"Critique operates in a number of ways, adopting various strategies and lines of attack as it engages with the current ideological formations, but one aspect of its campaign is likely to have to remain constant" (Barker and Hrume 444).
Reading readings will explain history correct? Or is it that a reaction to historical events can cause a different perspective that the author would like to get across to the reader? This article appears to be a mix between reader-response and authorial intent, because its more about display ideological perspectives rather than the history itself. Is it because there is a certain achievement the author is trying to display? I think that to accomplish such a task, there should be a representation of the society in the present time of the author, so that the author and the critics can be able to make references in this type of criticism. A new historical criticism is not necessarily history as much as it is an ideological representation of how history should have been, or what is wrong with the history. It is not the act as much as it is the reaction to the acts that matter.Posted by The Gentle Giant at April 18, 2007 3:53 PM