On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 12/12/2008 1:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
Which of the
literary criticism academics, publications, etc. can be so assumed to
be accurate is more opaque to the outsider and harder to demonstrate /
validate, I think.>>
---------------------------
"Accurate" is the wrong word for in-project discussions.
As editors we can only say that a position has been presented, evidence has
been marshalled, the standard approach or theory is, and so on.
"Accurate" here seems to me to be just another name for "Truth".
Even within Physics there are competing theories all supposedly
evidence-based.
We merely have to present the competing views and move on :)
Will Johnson
Right, but there is no end to the volume of "literary criticism"
(taken with a broad scope, one could include grade school book
reports...).
Even a superlative college paper is only rarely notable or significant
criticism. Grad students' product might be, professors or
professional critics moreso. But there are plenty of
out-in-left-field reviewers and critics who lie outside the body of
normal academic criticism et al.
Our criteria for sources have to include enough guidance for filtering
that we can filter out random not-notable commentary. What line are
we trying to draw - and why. We have to draw the line, otherwise we
do become Cruftpedia. We're not here to collect 101 million grade
school essays on "Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret" in the
article on the book.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com