July 4, 2003

Theory and History in Criticism

To the Editor:

I agree that the rehabilitation of historicism is a welcome trend, but I would err on the side of caution if what is meant by rehabilitation resembles Morris Dickstein's "Literary Theory and Historical Understanding" (The Review, May 23). Dickstein's history of literary theory is puzzling because he ignores the facts that the predominant method of reading in North American universities after World War II was New Criticism, and that the predisposition for close reading