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.