James C.

Royo Eng29 (Literary Criticism)

10:00 11:00 Prof. Aileen Talidano

1. Explain Literary Criticism.

Literary criticism is the evaluation, analysis, description, or interpretation of literary works. It
is usually in the form of a critical essay, but in-depth book reviews can sometimes be considered
literary criticism. Criticism may examine a particular literary work, or may look at an author's
writings as a whole.

2. Types of Literary Criticism

Formalist Criticism

--This type of criticism concerns itself with the parts of a text and how the parts fit together to
make a whole. Because of this, it does not bring in any information outside of the text: biography
of the author, historical or literary allusions, mythological patterns, or the psychoanalytical traits
of the characters (except those traits specifically described in the text.)

--The formalist critic examines each part of the text: the 46 chapters, the 15 parts, the characters,
the settings, the tone, the point of view, the diction, the fictional world in which the characters
live. After analyzing each part of the text, the critic then describes how they work together.
Traditional Criticism
In traditional criticism, you examine how the authors life, his or her biographical information, is
reflected in the work. You research all facets of his background and find traces of his or her
experiences shown in the text. Question how the work shows pieces of the authors past, his/her
interests, biases, etc.

Sociological Criticism

This type of criticism can include discussions of society, of social relationships, and of
historical events which might affect society during the time period of the work.

In Sociological criticism, you should examine all types of politics--for example Marxism,
feminism, totalitarianism, primitivism--not just conservatism and liberalism. Concentrate on how
societies in the various political isms distinguish between members of various races, social
classes, sexes, or cultures. The sociological critic looks for themes of oppression and liberation;
such themes may concern an individual, a family, a small group, or an entire society.

Marxism * (cover under sociological)
The 'Frankfurt School' and Walter Benjamin :(Horkheimer, Adorno)...Literature the only place
where totalitarian society can be resisted...Detachment gives significance and power...Popular art
an expression of the economic system which shapes it. Modern technology has profoundly
altered the status of art...No longer the preserve of a special elite...New media destroy the
"religious" feeling toward art...Art becomes designed for "reproducibility"...Art more open to
politics.

Structuralist

Emphasis: How works can be understood, the conventions that enable readers to make sense of
them. Examine how the work is built, constructed.
There are "rules" that govern interpretation of texts. Look at exposition, flashbacks,
foreshadowing, syntax, diction. Ask yourself, How is the work put together to develop
meaning?
To be a skilled reader means that one knows the conventions of meaning which allow a person
to make sense of it

Feminist Criticism

Women readers bring different perceptions/expectations to literary experience Challenge to the
"canon"--the whole body of texts that make up the tradition
Concerned with literary representations of the female...exclusion of the female voice from
literature, criticism, theory
Stereotypes of women
Images of women in literature...exclusion of women from literary history in patriarchal
societies...connection between social and literary mistreatment of women...
Females obscured by "patriarchal values...Search for the "female imagination," the "female
plot"
Challenging of the most basic assumptions

Rhetorical
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and the rhetorical approach attempts to understand how
the content of the poem, which is more than intellectual meaning, is put across. How arguments
are presented, attitudes struck, evidence marshalled, various appeals made to the reader all are
relevant.
Stylistic
Style is the manner in which something is presented, and this approach concentrates on
the peculiarities of diction and imagery employed, sometimes relating them to literary and social
theory.
Metaphorical
Metaphor enters into consideration in most approaches, but here the emphasis is deeper
and more exclusive, attention focusing on the ways that metaphors actually work: metaphors are
not regarded as supporting or decorative devices, but actually constituting the meaning.
Post-structuralism
In contrast to the New Critics approach, which stresses interdependence and organic
unity, the Poststructuralist will point to the dissonances and the non sequiturs, and suggest how
the poem works by evading or confronting traditional expectations.
Myth Theory
The approach derives from Northrop Frye and attempts to place poems into categories or
subcategories into which all literature is divide by archetypal themes e.g. the myth of the
hero, his subjugation of enemies, his fall. The approach somewhat anticipated structuralism,
draws on various psychologies, and is less concerned with isolating what is special than showing
what it has in common with works in a similar category.
3. Theories of Literary Criticism

Schools of Criticism
Suppose we bear that question in mind in surveying the various schools of criticism. There are
many, but could perhaps be grouped as:
Cambridge School (1920s1930s): A group of scholars at Cambridge University
who rejected historical and biographical analysis of texts in favor of close readings of the texts
themselves.

