Coordinates in literary criticism
bookburn
outlines the essential coordinates of different approaches as
developed historically. Thus we can label them either 1) mimetic,
or imitating another model, such as Freud, Marx, relativity, etc.,
called "universe"; 2) pragmatic, where influence of audience on
author and author on audience is featured; 3) objective, analysing
the work itself, as in textual criticism, formalism, and
structuralism; and 4) expressive, or emphasizing the work as the
artist's expression of creative impulses, biography, etc.. See for
yourself.
I think it's useful to have these labels for the approaches taken by
literary critics, but understand that a combination may be involved,
such as where a particular philosophy of history is used (mimesis)
in conjunction with identifying topical allusions in a text
(objective). Anyway, the following outlines basics of how literary
criticism is evolving. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp, is a minor
classic. bookburn
Copied from: http://www.cdc.net/~stifler/en111/litcrit.html
(quote)
Development of Modern Literary Criticism
© Bill Stifler, 1997
M. H. Abrams, in his book The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory
and the Critical Tradition, argues that the development of literary
criticism has centered on four coordinates: the universe, the work,
the artist, and the audience (Abrams 6). He argues that early
critical theory focused on the relation of literature to the world,
its tendency to imitate or "mimic" reality [mimesis] (Abrams 8).
Through the influence of Aristotle and Christianity, criticism began
to focus on the influence of literature on the audience, valuing
literature which had a positive or "moral" impact on the
reader/listener [pragmatism] (Abrams 14-16). By the 18th century,
criticism had shifted to an emphasis on the creative impulses of the
artist; literature was an "expression" of the artist's imagination
and feelings [romanticism] (Abrams 22-25).
Twentieth century critical theory has grown out of the philosophies
and physics of the day. Evolution dethroned man from the center of
the universe; modern physics called in question objectivity and
suggested that reality was "fuzzy," that matter and energy were more
than just interchangeable but were two sides of the same reality.
Although Einstein resisted quantum mechanics, saying "God does not
play dice," the old Newtonian universe, a carefully tooled machine
which scientists could qualify and describe, was replaced by a
universe of indeterminacy and apparent randomness. Relativity and
quantum mechanics suggested that absolute mathematical precision was
impossible, that instead, the universe could best be described only
by statistical trends. In the sub-atomic world, science could only
make informed "guesses" about nature.
The same uncertainty plagued linguistics and anthropology. Examining
the origins of language and meaning, these sciences questioned
whether words had clearly defined meanings and limits. Sassure
argued that signs develop meaning by their difference from other
signs (Eagleton 96-7). That is, words only have meaning in relation
to themselves. The letters 'd' 'o' 'g' do not mean dog. They are
simply an agreed upon symbol that stand in for the meaning dog. In
the same way, the word dog only has meaning in contrast to
everything that is not-dog. The word/sign dog distinguishes what is
meant by dog from everything that is not-dog.
Imagine a small boy from the city who has never seen farm animals.
Looking out the car window, he sees a cow standing in a field and
shouts, "Look, mommy, a dog!" "No dear," his mother answers, "that's
a cow." A little farther down the road, the boy sees a horse. Less
certain, he says, "Mommy, is that a dog or a cow?" "No dear," she
answers, and so the boy's understanding of what is meant by the word
dog grows.
Abrams suggests that modern criticism, in reaction to modernism, has
placed at its center, the work (Abrams 27-8). But influenced by
Sassure's process of difference, the idea that "meaning is always in
some sense absent" (Eagleton 128), the meaning of text began to
expand beyond the bounds of the work itself to encompass Abram's
other coordinates of universe, artist, and audience.
Formalism ignored everything external to the text--author, culture,
historical background--and was an attempt to reconcile the apparent
indeterminacies in texts. Formalism, while emphasizing the primacy
of the text, explored the "tensions and oppositions inherent in the
text [but] in order to develop a unified meaning" (Kirszner and
Mandell 1777). Formalists found word play and metaphor captivating
but tried to find a single meaning within the apparent multiple
meanings struggling within a text. For this reason, American
formalism or "new criticism" stressed the importance of a "close
reading" of the text. While there are few formalist critics left,
because of their emphasis on the primacy of text, all other modern
critical approaches begin with the techniques of close reading
(Kirszner and Mandell 1777-8).
Structuralism redefines text, shifting attention away from the words
of the text, the apparent "surface meaning" to the underlying
patterns within the text, the "deep structures." These underlying
patterns are believed to be common to literature, and the individual
words in the text only have meaning in relation to these patterns
(Eagleton 95-6). Myth criticism, combining structuralism with the
work of Carl Jung, sees in the text the outworking of the
"collective unconscious," myths of initiation, falling from grace,
sacrifice, etc., which are common to all people and recognized by
all peoples (Eagleton 92-4).
