This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Reviewers of collected essays who, by training and talent, think they ought to have contributed to or improved upon the treatment the subject received in the book, are often confronted by hazards of temptation to polemical criticism, to one-upmanship, or even to writing a review as another essay that did not make the editor's selected list. They thus would fail their function as the readers' critical delegate, be it an advance scout or assistant to the creative participation in the act of fullest readership. More so, a work such as this addresses itself to the broad literary public dealing with a sector of letters that is at once clearly in focus, yet wide open with regard to what constitutes competence in the sector. If the reviewer claims competence, he thereby assumes responsibilities. If he also limits his mandate to being the delegate of a
Gronner R. Hidden Patterns.. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;17(2):248–251. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1967.01730260120019