ITTOL - Lecture 6 - The New Criticism and other Western Formalisms
Formalism was the reaction to old-fashioned philology and the "appreciative teaching" that was in vogue at the beginning of the 20th century. The first insisted on the strict meaning of words according to their time and place while the latter indulged in raptures; readings which said little or nothing about the work itself.
The two main proponents of appreciative teaching were Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch ("Q"), at Cambridge, and William Lyon Phelps at Yale.
In contrast to their effusive methods, the New Critics of the '30's and '40's, wanted to establish a scientific basis for literary criticism; they were looking to establish a set of principles that would allow a systematic "and less effusive" approach.
The New Critic, I.A. Richards, brought with him, to the literature department at Cambridge, a background in Pavlovian psychology; he believed poetry was "capable of saving of us"; of doing what religion had once done. Prof. Fry says his motto could well be "calm of mind, all passion spent". For Richards, it was all about the reader's psychological experience of the text.
William Empson was a student of Richards and former math major; author of Seven Types of Ambiguity which Prof Fry calls "one of the greatest books of criticism in the twentieth century" and he believes Empson is one of the funniest and most enjoyable writers of literary criticism. Empson differed from the appreciative teachers by insisting atmosphere was essentially ambiguity, which was capable of study and analysis. He differs from Richards, and other New Critics, in his belief that literature does not necessarily involve "the reconciliation of conflicting needs". He thought authorial intention was just as interesting as the readers experience; although the evidence he accepted as proof of that intention had a much wider scope than the evidence accepted by the New Critics. According to Fry he is a precursor of Deconstruction; which developed after the New Critics formalism.
Fry called Empson the best close reader the world has seen but says his purpose in close reading was not to achieve the unity the New Critics close reading hoped to achieve. Empson was interested in "local effects"; he focused on parts of the text rather than the whole. Cleanth Brooks, and other New Critics, look for unifying themes within the whole. They consider the text to be autonomous and the reader's experience paramount; however, this approach carries, at least with Brooks, an implicit Episcopalian perspective; reading texts as if they exist in a separate "eternal moment".
The two main proponents of appreciative teaching were Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch ("Q"), at Cambridge, and William Lyon Phelps at Yale.
In contrast to their effusive methods, the New Critics of the '30's and '40's, wanted to establish a scientific basis for literary criticism; they were looking to establish a set of principles that would allow a systematic "and less effusive" approach.
The New Critic, I.A. Richards, brought with him, to the literature department at Cambridge, a background in Pavlovian psychology; he believed poetry was "capable of saving of us"; of doing what religion had once done. Prof. Fry says his motto could well be "calm of mind, all passion spent". For Richards, it was all about the reader's psychological experience of the text.
William Empson was a student of Richards and former math major; author of Seven Types of Ambiguity which Prof Fry calls "one of the greatest books of criticism in the twentieth century" and he believes Empson is one of the funniest and most enjoyable writers of literary criticism. Empson differed from the appreciative teachers by insisting atmosphere was essentially ambiguity, which was capable of study and analysis. He differs from Richards, and other New Critics, in his belief that literature does not necessarily involve "the reconciliation of conflicting needs". He thought authorial intention was just as interesting as the readers experience; although the evidence he accepted as proof of that intention had a much wider scope than the evidence accepted by the New Critics. According to Fry he is a precursor of Deconstruction; which developed after the New Critics formalism.
Fry called Empson the best close reader the world has seen but says his purpose in close reading was not to achieve the unity the New Critics close reading hoped to achieve. Empson was interested in "local effects"; he focused on parts of the text rather than the whole. Cleanth Brooks, and other New Critics, look for unifying themes within the whole. They consider the text to be autonomous and the reader's experience paramount; however, this approach carries, at least with Brooks, an implicit Episcopalian perspective; reading texts as if they exist in a separate "eternal moment".