>This was interesting. It basically makes exactly the same argument about
>the Romantic period as the classic Meyer H. Abrams, 1971. /The Mirror
>and the Lamp : Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition/; the only
>difference being that it expresses Abrams' insightful (and very clear)
>description and pellucid metaphors (mirror vs lamp) in the more
>difficult terminology of the deconstructionsts.
This is what I don't get. What if you never read Abrams? And what if you understand the way it's said in what Carrol posted maybe better than you would understand Abrams. Why the need to say "this is nothing new" to things that were written after we were first exposed to an idea? Obviously a lot of people *like* reading this stuff and get something out of it. Like Doug asked, why can't people just shrug their shoulders and move on?