Chicago School (1950s): A group, formed at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, that
drew on Aristotles distinctions between the various elements within a narrative to analyze the
relation between form and structure. Critics and Criticisms: Ancient and Modern (1952) is the
major work of the Chicago School.

Deconstruction (1967present): A philosophical approach to reading, first advanced
by Jacques Derrida that attacks the assumption that a text has a single, stable meaning. Derrida
suggests that all interpretation of a text simply constitutes further texts, which means there is no
outside the text at all. Therefore, it is impossible for a text to have stable meaning. The practice
of deconstruction involves identifying the contradictions within a texts claim to have a single,
stable meaning, and showing that a text can be taken to mean a variety of things that differ
significantly from what it purports to mean.

Feminist criticism (1960spresent): An umbrella term for a number of different
critical approaches that seek to distinguish the human experience from the male experience.
Feminist critics draw attention to the ways in which patriarchal social structures have
marginalized women and male authors have exploited women in their portrayal of them.
Although feminist criticism dates as far back as Mary Wollstonecrafts A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman (1792) and had some significant advocates in the early 20th century, such as
Virginia Woolf and Simone de Beauvoir, it did not gain widespread recognition as a theoretical
and political movement until the 1960s and 1970s.

Psychoanalytic criticism: Any form of criticism that draws on psychoanalysis, the
practice of analyzing the role of unconscious psychological drives and impulses in shaping
human behavior or artistic production. The three main schools of psychoanalysis are named for
the three leading figures in developing psychoanalytic theory: Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and
Jacques Lacan.

Freudian criticism (c. 1900present): The view of art as the imagined fulfillment of
wishes that reality denies. According to Freud, artists sublimate their desires and translate their
imagined wishes into art. We, as an audience, respond to the sublimated wishes that we share
with the artist. Working from this view, an artists biography becomes a useful tool in
interpreting his or her work. Freudian criticism is also used as a term to describe the analysis
of Freudian images within a work of art.

Jungian criticism (1920spresent): A school of criticism that draws on Carl Jungs
theory of the collective unconscious, a reservoir of common thoughts and experiences that all
cultures share. Jung holds that literature is an expression of the main themes of the collective
unconscious, and critics often invoke his work in discussions of literary archetypes.

Lacanian criticism (c. 1977present): Criticism based on Jacques Lacans view that
the unconscious, and our perception of ourselves, is shaped in the symbolic order of language
rather than in the imaginary order of prelinguistic thought. Lacan is famous in literary circles
for his influential reading of Edgar Allan Poes The Purloined Letter.

Marxist criticism: An umbrella term for a number of critical approaches to literature that
draw inspiration from the social and economic theories of Karl Marx. Marx maintained that
material production, or economics, ultimately determines the course of history, and in turn
influences social structures.These social structures, Marx argued, are held in place by the
dominant ideology, which serves to reinforce the interests of the ruling class. Marxist criticism
approaches literature as a struggle with social realities and ideologies.

Frankfurt School (c. 19231970): A group of German Marxist thinkers associated
with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. These thinkers applied the principles of
Marxism to a wide range of social phenomena, including literature. Major members of the
Frankfurt School include Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Herbert
Marcuse, and Jrgen Habermas.

New Criticism (1930s1960s): Coined in John Crowe Ransoms The New Criticism
(1941), this approach discourages the use of history and biography in interpreting a literary work.
Instead, it encourages readers to discover the meaning of a work through a detailed analysis of
the text itself. This approach was popular in the middle of the 20th century, especially in the
United States, but has since fallen out of favor.


New Historicism (1980spresent): An approach that breaks down distinctions
between literature and historical context by examining the contemporary production and
reception of literary texts, including the dominant social, political, and moral movements of the
time. Stephen Greenblatt is a leader in this field, which joins the careful textual analysis of New
Criticism with a dynamic model of historical research.

New Humanism (c. 19101933): An American movement, led by Irving Babbitt and
Paul Elmer More, that embraced conservative literary and moral values and advocated a return to
humanistic education.

Post-structuralism (1960s1970s): A movement that comprised, among other things,
Deconstruction, Lacanian criticism, and the later works of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault.
It criticized structuralism for its claims to scientific objectivity, including its assumption that the
system of signs in which language operates was stable.

