Wayne C. Booth avoids anchoring his argument in the needs of criticism at the present time, but his fascination with critical freedom explains why he has to justify pluralism in [Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism]. Pluralism, as he defines it, does not resolve critical disagreements but gives them meaning. Against relativists like [Stanley] Fish, Booth argues that some reading may be wrong; against monists, he counters that more than one reading may be right…. Booth wants not to discourage variety but to foster it; the richness of literature calls for diversity in interpretation.

Booth's defense of pluralism, however, has a hard time getting off the ground or, more precisely, finding ground on which to stand. He needs to demonstrate the objective complexity of literature without lapsing into a monistic overview that subordinates less complete perspectives to itself. Put differently, without holding all criticism accountable to...