« McDonald's interpretation: Not-so-fast food for thought | Main | Ch. 3 Keesey comes knockin' again »

February 15, 2007

Kent enjoys a quickie

“Looking both backward and forward, acting as a climax to the first two stanzas and as prophetic to the fourth stanza’s discovery, the third stanza occupies a pivotal position in the ode’s entire dramatic trajectory (115).”
Kent reveals yet another way of looking at form: he takes a piece of the work and breaks it down so as an audience, we can see how it relates to the whole, which is another important tool for criticism. He explains the significance of the apostrophes and the paradox of the third stanza. Like McDonald, he also notes the importance of repetition to drive a point home, but what I liked was that he made his point just as clear, but in a shorter amount of time than McDonald did. While The Tempest is a longer work and I enjoyed his argument, as a reader I grow bored with long-winded examples to prove one point. Kent’s a quick one, but I admire his style.

Posted by ErinWaite at February 15, 2007 5:45 PM


Sometimes, don't you just want to up and yell at the book, "Get on with it, already! Just tell me what you want!" Um, er, maybe that's just me...

Either way, I've found that many literary critics are a bit long-winded in their approaches- do they teach them to be that way in doctoral programs? Or maybe is it that they feel the need to backup their theories with so much evidence so others don't look at it and go, "No, you're way off."

Posted by: Nessa at February 19, 2007 3:44 PM

They must be pretty insercure about their own knowledge if they have to blanket everything with 15 sources, so amen on that one, Nessa!

Posted by: Erin at February 20, 2007 11:51 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?