Rorty and Cavell

I've just gotten interested about Richard Rorty and Stanley Cavell, but lack much first-hand experience with their scholarship. They seem interesting because both managed to work both within and outside of the analytic tradition--and that's what I ultimately would like to be able to do. I think there's valuable stuff in both strands of philosophy; and more importantly, I think a dogmatic insistence on one or the other is a real intellectual laziness. I'll have to investigate Rorty and Cavell over the next few months, to see if they could be models for me later on. In any case, it's nice to know that its possible to transcend the divide, and get real recognition as a scholar.