Queer theory (1980spresent): A constructivist (as opposed to essentialist)
approach to gender and sexuality that asserts that gender roles and sexual identity are social
constructions rather than an essential, inescapable part of our nature. Queer theory consequently
studies literary texts with an eye to the ways in which different authors in different eras construct
sexual and gender identity. Queer theory draws on certain branches of feminist criticism and
traces its roots to the first volume of Michel Foucaults History of Sexuality (1976).

Russian Formalism (19151929): A school that attempted a scientific analysis of the
formal literary devices used in a text. The Stalinist authorities criticized and silenced the
Formalists, but Western critics rediscovered their work in the 1960s. Ultimately, the Russian
Formalists had significant influence on structuralism and Marxist criticism.

Structuralism (1950s1960s): An intellectual movement that made significant
contributions not only to literary criticism but also to philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and
history. Structuralist literary critics, such as Roland Barthes, read texts as an interrelated system
of signs that refer to one another rather than to an external meaning that is fixed either by
author or reader. Structuralist literary theory draws on the work of the Russian Formalists, as
well as the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and C. S. Peirce.
Is Obj ect i vi t y Possi bl e?
Since poets love their creations, and must do to continue writing, how objective can they be?
Again, there is much disagreement. {12}
Some poets, stunned by yet another wrong-headed review, come to believe that they alone, or at
least a small circle of like-minded poets, have any real critical ability. Only they really know
what is good and not so good in their own work. And anyone attending workshops regularly may
well agree.
But few academic critics will accept that poets make the sounder judgements. {13} Not a
demarcation dispute, they say, but simple experience and logic. Artists are notoriously partisan,
and look at colleagues' work to learn and borrow. And consider a Beethoven sonata: we can all
distinguish between the beginner and the accomplished pianist even though possessing no piano-
playing skills of our own. True, but the analogy is not exact. Poems are written in a language we
all read and speak. Even to use language correctly calls on enormously complex skills, so that
poetry may be but a small addition, a thin specialization. On that scale the differences between
good and bad in poetry may be analogous to deciding between two almost equally good pieces of
piano-playing. That exceeds the competence of most of us, and we hand over to the usual
competition panel of musicians and conductors.
Certainly we can accept that critics and poets intend different things, namely articles and poems.
And that there is nothing to stop the poet becoming an excellent critic (many have {14}) or
academic critics from the learning the difficult art of writing poetry. {15} The experience may
well be enriching for both. But the question is more insidious. What exactly is it that the critic
produces in his article, and how does it shape the reader's response? An earlier generation (much
earlier, that encountered by I. A. Richards in his pioneering reading experiments at Cambridge
{16}) sought to make poems out of their responses. Artists do influence each other, and imitation
is no doubt the sincerest form of flattery. But Richard's examinees, and perhaps inevitably,
without the time and skills to do a decent job, turned in very juvenile work; Richards could
dismiss the approach as entirely wrong-headed. Analysis was what was wanted not adroit
phrases but method, the careful reductive method of the sciences. By all means write up the
exercise engagingly afterwards, but first read with great attention, asking the right questions. So
was born the New Criticism, and few doubt that this was a large step forward. {17}
But that does not invalidate the question. The New Critics were now doing what every good poet
does or should do examining and reexamining the work from every conceivable angle:
diction, imagery, meaning, shape, etc. Previous critics had rushed to judgement without putting
in the fundamental spade work. But what the New Critics produced, the journal article or book,
had none of the attraction of the original poem, and indeed became increasingly technical,
employing a jargon that only fellow specialists could enjoy. The general reader was not catered
for, any more than poets, most of whom were writing in different styles anyway, with different
problems to address. Criticism retreated to academia, and eventually bred a poetry that had
academia for its readership. {18}
More than that, criticism became an end in itself. {19} The intellectual gymnastics currently
performed by the great names of American criticism are not grounded in the poem being
analyzed, but in the tenets of radical theory. The poem may serve as the original impetus, as
something about which to parade their skills, {20} but the criticism has detached itself and
become somewhat like a Modernist poem. It draws inspiration from literary theories, and these
can be nebulous or plainly wrong. Speculative theory self-referencing, and as enclosed as
medieval scholasticism will not help poets working in other traditions, but does underline an
