The works of James Phelan (Reading Secrets) and Michael Levenson (Secret History in 'The Secret Sharer') both take a look at Joseph Conrad's short story, "The Secret Sharer", from two different critical perspectives. Phelan discusses "The Secret Sharer" from the reader-response perspective, and Levenson from the new historicism perspective. It is hard to do direct comparisons on their work because they look at the story from totally opposing views. Phelan and reader-response critics derive the meaning of a story from its psychological context based on the reaction of the reader. Levenson and new historicists choose to ignore a story's psychological context and derive the meanings of the story from a historical event, or events, that lead Conrad to write "The Secret Sharer". In this essay, we will discuss how well each writer represented their critical view in their essay by comparing the thesis of their respective essays, and how well they supported their claims.
             In an attempt to get an overall idea of how Phelan and Levenson interpret the story, we will look at and compare the theses in their essays. In Levenson's thesis, he very clearly states that he will address the story based on its historical context and not on it's psychological interpretation. New historicists believe that "literature's psychological insight loses none of its force when restored to the concrete conditions of its social emergence"(163), which indicates to us that he will attempt to point out the significance of the story and how it relates to historical facts of that time, and events in Conrad's life.
             Phelan starts his essay off with a quote from the story of Leggatt talking to the captain. The quote is vague and gives us no direct clue as to what his essay will be about and how he will discuss the story in respect to his critical perspective. The first five parag...