Limits of Criticism - Post 4

[damian hunt]

Now that we have discussed a few different critical issues, most recently, new historicism, I’m noticing a trend.  I think New Historicism is another form of literature critique that has limited critics in what they look for in a story, and what makes a story a story.  Forms of critique like this one point us in a two-dimensional view of the story by suggesting what characteristics we should analyze within a story.  New Historicism is most definitely not the only critique method to suffer from the limits instilled by the belief system of the critics.  I think we have finally gotten to a point where critics understand that as more and more perspectives form in how one analyzes a story; the closer we get to the idea that there is no set method to reading a story.  The only way to truly appreciate a piece of work is too study all these forms of criticisms from structuralism to Marxism and implement every single one into every story, novel, or poem you read.  Take a new historicism approach and make the effort to learn about the author’s life, and use a Marxist mind to understand the economic and class situation being expressed or that inspired the story, take what you’ve learned from new critics and analyze word choice and sentence structure.  Only then will you be able to get the full impact of a story.  It is beautiful how literature has evolved has much as critiquing it has.  For every genre that is spawned there comes a new perspective to read literature, and just as we can’t say literature is Murder Mystery we can’t limit critics to one area of criticism like New Historicism.  I think the best way to understand this is with the idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  That triangle perfectly illustrates the cyclical and flexible aspect of literature criticism.