earlier question: what is the status, the ontological status, of the critical article?
Purposes of Theory
What does literary criticism hope to achieve? There are many schools of thought, {7} but
all take as their starting point the analysis of the reader's or listener's response. Poems may be
complex, requiring a good deal of explanation or even correction of corrupt scripts, but there has
to be an immediate impact of some sort: not very strong, and not blatantly emotional necessarily,
but something that allows the critic to ask: how is this obtained? how significant is it? how does
it compare with similar works? No impact and there is nothing to analyze. The work has failed,
at least where that particular reader is concerned, and no amount of critical cleverness, literary
allusions and information will bully him into responding to what he cannot feel.
But who is the reader? Each and everyone, as Stanley Fish might claim {8}, or Milton's
"select audience though few"? Poets may not make money but they still have markets to
consider. Whom are they writing for the editors of leading magazines, friends, society at
large, or themselves? And to say something significant about the world around them, to resolve
personal quandaries, to gain a literary reputation with those who count? In an ideal world all
aims might be served by the one work, but the world is not ideal, and aims needed to be sorted
out.
It is the original intention or purpose of writing, that much historical and sociological
analysis attempts to understand. In Shakespeare or Chaucer, and much more so in the poetry of
ancient Greece or China, there are different conventions to appreciate, and many words cannot
be fully translated. {9} The difficulties afflict more than the professional translator or literary
scholar, as modern poetry very much uses recherch imagery and far-flung allusion. A simple
word like "faith" would be very differently appreciated in the church-going communities of
small-town America and the Nietzsche-reading intelligentsia of London's Hampstead. The
meaning, the literal meaning of the poem, might be the same but not the insights that gave the
poem its real subject matter.
With conventions come the expectations of the audience. Sidney wrote for the great
country house, Shakespeare for the public stage; Middleton for the City. Their work is different
in rhetoric, diction and imagery, and had to be. Social distinctions may be much less marked
today, but the intellectual traditions continue. Poets are very choosy about their venues. Writers
who live in California will keep a Manhattan address. {10} Poems that work well on the page will
not necessarily rise to a public performance. All this is obvious, what professional prose writers
think about before accepting a commission, {11} but is commonly overlooked by the beginning
poet.
4. How to Use It?
Suggestions:
1. Start with the literary criticism of poems you know and love. You will be more engaged by the
arguments and start to understand how criticism can open unsuspected levels of meaning and
significance.
2. Read literary criticism of contemporary work and, if at all possible, of poems similar to your
own, which will at least help you anticipate the reception likely from editors and workshop
presentations.
3. Research has moved from literary criticism to literary theory, which is not written for ready
comprehension. Nonetheless, you will need to know where critics are coming from, and
therefore the theoretical bases of their remarks.
4. Don't despise the elementary grounding provided by schoolbooks. University texts have much
to do with academic reputations and tenure, but those for younger students aim more to help and
encourage.
5. Be severe but not over-severe with your creations. You enjoyed writing them, and that
pleasure must still be on the page to enthuse, challenge and enchant your readers. The merely
correct has little to commend it.
6. Use a checklist. For example:
Title appropriate to subject, tone and genre? Does it generate interest, and hint at what your
poem's about?
Subject what's the basic situation? Who is talking, and under what circumstances? Try writing
a paraphrase to identify any gaps or confusions.
Shape what are you appealing to: intellect or emotions of the reader? What structure(s) have
you used progressions, comparisons, analogies, bald assertions, etc.? Are these aspects
satisfyingly integrated? Does structure support content?
Tone what's your attitude to the subject? Is it appropriate to content and audience: assured,
flexible, sensitive, etc.?
Word choice appropriate and uncontrived, economical, varied and energizing? Do you
understand each word properly, its common uses and associations? See if listing the verbs truly
pushes the poem along. Are words repeated? Do they set mood, emotional rapport, distance?
Personification striking but persuasive, adds to unity and power?
Metaphor and simile fresh and convincing, combining on many levels?
Rhythm and metre natural, inevitable, integrate poem's structure?
Rhyme (if employed) fresh, pleasurable, unassuming but supportive?
Overall impression original, honest, coherent, expressive, significant?
Reference:
http://www.textetc.com/criticism.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18167893/Types-of-Literary-Criticism
http://literarybible.blogspot.com/2009/06/basic-types-of-literary-criticism.html
http://literarybible.blogspot.com/search/label/literary%20theory
http://www.ipl.org/div/pf/entry/48496