I Think Watson Has Learned Something from Sherlock

“But then the historian, whether of literature or of anything else, is no way committed to the view that everything about the past is of equal interest: in fact it is precisely the historian who is expected to show the greatest skill and experience in sorting the important evidence from the insignificant.”

-From George Watson’s “Are Poems Historical Acts?” in Donald Keesey’s Contexts for Criticism, p. 33

I really enjoyed Watson’s reading.  Although it was relatively short, he covered many different ideas that I have been considering since the start of this class, especially since last week’s discussion about using the author’s biography and other historical information to look at a work of literature.

Completely opposite of Formalism, Author’s Intent allowed me to do what I like to do: research the history behind a work.  However, I felt that I still needed to do much more research in order fully understand the text.  I think this is a major problem sometimes.  Where does one stop?  When do we know whether or not we have found enough information to back up our interpretations of the text?  And, how critically should we be reading the history itself? 

I think that, as Watson points out, there are again no perfect answers to these questions.  When we use historical criticism we almost have to act as detectives, deciding what is most important to our interpretations and what is not. Watson wisely suggests at the end of his essay, we have to just carefully consider whether or not our interpretations would work at that time period based on the historical information we have, as well as on the text.  

See what others have to say about Watson's essay.