Tag Archives: criticism

Tompkins critique on critiques

Posted on by
Reply

I agree with Morgan, I actually really liked Tompkins article. I’d always thought of canonical texts as standing outside of literary fashions and criticism, but Tompkins really enlightened me to the fact that they have simply been able to adapt to every fashion that comes through.

While I was skeptical at first of those notion, Professor Seaman put in terms of The Wife of Bath, which made it much easier to believe. She said that while Alyson was once thought of as a buffoon, she is now an early type of feminist. While Taylor sees her as the complete opposite of a feminist, I think that if we view her by medieval standards, she shows an incredibly amount of forward thinking and the origin of what would one day become the feminist movement.

But back to Tompkins.

She used the examples of Hawthorne and Melville, both great authors by our standards, throughout her essay and managed to make her point well. However, one point that really drew ire with me was when she wrote “[critics] could not have possibly understood [Hawthorne] given the attitudes that must inform effusions such as these” (141). I feel like it’s a little arrogant to say that they did not understand it, as if our knowledge is completely superior. This is like doctors in the 18th century laughing at those in the medieval ages, only for them to be shown up a century later. In today’s time, knowledge is accumulating even faster, which could cause new critical theories to form at quicker paces than ever. It’s incredibly likely that in another century, people will look back on our critiques of The Scarlet Letter and will wonder at our conclusions.

Bressler is my new Hero

Posted on by
Reply

Bressler shed some insight on the various levels of criticism, as well as attempting to form a concrete definition of “literature”. When describing the different types of critics, he showed how they relate to one another. I was under the assumption that a literary critic was just a critic who evaluated a piece of literature; after reading Bressler’s definition of the different roles a critic takes, however, I feel much more informed and now view the literary critic with more respect and reverence. He then drew my attention to the theory of literature. I have had a brush with a few key terms from the theory toolbox in other classes, but I found his explanation more comprehensive. I especially like the quote: “Whereas literary criticism involves our analysis of a text, literary theory is concerned with our understanding of the ideas, concepts, and intellectual assumptions upon which our actual literary critique rests” (8). The distinction between the two made these broad concepts more understandable for me, and I enjoy thinking of literary theory as “concerned” with what my personal experiences and knowledge lends to my analysis of a text.

I found the definition of what exactly literature is to also be highly entertaining. I was drawn in by the implications which language and the construction of words can have on something’s meaning. The examples of the Latin term littera and the German word Wortkunst depicted this distinction of carefully chosen words to represent a body of works—whether oral tradition or the “written word”. It never occurred to me that the written word would have its own flaws (hence the example of the phonebook); however, upon reflecting on this crucial part of deciphering just what constitutes “literature” I began to think of many example where the written word wouldn’t actually have any literary merit.

Bressler also brings back the idea of a ‘canon’ when he explains the “hyper-protected cooperative principle” (13). I agree with Bressler when he asserts that though published works may be superior to a phonebook, not all published works are worthy of being included in a significant literary canon.

Criticizing the New

Posted on by
1

This week has brought to my field of knowledge an understanding of something that I have heard of before, but never really pondered.  Partially it is due to the fact that I never really paid attention or delved into the subject matter.  Fortunately, this week’s curriculum rectified this situation.

Formalism is a intriguing subject to be sure.  As we discussed in class, I appreciate fully the fact that during the development of new criticism, they were paving the way for something that before had never existed.  In the time, as Dr. Seaman pointed out, they were challenging the status quo, doing what I mentioned in my last blog post, pushing it to new frontiers.  It is important to acknowledge this and as such appreciate it in its place.  However, assimilating it into our class content, I think that it is itself insufficient.

I believe it to be an excellent tool.  Something that really adds depth to one’s overall analysis.  I think that it is important to analyze the form itself, but I do believe that it creates an impediment to “more completely” understanding an overall piece.  I am not saying at all that a single piece can ever be “fully understood,” as every time a person looks to a piece, some new insight can come forth.  However, I am drawing from the concept of infinite possibilities for a literary piece.  I think that there is a line with how far one can go in analysis of a literary work when only New Criticism is involved.  I also think that some of the limits bar continuity of some literary traditions.

One of my favorite aspects of literature is allusion.  An author making a reference, however big or small, to another piece of literature is something that makes me smile; in a way makes me feel like I am “part of the club.”  Allusion appears in many forms, and one such form can be connection to other authors, to events in history, to religious references, etc.  Although I understand that New Criticism still requires one to take words and phrases, read through and research them, there seems to be this ambiguous line which stops at New Criticism, and if continued, goes out to expansion of the motifs and themes of a piece which is, according to New Criticism’s rules, not permitted or deemed relevant.

Like I said above, I believe it a wonderful method of developing an additional(key word) facet to a literary gem; but to focus only inside the box of New Criticism seems that it would leave that gem with fewer faces, and would not shine quite so brilliantly.