" In different works and in different fictional modes the distribution of emphasis varies; and in some works one of these interests may be far more important than the others. When a work concerns itself seriously with more than one of these interests, it must bring its various impulses into harmony if it is to be organically unified." -Paris 217
In this theory article, I found myself wondering how we are all suppose to make the "right" choice and will there ever be an time in literary criticism where we will need the "right" answers. If we are asked to pick one of the many interests, and call it the most important standing out from the others, what makes us right? Because literature is so objective, aren't there many different "more important" points? It really depends on the readers-response! Either I am making connections or I am completely WRONG! hahah However, I feel like I am beginning to understand and accept that they are really all connected and it's difficult to write under just one school of thought.
SO I guess my finally question is why can't we look at the literature as a whole? Is it too big to look at the multiple emphasis?