Wouldn’t it make more sense to argue for a more nuanced understanding, precisely because of the things you’ve identified? Such a more nuanced understanding requires more information.

I encourage you to broaden your understanding of what an individual’s identity is and broaden your understanding of what kinds of things represented in an artistic work (whether fiction, non-fiction, visual, musical, etc.) might be affected by even the most mundane of circumstances by that individual identity.

Is this how you think literary analysis is undertaken? If it is, I would encourage you to look deeper into the subject.

I have a right to try and find out a creator’s identity, not the right for the person to tell me their identity. As does a journalist.

and with presumably unsolicited support like this endorsement

To be fair, Nolan’s article isn’t about the author’s identity, but about the validity of reporting on their identity.

A pseudonym isn’t some magical shield that acts to sever one’s artistic product (fiction or otherwise) from their identity. No matter how loudly you scream this as you type it, no matter how many people incorrectly agree with it, no matter whether you enter a life of literary analysis to espouse this personal belief,…

Knowing where an artist was born, their family circumstances, how well they did in school

Not only that, but their pseudonym does not act a magical shield that cuts off their own identity from the work they produce.

As others have pointed out, this is not even the primary theoretical approach for fictional literary analysis.

The biographical information about an author helps those seeking deep examinations of that author’s work, since what individuals produce - whether written, musical, visual, etc. - is inevitably shaped by individual circumstance. Knowing the identity of one who creates isn’t just a trivial factoid of barely-relevant…

How have you not yet garnered more stars for this response?

I don’t understand, doesn’t he tell everyone the bike was “already destroyed” before he broke it in half?

It looks like this lawsuit is almost completely bullshit. I did however want to point out one thing:

Not that bullshit pass interference on Sherman the play before he intercepted, though. That was all sorts of wrong.

I can’t agree. As much as I would have loved it if it were (confirmation of a conspiracy against the Seahawks and all), his hand wasn’t moving forward.

And yet they put up 17 points against Seattle.

FTFY (yes, I counted)

Your Kinja name, nick21ia, is offending me for being in support of Tsar Nicholas II and his Bloody Monday massacre in 1905.

We didn’t get a final “Cardinals Lost Their Nth Game” article and with them not getting a Wild Card spot, I’m guessing this series is over for the year.