David Silberstein wrote: >On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ken Koester wrote: > > >>Not Chandler, Zelazny. But that gets less and less strong as the >>series unrolls. >> >> > >Hm. Is it not possible that Zelazny was influenced by Chandler as >well (and Brust is influenced by both)? > > > > There are some problems with looking at that; see below. >>The French killed off the notion of influence studies in literary >>criticism decades ago, >> >> > >How? Why? > > > Well, the short answer is that it's nearly impossible to show, and even if you do, it tends not to tell you anything interesting about the text from a critical standpoint. After a few generations of critics bashed it around for a while, they decided the game wasn't worth the candle & turned to other notions. I haven't kept up with criticism since I left complit in grad school, but I haven't seen anything to tell me that influence studies have made a comeback here in the US or abroad. >>I would find Brust's opinion of Zelazny interesting, just for the >>sake of assuaging curiosity. >> >> >> > >You're new here, I nearly think (not a criticism, merely an >observation). > > > > More lazy than new--I remembered reading those snippets just as I re-read them. Yes, I t All Fits, I'd have to say (-; Snarkhunter