Cleanth Brooks writes in his essay “The Formalist Critics” from 1951 about criticism that formalist critics encounter and tries to show these arguments from his point of view and even indicates common ground with other literary critics. Cleanth Brooks argues that we lose the intrinsically obvious points of works of literature if we view the work through the different lenses of literary theory, however we are always viewing the literary work through a subjective lens, since the author and the critic cannot subjectively separate themselves from themselves and in making these points he contradicts himself.
Cleanth Brooks starts his essay by listing “articles of faith I could subscribe to” (Brooks 19) and pointing out statements about literary criticism that might go with a formalist criticism. Yet he questions that list in its end, and seems to slate that his writings have been largely misunderstood. What his statements have to do with faith in connection with literature is up to the reader, since in one of his articles he specifically mentions, “literature is not a surrogate for religion” (Brooks 19). He seems to contradict himself on purpose to keep his central thesis hard to reach. In evaluating some of his “faith articles”, the reader can have a critical examination of his critique of his formalist criticism.
His first statement is that “Literary criticism is a description and evaluation of its object” (Brooks 19). The literary critic reports on the work that he is criticizing and picks out the meaning that he deems important, which might be different from what the next critic would pick out. To describe the work it is therefore already a subjective exercise, such as in Doctor Faustus, in the A-version of the text, some people ...
... middle of paper ...
...ot say that the knowledge of the meaning is basic, nor conclude that people that come to other conclusions than he did “misread” the text, which seems a rather harsh criticism of his fellow critics.
Brooks attempts to disprove the formalist critics and makes good points among the way in anticipating and devaluing their criticisms. Yet, he fails to prove that formalist criticism should be the only way in approaching literature, especially when contradicting himself.
Works Cited
Brooks, Cleanth “The Formalist Critics.” Critical Theory: A Reader for Literary and Cultural Studies. Parker, Robert Dale. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012 .19-24. Print.
Kenny, Anthony. Aristotle Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Parker, Robert Dale. Critical Theory: A Reader for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012 . Print.
basic charge of this criticism can be stated in the words of a recent critic,
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2011. Print.
164-69. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 341. Detroit: Gale, 2013.Artemis Literary Sources. Web. 5 May 2014.
Schoenberg, T. J. (2001). Bradford, William - Introduction. "Literary Criticiem (1400-1800). Retrieved March 2011, from enotes.com/literacy-criticism: www.enotes.com/literary-criticism/bradford-williams
Joseph, Mary. "The Turn of the Screw: Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism (review)." Project Muse . Volume 18.Number 1 (1997): n. page. Print.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2003
23. Carolyn Riley and Barbara Harte, eds., Contemporary Literary Criticism: Excerpts from Criticism of the Works of Today's Novelists, Poets, Playwrights and Other Creative Writers, vol. 1 (Detroit: Book Tower, 1973- ) 20.
New Criticism attracts many readers to its methodologies by enticing them with clearly laid out steps to follow in order to criticize any work of literature. It dismisses the use of all outside sources, asserting that the only way to truly analyze a poem efficiently is to focus purely on the words in the poem. For this interpretation I followed all the steps necessary in order to properly analyze the poem. I came to a consensus on both the tension, and the resolving of it.
Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, and John R. Willingham. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 125-156.
Guerin, Wilfred L., et.al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
The notion of the author has often been disputed when it comes to critical literary studies. The argument centers around one basic question: Should the author be considered when looking at a text? There are numerous reasons given as to why the author is important or why the ...
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2011. Print.
Tucker, Martin. Moulton’s Library of Literary Criticism. Volume 4. Frederick Ungar Publishing Company. New York. 1967.
Tyson, Lois. "Marxist Criticism." Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. New York: Garland Pub., 1999. 52-64. Print.
Literature is an intricate art form. In order to attempt to understand the meanings and ideas within literary work, there are many forms of criticism that propose different approaches to its interpretation. Each criticism is crucial to the understanding of how individuals interpret literary works. Since each criticism has a different approach to enrich the understanding literary works, the question is raised whether one criticism should be used over others, whether a certain combination of criticisms should be used, or whether all criticisms should be taken into account. This may all be dependent on the reader’s individual preference or opinion, but each criticism presented builds on the others to create a well-rounded and unique understanding