This essay is a reply to Matthew Feldman's identification and advocacy of a methodological "partition" in Beckett studies. It argues that the 'critical tribunal' set up by his article may be contested on the grounds that: the advocated paradigm for research makes a contentious journey from science to literature; it dogmatically imposes restrictions on the range of literary critical interventions deemed to be of value; it employs a 'black box' approach to its own argument.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,199
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Transformations of the Concept of Reason.Herbert Schnadelbach - 1998 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1):3-14.
Spinoza and Other Heretics: Reply to Critics.Yirmiyahu Yovel - 1992 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):81 – 112.
Are We All Dialecticians Now? Reply to MacGregor and Friedman.Chris Matthew Sciabarra - 1998 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 12 (3):283-299.


Added to PP index

Total views
2 ( #1,452,720 of 2,517,922 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #272,378 of 2,517,922 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes