Search

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," (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 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.

is essay explores the relationship between literary and devotional paradigms of imitation in Elizabethan England. Using Thomas Rogers' 1580 translation of "Imitatio Christi" as an example of Protestant "imitatio," it contextualizes Philip Sidney's mimetic theory in his "Defence of Poetry" within a broader religious debate about the construction and manipulation of identity through imitation. More specifically, it argues that Rogers' negotiation between Catholic and Protestant devotional models and his subsequent anxieties about the reliability of imitation as a devotional technique offer a clearer view of the ambivalence surrounding imitation in Elizabethan poetics as a vehicle for fashioning a self-consciously "Protestant" aesthetic from the literary heritage of Catholic Europe. For both Rogers and Sidney, imitation is ultimately a theological enterprise, an attempt to accommodate transcendent reality to human understanding. For both authors, its fallibility raises serious questions about the power of fallen human signs (literary or otherwise) to communicate divine truth. Their shared concern with the role of this morally ambiguous instrument in shaping ideal subjectivity suggests a strong relationship between the self-consciousness of "literary" authors like Sidney and the emphasis of contemporary devotional texts on disciplining or transcending the sinful self. [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.