The problem for the post-structuralist is that if the meaning of any
signifier is due to its difference from every other, that meaning is
not inherent in the sign, but dependant on the total web of
language, what the post-structuralist refers to as text (Eagleton
127-30). As post-structuralism reads between the lines for this
underlying subtext, text is redefined, expanding beyond the work to
include the contexts of world, artist, and audience.
This emphasis on difference and displaced meaning suggests
subversive readings of the text. Deconstruction examines the way in
which texts create their own ambiguities--revealing the manner in
which one system of thought remains dependant on its opposite
(Eagleton 132-4).
Sociological criticism redefines text to include the ideological
world in which a text is found, examining the subversive influences
of ideology on the artist and the ways in which cultural value
systems manifest themselves in a text (Kirszner and Mandell 1782).
Feminist criticism examines the textuality of gender relationships,
exploding male-dominant myths and revealing alternative feminine
textual modes and perceptions (Kirszner and Mandell 1783-4). Marxist
criticism examines socio-political influences, society in conflict,
revealing the interdependence of conflicting ideologies (Kirszner
and Mandell 1785).
New historicism redefines the text to include the "historical and
cultural contexts of the period in which [the text] was created and
[the] periods in which [the text] was critically evaluated"
(Kirszner and Mandell 1787). Literature does not mimic the external
world. Instead the external world of history and culture is itself a
fictional creation, sometimes enslaving readers [Althusser],
sometimes defining "morality and truth" [Foucault], and sometimes
revealing the "conflicting voices" that make up the discourse of any
historical period or culture [Bakhtin] (Kirszner and Mandell 1787)
Psychoanalytic criticism expands the meaning of text to include the
psyche of the author, seeing the text as the "expression in
fictional form of the inner workings of the human mind" (Kirszner
and Mandell 1789). Using the principles of psychotherapy worked out
by Freud, psychoanalytic criticism interprets the symbols and
metaphors, language and connotations of a text as the individual
unconscious expressions of sexuality and mores, instinct and
conscience (Kirszner and Mandell 1789-90).
Finally, reader-response criticism blurs the distinctions between
audience and text, so that for Stanley Fish, there is no objective
text at all: the unique response of reader to work is the "text"
(Kirszner and Mandell 1789-1791).
However, while all of these modern theories expand the meaning of
text to include the broader contexts of author, audience, and world,
the work itself is still the motivating force. For that reason, any
interpretation of a work must be supported by the work. The validity
of any interpretation is based on how well it reveals the work and
is supported by quotations from and summary of the work.
Modern critical theories provide students with tools to explore
literature, allowing students to draw on their own unique
experiences, cultures, perceptions, and reactions, but to be
convincing, students' interpretations must be grounded in the
elements of the work under study.
Works Cited
Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the
Critical Tradition. New York: Norton, 1958.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: UP
Minnesota, 1983
Kirszner, Laurie G. and Stephen R. Mandell. Literature: Reading,
Reacting, Writing. 2nd. ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1995 .
(unquote)
Franklin C. Cacciutto
> I like the following exposition of literary criticism because it
> outlines the essential coordinates of different approaches as
> developed historically.
[snip]
Thank you for your excellent very short history of criticism.
However, in today's colleges and universities your concluding admonition
that the text should be the central focus of criticiam is sadly ignored.
Political correctness is all. So The Tempest is dismissed as an example
of eurocentric colonialism, and Goneril and Regan are celebrated as
subverters of patriarchy. The historical line of development of literary
criticism has come to a very idiotic dead stop.
Franklin
bookburn
"Franklin C. Cacciutto" <shad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E6BC531...@earthlink.net...
I can't claim the copied essay, presented by another as a summary of
Abram's study, no doubt with an interpretive spin on it.
I would say, though, that the essay does provide us with ammunition
to slice and dice any arbitrary approach by identifying it's
coordinates and checking out how it squares with benchmarks. If
what you say is happening to the objective coordinate in the name of
textual criticism, that they are going off the chart in the
direction of structuralism and social/political commentary, then
the question should be asked whether such assumptions are too
tenuous. Probably an unidentified memitic approach is masquerading
as objective, if sociology/anthropology/Darwinism or some-such
idiology is the rationale.
Maybe the linguistics approach, that's supposed to be part of the
objective/textual coordinate, now invites structuralist to make free
associations with underlying speech patterns, etc.. Personally, I
have had the opinion that those on a Noam Chomsky bent speculate
interestingly in the arena of cultural anthropology, not literary
theory or even comparative literature.
bookburn
>
>
>