« Frye's reading of The Tempest: We want to be Peter Pan once in awhile | Main | Word Up: Semiotics »

March 12, 2007

Swann is really just a silly goose

I'm sorry, that was cheesy. But really, he didn't need to kill that many trees to tell us that he feels Benito Cereno is a mystery and that we have to re-read it a few times and become detectives ourselves to interpret the meaning. He used some examples from other works to demonstrate the importance of looking at historical context, thus re-iterating the importance of intertextuality. I just felt like I was slogging through Melville all over again in this criticism, so at least Swann served his own purpose.

Posted by ErinWaite at March 12, 2007 1:31 PM


Doesn't it seem that every single essay we have read on Cereno tells us to reread the damn thing!

Thanks, but once was more than enough.

Posted by: Dave Moio at March 14, 2007 8:46 AM

Right on! Let's stop beating the dead horse and just bury him already!

Posted by: Erin at March 14, 2007 1:29 PM

Haha Erin I wrote the same thing! It seems as if literary critics are just itching to find some connection with the story- whether there is one or not. While I agree that the story *could* be seen as a mystery if you follow Swann's conventions, it isn't a mystery in the traditional and widely understood way. It was, as you said, a waste of trees essay.

Posted by: Nessa at March 15, 2007 9:31 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?