Paradox?

Nehamas, early in the article, attempts to invoke paradox to counter the view of Corngold. "But of course Corngold's view is reached thorugh an interpretation which must be itself correct if it is to explain why there cannot be a correct intepretation of the story."

This is a valid counterpoint, and a paradox indeed. He continues: and this paradox of method is parallel to a paradox of content. He claims that if the point of Metamorphosis was that literature cannot succeed in conveyance then a paradox occurs. "But if it succeeds in communicating it, it communicates that it fails to communicate..." Again, a valid paradox and thus refutation, but then he steps slightly too far: "...and if it fails, since this failure is what it communicates, it succeeds." He is close here,a nd I undersatnd why he errs, but an error noneltheless. If the story fails to communicate that literature cannot communicate, this does not prove that literate cannot communicate; it is only that this one case failed, so it does not ultimately succeed and there is no paradox there. It is a subtle distinction, but a valid one. Indeed, Goldcorn's position falls victim to the first two paradoxes, but Nehamas is not entitled to the third.