Search

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," (NAEL) by Sean Shesgreen. It states the claim of Shesgreen which accounts not only for the advancement of the NAEL, but also for the constitution of its evolving table of contents. It highlights the author's view regarding the falsification, omissions that are apparent to the essay of Shesgreen.

The article focuses on the author's response to several criticis of his essay "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature." He argues that when he wrote his essay, he was in aggrement with five respondents on one common assertion, which aims to offer a thesis entirely self-evident and uncontroversial. It highlights the humility shown by the author, despite of the various allegations that might destroy his credibility as publisher.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," (NAEL) by Sean Shesgreen. It explores the author's arguments pertaining to Shesgreen's article, which is not actually a review on NAEL. It highlights the tendency of some scholars to sacrifice their credibility and ethical values in exchange for monetary gain.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It relates to the author's reaction to Sean Shesgreen's research on M. H. Abrams, which cast a complex blend of imitation and rivalry. It suggests that before a book can be sold to professors, acquisitions editors, they must be sold first to their superiors, then to company's sales force.

A remarkable fact about William Shakespeare's The Tempest is that characters do not always see or hear the same thing. But while this estrangement of knowledge thins out the boundaries between character and environment to recognizably great dramatic effect, the aporetic energies underlying that estrangement are not yet fully understood. This article explores their significance by examining the connections between The Tempest and Michel de Montaigne's An Apologie of Raymond Sebond (long suspected to be related). It proposes a new verbal parallel between the play and the essay but does not confine its argument to such a criterion. Rather, it is a case study in the Renaissance practice of imitation that works from a number of aspects—shared matrices of thought and feeling, similar metaphors, networks of texts—to reconstruct the presence of a locus classicus of Renaissance skepticism in Shakespeare's late play. Along the way, it triangulates these works with a discussion of King Lear and examines the presence of Vergil and the possible presence of Seneca. It argues that Shakespeare used Montaigne's essay to make his island epistemologically strange and that this sensitive use of a philosophical source is notable for being so deeply dramatically embedded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It relates how Shesgreen obtained those pertenent documents from M. H. Abrams, a famous 20th century literary critic. It highlights the accountability of the "Critical Inquiry" to condone those incompetent estimates, factual unintelligent ideas and using quotations out of context.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It explores the author's view regarding Shesgreen's wrongful attribution of quotations, distortion of words by taking it out of context, which implies his lack of courtesy with his sources. It highlights the acts of Shesgreen as an blatant disservice and by extention, he is done the same for those interested in the history of literature anthologies.