The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Creative Misunderstandings and New Understandings
Abstract
life of its own. I really do believe that once a book is published, it stands in relation to intelligent readers the way an exam stands in relation to a professor. The refrain professors tell students-I have no way of judging you on what you intended to say, I can only grade what you wrote-can come back to haunt professorial authors. What I intended to say in The Middle Ground may be of some interest to you, yet what matters is the text: what I wrote. I am also enfeebled as an authority about The Middle Ground because of the thesis of the book. This book is, among other things, about mutual misunderstandings and the ways that new meanings are derived from them. It is about the virtues of misreading, which puts an author who accuses his readers of misreading in something of an awkward position. I think that there have been misreadings of the book, but one of my points is that such misreadings can be fruitful in their own right. The phrase ground, I realize now in ways that I did not really fully comprehend when writing the book, had twinned meanings. First, I was trying to describe a process that arose from the willingness of those who ... [sought] to justify their own actions in terms of what they perceived to be their partner's cultural premises. These actors sought out cultural congruences, either perceived or actual, that often seemed-and, indeed, were-results of misunderstandings or accidents. Such interpretations could be ludicrous, but it did not matter. Any congruence,…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“An important characteristic of these exchange relations is the”
From Heightened Receptivity: Steppe Objects and Steppe Influences in Royal Tombs of the Western Han Dynasty (2017) · cites this paper as White 2006
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kost, C. (2017) · Journal of the American Oriental Society · doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.2.0349 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- White, R.
- Corresponding author
- White, Richard
- ORCID
- White, Richard
- Venue
- William and Mary Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9
- ISSN
- 0043-5597 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2316192416
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 13.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The William and Mary Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literature: history, themes, analysis
- Keywords
- misreading, mutual misunderstanding, authorial authority, reader interpretation, cultural congruence, colonial encounter
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review