Critical Monism & Pluralism

Both Critical Monism and Critical Pluralism are mainly good approaches to literary criticism, but the are both ultimately flawed criticisms. However, when used together, and with the added distinction between correctness and acceptability, I think that's the best way to criticize a work. We recognize only one, true, correct interpretation of a work, presumably the authors', but don't discount other acceptable interpretations. There is a limit on what can be considered an acceptable interpretation as well, as they "must be consistent with some facts about the work. For example, it would not be acceptable...to ask readers to suppose that the words of a work were different from those actually constituting the text of a work." (274) This helps to keep critical pluralism from becoming radically inclusive, and helps to further balance the relationship between critical pluralism and monism. Overall, I think Stecker combining the two types of criticism turned out to be the best approach to literary criticism as a whole