Literary criticism: novel, doable...
 In the history of Literary Criticism we come across what was known al
New Criticism and Practical Criticism. As students of English Literature
we should know something about them. If possible try to read an essay by
David Bleich on 'The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation'
For your benefit I summarize some of his views on New Criticism. He
says that the New Criticism (somewhere in the 1920s) brought a new
attitude toward the understanding of art. “It was a new rationality, a
new seriousness, and a new confidence”
Part of the original energy of the New Criticism was a reaction
against unsystematic ‘impressionism”. The aim was to present aesthetic
discussion so that they would be more intellectually informative and
less easily dismissible.
Early New Critics wanted to show that knowledge about literature is
really knowledge and not merely a record of fleeting personal
observations. The standard of truth in literary matters can only devolve
upon the community of students. He added that” The test of truth in
critical interpretation is its social viability. Those interpretation
accepted as ‘true’ achieve this s status because they reflect an area of
common subjective value.”
He explains that “If certain set of or school of interpretation
prevails, it is not because it is closer to an objective truth about
art, but because it is a communally agreed upon way to articulate
certain commonly held subjective feelings about at that time” The
popular New Criticism can be understood in these terms.
 “The need for objectivity in criticism arose because of the need for
a way to overcome a common fear and ignorance of subjective feelings and
anarchic emotions.”
Criticism is a science- it is the systematic study of aesthetic
experience which produces new knowledge. The study of literature and art
cannot proceed independently of the study of people involved in artistic
transaction. We cannot avoid the entanglements of subjective reactions
and motives. Our minds are the roots of our literary experiences.
The study of art and the study of ourselves are ultimately a single
enterprise.
This idea is better understood by a statement by Murray Schwartz when
he says “All criticisms of literature originate in our personal
experience of individual works, and criticism is a transformation of
these experiences.”
In this context we should also note some facts about “Practical
Criticism”. This kind of criticism helps us to discriminate different
kinds of writing and adjudge a piece of work on its own merits. Though
arbitrary it has value inn technical sense.
For instance to discern Journalism from Literature, we know that
Journalese is a writing which smacks off journalism. Glaring features of
journalese are hurried writing: lots of stock phrase substitute for
original thinking.
It is sometimes sensational and has exaggeration and slanted. It is
also writing with jargons characteristic of particular fields to clod
issues. Jargon is a substitute for clarity.
That’s why great writers think clearly and write in a simple manner
using understandable words. I A Richards in his “Principles of Literary
Criticism”- that is in Practical Criticism, which is analysis of
language. The tools of analysis are many. But the four main elements
are:
Sense –intention of the writer
Feeling -What type of feeling is brought about I in for instance in
the play Romeo and Juliet or in the novel Women in Love or in Barbara
Cartland’s fiction- the differences.
Tone – The attitude or the technique of the writer to bring out his /
her central idea.
Rhythm - (not to be confused with Rhyme or Metre) flow or movement
[email protected]
|
