dvu2 at calvin.edu
Mon Aug 6 10:23:09 EDT 2012
If you read my article, you'll see that I address what the reviewers of *Surprised by Sin* wrote on this matter. And, of course, Fish's original preface addresses the matter also.
But I have a couple of concerns with your first sentence. First, to say his word on the matter is "no more reliable than our own guesses" is hyperbolic and offers no deference to the author. I'm sure you are more aware of your influences than a reader (who may not have recently read what you wrote) who "guesses" about them. Second, not everyone's opinion on this matter is a "guess." Speaking for myself, I base my stance on serious research and textual analysis.
I'd be honored if you read my article and tell me what you think.
>>> James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com> 08/05/12 9:46 PM >>>
That's no more reliable than our own guesses, and I am assuming he would answer honestly and as well as he can remember. Journals and letters written during that time or notes from his students taken at the time would be more reliable.
I'm wondering why the question matters. The fact that multiple possible sources could be plausibly considered probably means his earliest work was an extension and development of critical practice for at least a decade or two.
Might I make a radical suggestion here? Stanley Fish is very much with us; instead of speculating, and talking about him as if his own take on the subject were unavailable, why not ask *him* who his primary influences were?
Best to all,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L