-consciousness. As we become more aware of what we
are doing as we, we become more aware of our response to our reading
experience.[30]
Our reading and our response to reading become more thoughtful, more
considered, which can lead us to take greater personal responsibility for our
reading and our response.
Conclusion
The dissatisfaction with historical-critical
approaches which locks the text into the
past and prevents it from speaking to our concerns today, has led to the
exploration of new ways of reading the Bible. Then attention has shifted from
the author to the text and finally the reader. The Reader-Response Criticism sees
the text not simply as the repository of a static 'author meaning', which is to
be dug out by the careful use of philological and grammatical tools, accessible
only to the expert, but as an intelligible linguistic structure, a texture of
words, with an autonomous 'text meaning' of its own. The application of
reader-response criticism to the study of the Bible undermines some of the most
cherished principles of established biblical scholarship. In the first place,
it casts doubt on the possibility – and desirability – of an objective,
dispassionate exegesis of the biblical text and recognizes that all
interpretation is filtered through the reader’s own subjective categories.
Moreover, it questions the wisdom of seeking the ‘original’, ‘true’ or ‘definitive’
meaning of the text, preferring instead to contemplate the existence of a wide
spectrum of possible alternative readings. Further, by placing such emphasis on
the role of the reader, the biblical interpreter is encouraged to engage in a
personal encounter with the text and to consider how it might be made
meaningful and relevant to contemporary concerns.
ENDNOTES
[1] W. E. Elwell and R. W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament - A Historical and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1997), 402.
[2] Eely W. Davies, Biblical Criticism: Guides for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 14.
[3] K. J. Vanhoozer, “A Lamp in the Labyrinth: The Hermeneutics of ‘Aesthetic’ Theology,” Trinity Journal 8 (1987): 43.
[4] W. K. Wimsatt and M. Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 70.
[5] Bakhtiar Sadjadi, “Reader-Response Approach: Critical Concepts and Methodology in Phenomenological Reading Theory,” Reading Research Journal 1/1 (2013): 87-98, accessed 31st Oct. 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341988151.
[6] Hugh J Silvermon, ‘Jaques Derrida” in Postmodernism: The Key Figures, H. Bertens and J. Natoli,(eds), (USA: Blackwel,
2002), 11I.
[9] Richard Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 209.
[10] W. Iser “Interaction between Text and Reader,” in The Reader in the Text. Essays on Audience and Interpretation, eds S. R. Suleiman and Crosman (Princeton: University Press, 1980), 106–19.
[11] W. Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: University Press, 1972), 269.
[12] L. Rosenblatt, The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Carbondale: University Press, 1978), 23.
[13] Rosenblatt, The Reader, the Text, the Poem, 144.
[14] H. R. Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. T. Bahti (Minneapolis: University Press, 1982), 146-47.
[15] See D. Bleich, Subjective Criticism (Baltimore: University Press, 1978).
[16]Loise Tyson, Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006), 184.
[17] N. Holland, “Unity, Identify, Text, Self” in Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, ed. J. P. Tompkins (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980), 118-133.
[18] Stanley E. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of 17th Century Literature (Los Angeles: University Press, 1972), 387–8.
[19] Stanley E. FISH, Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 83.
[20] R. M. Fowler, “Who is ‘the Reader’ in Reader Response Criticism”, in Semeia 31 (1985): 13-14.
[21] W. Iser, “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach,” New Literary History 3(1972): 279.
[22] J. A. Darr, “Reader-Oriented Approaches,” in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism, ed. S. E. Porter, 309.
[23] Darr, “Reader-Oriented Approaches,” 309.
[24] Iser, “The Reading Process,” 288.
[25] For example, the work of J. D. Crossan (1980) and J. G. Du Plessis (1985) on the parables, A. Culpepper (1983) and J. L.
Staley (1985) on John, R. M. Fowler (1981) on Mark, N. R. Petersen (1985) on Philemon, W. Wuellner (1977) on Romans.
[26] R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 154.
[28] Davies, Biblical Criticism, 18-19.
[29] M. Silva, “Contemporary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,” in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics - The Search for Meaning, eds. W. C. KAISER Jr. and M. SILVA (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 243.
[30]Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 81.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bleich, D. Subjective Criticism.Baltimore:
University Press, 1978.
Darr, J. A. “Reader-Oriented Approaches.”
In Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and
Interpretation. Edited by S. E.
Porter. New York: Routledge, 2007. 309-10.
Davies,
Eely W. Biblical Criticism: Guides for
the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.
Elwell,
W. E. and R. W. Yarbrough. Encountering
the New Testament - A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1997.
Fish, Stanley E. Self-Consuming
Artifacts: The Experience of 17th Century Literature. Los Angeles:
University Press, 1972.
Fish,
Stanley E. Doing What Comes Naturally:
Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989.
Fowler,
R. M. “Who is ‘the Reader’ in Reader Response Criticism.” Semeia 31 (1985): 10-19.
Fowler, R. M. Let
the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.
Hirsch, E. D. The Aims of
Interpretation. Chicago: University Press, 1976.
Holland,
N. “Unity, Identify, Text, Self” In Reader
Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Edited by J. P.
Tompkins. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980. 118-133.
Iser,
W. “Interaction between Text and Reader.” In The Reader in the Text. Essays on Audience and Interpretation,
Edited by S. R. Suleiman and Crosman. Princeton: University Press, 1980.
106–19.
Iser,
W. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach,” New Literary History 3 (1972): 279–99.
Iser,
W. The Implied Reader: Patterns of
Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore:
University Press, 1972.
Jauss,
H. R. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception.
Trans. by T. Bahti. Minneapolis: University Press, 1982.
Palmer,
Richard. Hermeneutics: Interpretation
Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1969.
Rosenblatt,
L. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The
Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: University Press,
1978.
Sadjadi,
Bakhtiar. “Reader-Response Approach: Critical Concepts and Methodology in Phenomenological
Reading Theory.” Reading Research Journal
1/1 (2013): 87-98. Accessed 31st Oct. 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341988151.
Silva,
M. “Contemporary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation.” In An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics -
The Search for Meaning. Edited by W. C. Kaiser Jr. and M. Silva. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
Silvermon,
Hugh J. “Jacques Derrida.” In Postmodernism: The Key Figures. Edited by H. Bertens and J. Natoli. USA: Blackwel, 2002.
Tyson,
Loise. Critical Theory Today: A
User-Friendly Guide. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Vanhoozer,
K. J. “A Lamp in the Labyrinth: The Hermeneutics of ‘Aesthetic’ Theology.” Trinity Journal 8 (1987):
Wimsatt, W. K. and M. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 54 (1946):
No comments:
Post a Comment