Our Bedford Glossary of Literary Terms has a lengthy definition of New Criticism; one that is too involved and detailed to be listed here, so I’ll just list the highlights. New critics view a work of literary art as a “self-contained, self-referential object”; that is, nothing other than the work itself is needed in order to understand the text. The understanding of how rhythm, structure, irony, paradox, images, symbols, repetition, and other literary devices work in the text helps to define how the text is working and no outside sources, such as historical context or author biography, are needed.
While a reading of Charlotte Temple such as this could be done, I think it would be ineffective. If the point of an essay is not to criticize the worth of a particular text but to analyze that text in order to find some deeper meaning or understanding, than the New Critic approach, I feel, would lead to a limited analysis and would end up sounding more like a defense of the author and her choices.
One could probably take the New Critic approach and argue about Rowson’s narrative intrusions. However, I see that type of essay inevitably digressing into defending whether or not the intrusion of the narrator–her direct address of the reader–works. The New Historicism approach–taking the same topic–could provide a more objective essay, detailing why Rowson may have felt the need to take such an approach, thus leaving out any subjective critique.
My original concern was about how to address our upcoming essay, and not the broader idea regarding types of literary critiques. I only pointed out “defects in Rowson’s text” if one assumes a particular type of literary critique holds more value than another. If New Critisim is seen as a more intellectual or literary way of viewing a particular work, and I were to say that type of critisim cannot be applied to Charlotte Temple, than one might assume if a=b than Charlotte Temple must be inferior to, for our argument, Shakespear’s The Tempest.
However, that is not what I meant. I have been told many times, by many professors that whether or not I “like” something or think that something “works” or not is irrelevant. They want a well articulated reading of a text carried throughout a well formulated, grammatically correct essay. My concern about using the New Criticism approach hinged on whether or not I could avoid saying that something “worked” or “did not work.”
With the New Criticism approach, I think that is a pitfall, whether the opinion is explict or implicit.
First, Drew, I want to make it clear that I would be thrilled to see you write a New Historical take on Charlotte Temple for your midterm paper.
Now, let me address your points one-by-one:
While a [new-critical] reading of Charlotte Temple [. . .] could be done, I think it would be ineffective.
That’s fine. One of the things I’m hoping to teach in this class is that literary works can be approached in a variety of ways. I’m glad to see you thinking about each approach in turn and deciding which ones suit you best.
One could probably take the New Critic[al] approach and argue about Rowson’s narrative intrusions. However, I see that type of essay inevitably digressing into defending whether or not the intrusion of the narrator–her direct address of the reader–works. The New Historicism approach–taking the same topic–could provide a more objective essay, detailing why Rowson may have felt the need to take such an approach, thus leaving out any subjective critique.
I agree with your assessment that a New Critical approach can be very subjective. What’s fascinating is that New Criticism, as a literary approach, conceived of itself as objective. By discussing the formal properties of texts, many of these critics hoped to counter the subjectiveness of earlier criticism, which was dominated by discussions of biography and individual genius.
If New Critisim is seen as a more intellectual or literary way of viewing a particular work
Well, I certainly don’t see New Criticism as being any more or less intellectual than any other type of critical approach to literature. But “literary” — that’s fascinating. I began our class with Terry Eagleton’s essay “What is Literature?” so that we could think about how subjective our notions of literature can be. In fact, I’d say that questions about what makes literature (or literary criticism) literary are exactly what the course is meant to provoke.
[If] I were to say that type of critisim cannot be applied to Charlotte Temple, than one might assume if a=b than Charlotte Temple must be inferior to, for our argument, Shakespear[e]’s The Tempest.
However, that is not what I meant.
In my response to your last post, I tried to point out that I understood that that was not what you meant. I did not think that you were arguing that Charlotte Temple was “inferior” to The Tempest. If I didn’t make that clear in that response, I’d like to make it clear now: I fully understand that you did not intend to pass a value judgment on Charlotte Temple. Like your other professors, I do want a well articulated reading of a text carried throughout a well formulated, grammatically correct essay” — in fact, I think you’ll find that language on the essay assignment!
It’s great to see you working through these issues, and I hope that this response has given you a better understanding of my original comment. If that’s not the case, leave a comment in return, and I’ll try to clear things up.
Comment by Prof. Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 1:13 am