> >if the person ('common' reader, critic, scholar, historian, what-have-you)
> >makes a more or less persuasive case that the world she/he 'creates' is at
> >least homologous to if not identical with the world created in the text.
> A common error of 19th century thinking.
> Such a construction is impossible.
Why? If this were the case, how should we converse? How should I
respond to anything you have to say? And how should we evaluate any
piece of writing - merely by how it resonates upon our eardrums?