Notes
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

chapter 1 1. Hume 2000, 203. 2. Look no further than Rapaport’s aptly titled TheTheory Mess: Deconstruction in Eclipse (2001). 3. For several exceptions to the rule, each of which exemplifies a distinct line of interdisciplinary inquiry, see De Ley 1988, Graves and Frederiksen 1991, Magliano and Graesser 1991, Bruce and Purdy 1994, N. Carroll 1997, Swirski 2000a, Gottschall 2003,Aldama 2008. 4. A notable exception is Petrey (1990), whose first three chapters provide an excellent introduction to the theory’s salient points. Among the more recent evocations of speech-act theory in the context of literary studies, Butler 1997 and Miller 2001 are typical in their superficiality. 5. I am thus in full agreement with the direction taken by Livingston (2005). For background on intentions see works by Mele in the bibliography. 6. As such, I implicitly subscribe to Piotr Jaroszynski’s hierarchy whereby the “metaphysics of art is a more fundamental domain than esthetics, or even the philosophy of art” (2002, 3). For a dissenting view that attempts to reduce ontological questions to questions of grammar (language use inWittgenstein’s sense) seeTilghman 1973. The analytic priority of ontology of art does not, of course, preclude enjoying objects (ancient pottery, religious iconography, and such) aesthetically without, or before, knowing if they are art. 7. See Tanselle 1990. Greetham (1999) carefully distinguishes the provenances of literary criticism and textual criticism. For a more recent example of the variety of textual scholarship see Hawkins 2006. 8. Mathematically speaking, the name is a misnomer: Fermat’s “theorem,” lacking proof, was only a conjecture. 9. See Leach and Graham 2007. 10. de Man 1983, ix. For a trenchant critique of Barthes, Derrida, et al. see Livingston ,“FromText toWork”(1993a).For a more general critique of the attempted NOT E S T5170.indb 177 T5170.indb 177 12/10/09 9:19:51 AM 12/10/09 9:19:51 AM 178 Notes to Pages 8–26 responses from poststructuralists see Gross and Levitt 1994 and Gross, Levitt, and Lewis 1996. 11. See Dolez̆el 1984. It bears remembering that Poetics survives only in fragments of copies of the original work. 12. Dickie 1964; N. Carroll 1990; D. Davies 1991; 1965; Stecker 1996. 13. See Passmore 1951. 14. For a trenchant and all too rare internal critique see R. Levin 1995. 15. Kelly 1998, xi. For statements exemplary of such autarchic tendencies in literary studies see Ingarden 1973 and Shattuck 1998. 16. Kelly 1998, ix. 17. A good introduction of the distinction between works and texts is Livingston ’s “Texts,Works, and Literature” (1992b). 18. See, for example,W. Koch 1993, Storey 1996, J. Carroll 2004, Gottschall and Wilson 2005, Swirski 2007. 19. For examples of research in empirical aesthetics see Martindale 1990 or Cupchik 1997;for work in psychonarratology,which bridges empirical psychology and narrative aesthetics, see Kuiken, Miall, and Sikora 2004.The classic introduction to theory of mind from the perspective of psychopathology can be found in Baron-Cohen,Tager-Flusberg, and Cohen 2000. 20. Although Premack and Woodruff’s data on primates have been challenged by Tomasello et al. (2005), significantly the debate is conducted wholly within the TOM paradigm. 21. Kelly 1998,xii.For a sustained critique of such policies in literary studies see Crews in bibliography. 22. Casti 1989, 59. 23. Lentricchia 1983, 12. Subsequent quotes in this paragraph: Lefkowitz 1996, 301; Kuper 2007, 23; McKendrick 1988, n.p. For more evidence of this nature in history see Palmer 1990, Evans 1997, Marwick 2001; in literary studies see Swirski 2007, Chapter 1. 24. The charge of dryness has been aired for decades;cf.William Elton’s roundup of the then popular complaints about the barren, dull, boring, bogus, and desolate character of aesthetics (1954, 2). 25. An exhaustive web coverage of the whole affair can be found at http:// www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal. It is also the subject of The Sokal Hoax:The ShamThat Shook the Academy (2000), edited by the editors of Lingua Franca, which includes a number of subsequent commentaries. chapter 2 1. In the latter case, their critique was aimed at Dewey 1934. 2. Zepke 2005, 4. T5170.indb 178 T5170.indb 178 12/10/09 9:19:52 AM 12/10/09 9:19:52 AM Notes to Pages 26–32 179 3. Bruns 2006, 156. For a cogent critique of attempts to formulate a general ontology of literary works see Howell 2002. 4. For a limpid discussion of functionalist and proceduralist...


pdf