Reviewing a commentary on one’s work, even one as thoughtful as that provided by Gottschling (this collection), is much like viewing a close-up picture of one’s face on a large high-definition screen; every blemish seems patently visible and appears to overshadow even the most genuine of expressions. The temptation is to pull out one’s metaphoric Photoshop and doctor up every imperfection. There is another option, however, and that is to step back and consider whether from a broader perspective the blemishes are really as disfiguring as they might initially appear.
Inspired by this analogy, I will not attempt to rebut all of Gottschling’s consistently incisive remarks about my paper. Rather I will use this essay as an opportunity to step back and review the broad strokes of my arguments in light of Gottschling’s more general concerns. In so doing, I hope to demonstrate that while Gottschling offers a number of insightful suggestions for clarification and elaboration, the general logic of my arguments remain largely intact. Nevertheless, Gottschling’s critique offers an excellent opportunity to clarify some points that may have been lost in the expanse of my initial paper.