Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Matthew Arnold is the function of criticism
what are the literary contribution of Alexander Pope
Literary Analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Matthew Arnold is the function of criticism
Literary criticism is a hard study to grasp because of the numerous explanations that must make sense for the critic’s view to be comprehensible to readers. Understanding the role of the critic is vital. The critic is second most important aspect, next to the author and the work itself. In this course, we have read many critics, that all have valid points. The critic’s prospective is the second most important element of literary criticism, next to the author and the work itself. In this course, we have read many critics’ opinions who all have valid points. The critics are what make the works understandable sometimes. Most, if not all, of the critics have particularly interesting ideas on the purpose of the critic. The materials in this course give the reader many things to ponder, concerning the role of the critic. In class, we discoursed how nothing is original, and one must agree with that statement; however, the critic’s opinion is valid in the sense that it is told from a different angle or perspective. This reader feels that the critics can be harsh in some cases, but the harshness may be necessary. The purpose of the critic is not always viewed as black and white; but may be gray by nature. The uneasiness about the critic is so complex that it forces the readers to rely on other critics’ profound knowledge of the material. Literary scholars Matthew Arnold and Alexander Pope both have differing views concerning the necessity of the critic, his role, and his power that he wields over the work/text. While Pope and Arnold are excellent critics, they each bring something different to the playing field. Arnold brings the idea of disinterestedness and Pope outlines the true characteristics of a “good” critic.
Although, both crit...
... middle of paper ...
... by nature, but Arnold and Pope present their readers with knowledge that make the concept of the critic more understandable. Each critic leaves an indelible mark in the reader’s mind. Matthew Arnold’s mark is the concept of disinterestedness and Alexander Pope’s is the idea of a “good” critic. One must contend that without such scholars as, Arnold and Pope, literary criticism would remain a mystery to readers. Arnold and Pope make the uneasiness about the critic dissipate enormously.
Works Cited
Arnold, Matthew. "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. 2nd. ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. 695-714. Print.
Pope, Alexander. "From An Essay On Criticism." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. 2nd. ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. 349-362. Print.
Criticism, Vol. 55. Ed. Denise Kasinec and Mary L. Onorato. Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1997.
Votteler, Thomas. Contemporary Literary Criticism Vol. 75, edited by Thomas Votteler, Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1993, p. 334-335.
Heberle, Mark. "Contemporary Literary Criticism." O'Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. Vol. 74. New York, 2001. 312.
...terary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 194. Detroit: Gale, 2005. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
basic charge of this criticism can be stated in the words of a recent critic,
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
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.
Bayley, John. Contemporary Literary Criticism. Vol. 76. N.p.: Gale, 1992. 322-31. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice, 2003.
W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley are two of the most famous New Critical theorists. Their essay, “The Intentional Fallacy” impacted and further developed the study of New Criticism. It even has a profound impact on the way scholars practice criticism now. “The Intentional Fallacy” exposes the various “fallacious” or mistaken approaches to the interpretation of literature. It is false to believe that literature follows through with what the assumed purpose is from the author himself. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that there are a whole variety of meanings of which the author might even be unaware of or never intended to be. If the audience can produce textual evidence, that meaning is valid. Meaning is found within the text itself and not within the intentions of the author. If the reader focuses on the intentions of the author, that is a fallacy or a mistaken approach to the
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.
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 ...
Literary criticism is used as a guideline to help analyze, deconstruct, interpret, or even evaluate literary works. Each type of criticism offers its own methods that help the reader to delve deeper into the text, revealing all of its innermost features. New Criticism portrays how a work is unified, Reader-Response Criticism establishes how the reader reacts to a work, Deconstructive Criticism demonstrates how a work falls apart, Historical Criticism illustrates how the history of the author and the author’s time period influence a text, and last of all, Psychological Criticism expresses how unconscious motivations drive the author in the creation of their work as well as how the reader’s motivations influence their own interpretation of the text (Lynn 139, 191). This creates a deep level of understanding of literature that simply cannot be gained through surface level reading. If not one criticism is beneficial to the reader, then taking all criticisms or a mixture of specific criticisms into consideration might be the best way to approach literary
The first thing to start with is the title. In order to understand Arnold’s essay we should first understand the title of the essay. As we notice that Matthew Arnold associates criticism with one function not many functions, but which function? He also mentions that this function of criticism is limited within a specific and particular time which is the present time and the past or the future time. Therefore, answering the questions of function and time of criticism goes with analyzing Matthew Arnold‘s essay through my reading of his essay. It becomes clear that Arnold defends the importance of criticism. That’s to say he tries to display that the critical mind is of a paramount importance as well as the creative mind.