BMCR 2004.05.17

Response: Hamilton on Lingenberg on Spentzou

Response to 2004.05.05

Response by

An editorial mistake caused the omission of the crucial first sentence of the penultimate paragraph, which should read as follows:

On pp. 34sq, S. touches upon some interesting differences in women’s and men’s approach towards literature: women read “actively”, i.e., subjectively recreating the story, and with little interest for the author; men recognize, and appreciate, the story as an author’s construction. No doubt this “female” way of reading, obviously having S.’s sympathies, will bring forth very personal views on a text, valuable for essayistic writing in particular; but as long as scholarly interpretation is about seeking to come close to objective truths, for these purposes the “male” approach will certainly be more helpful.6

We regret the error.