Louis MacNeice's masterpiece 'Snow' must be interpreted first in an incredibly literal-minded manner; only when we get past our assumptions can we see its place in intellectual and cultural history.
IMO this is a very good piece of literary criticism because it is actually historically grounded. You're worried about the charge of literalism but in the context of, say, art history this kind of analysis would be de rigueur. I suppose there are a few people that treat the discipline in a more historical way, but not that many. Caveat: as far as I can tell, I've only studied lit formally for a short module in my MA and I think this was unrepresentative; it was a very historically 'tangible' approach.
IMO this is a very good piece of literary criticism because it is actually historically grounded. You're worried about the charge of literalism but in the context of, say, art history this kind of analysis would be de rigueur. I suppose there are a few people that treat the discipline in a more historical way, but not that many. Caveat: as far as I can tell, I've only studied lit formally for a short module in my MA and I think this was unrepresentative; it was a very historically 'tangible' approach.
Are you saying that I have ... successfully historicised my methods of knowledge production? (Thank you!)
What if we... successfully historicised methods of knowledge production... Jk... Unless 🥺 👉👈