3. Mike Goode. “The Joy of Looking: What Blake’s Pictures Want.”
Representations. 119.1 (Summer 2012). 1-36.!
“Blake’s audience, especially today, has the tendency to be singularly
irreducible to the sum of its groups. It is my conviction that this irreducibility—
this delinquent tendency on the part of Blake’s ‘composite art’ to de-compose
itself whenever and wherever it finds an audience—can prove critically and
politically instructive about what his art meant, or at least could have meant,
when it was created.” (5)
Andrew M. Cooper, William Blake and the Productions of Time.
Burlington: Ashgate, 2013.
“[Blake] was driven to this extremity by the revisionary logic of his system,
which required that each new poem not only re-perform its predecessor but
also itself, such recursion resulting in a baroque ‘late style’ mythology devoted
primarily to emergent, fine-grained possibilities of meaning: nuance, not
substance (17).
4.
5. Cameron Mozafari, “Designing a Multimodal Reading Space for Coleridge’s Kubla Kahn.” in the essay “Bibliocircuitry and the
Design of the Alien Everyday.” Textual Cultures: Texts, Contexts, Interpretation. 8.1 (2013): 72-100.
6. Cameron Mozafari, “Designing a Multimodal Reading Space for Coleridge’s Kubla Kahn.” in the essay “Bibliocircuitry and the Design
of the Alien Everyday.” Textual Cultures: Texts, Contexts, Interpretation. 8.1 (2013): 72-100.
