« Author-Reader Tension | Main | Ugh, I am Tire of Trying to Come Up with Clever Titles »

February 19, 2007

How Different Things Can Come to Similar Conclusions and Mean Very Different Things

O'Connell, ''Narrative Collusion and Occlusion in Melville's 'Benito Cereno''' -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

"Haegert explains this narrative strategy as an attempt to set up in the reader the expectation of a neat resolution to the "mystery," one that the narrative indefinitely witholds...the ambiguities never are resolved...even though the story's generic markers lead us to expect such resolution" (187).

Hmmm, this is an interesting point to me because it very much reminds me of McDonald's argument about The Tempest. It is the same concept of promising more and giving less. I just find it interesting how the two very different types of criticisms, about different texts, come to similar conclusions about how the texts get very different points across.

Posted by LorinSchumacher at February 19, 2007 11:39 PM


Post a comment

Remember Me?