“For all these reasons, as well as others, it is the only one of the four that has attracted the ire and the angst of the mainstream legal academy.” (West 208)
It’s interesting to note that this study of the narrative voice is the only one that didn’t originate in the law and literature movement and is the most “out there” of the four in that sense. Thus, it is controversial as seemingly anything that tries to truly push the boundary often is
Why do we default back to defensive positions when we encounter something that we may even understand what its core idea is but maybe not exactly fit into the worldview, and does the mainstream legal academy fear being outdated by this one idea?
