From about 1940, just about everybody who is anybody in literary criticism, or who would like to be thought of as having something to say about anybody who is anybody in literary criticism, has taken a try at placing Kenneth Burke. A few contemporaries have ventured into the risky game of putting him in his place. Many have attempted to identify themselves with Burke; many have taken over much of his terminology; many have tried out his methods; and, finally, perhaps more presumptuously, a few are trying to explain him. (p. xv)

Are not a critic's works generally sufficient in themselves? If they need some elaborate explication or breakdown, have they not, in effect, been replaced by the work which purports to explicate them? I think the answer is often enough negative…. Assuming the value of what Burke has to say for students of literary analysis and just plain...