•

, .0 r

$ 1 /

I ... . .-- . . - . _ '." - -

1

11 • „ -

LITERARY

CRITICISM

An Introduction to Theory and

Practice

FIFTH COITION

If you're wondering why you should buy the 5‘4 edition of Literary Criticism, here are four great reasons!

o New professional essays represent a

seminal work within select literary schools.

A separate appendix contains essays that

provide professional examples including

works by Cleanth Brooks and Jacque

Derrida that provide insight to the school

being studied.

New section on Ecocriticism: The new

edition includes a chapter centered on the

0

0

emerging field of ecocriticism to reflect

the latest scholarship in literary criticism

New Chapters: Entire chapters have

been dedicated to: Postcolonial literatm,

Queer Theory, and African American

Criticism to give each of these important

schools adequate coverage.

Consistent Literary Model: All schools of criticism are applied to a common

selection-'Young Goodman Brown' to

show how one work can be interpreted C

many different ways.

Charles E. Bressler Indiana Wesleyan University

Longman Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York Sari Francisco

Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo

Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

PURIM

If you’re wondering why you should buy the 5"' edition of Literary Criticism, here are four great reasons!

o New p ro fe ssio n a l e ssays represent a

sem inal w ork w ithin select literary schools.

A separate append ix conta ins essays that

provide professional exam ples including

w o rks b y C leanth B rooks and Jacque

Derrida that p rovide insight to the school

b e ing studied.

© New section on Ecocriticism : The new

edition includes a chapter centered on the

em erging field of ecocriticism to reflect

the latest scholarship in literary criticise

© New Chapters: Entire chapters have

been dedicated to: Postcolonial Literati

Queer Theory, and African American

Criticism to give each of these importat

schools adequate coverage.

© Consistent Literary Model: All school!

of criticism are applied to a common

selection- "Young Goodman Brown" to

show how one work can be interpreted

many different ways.

l i t e r a r yC R I T I C I S M

An Introduction to Theory and Practice

Charles E. BresslerIndiana Wesleyan University

L o n g m a nBoston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Fran cisco

Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai Lond on M adrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi M exico C ity S ao P au lo

Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Seniin' ACtitii.4iti011iS

Editor: 'Vivian (...11..-1.1

Strailketing Mailag•pr lovce Niben t ditoii.if Av.siNtant: I leather Voniero noduction "'tanager: Frail Rusm.110 rtvieo covirtiirotion, le1P8sig, and Electronic

►Page Makeup: M.)11110(21. cmii..11,

prior

Cover Design MallAger. 1.1.y Ile

Conte

)c / Apt,,,,..,, ,ir ''

Cover Vesiwir. V.rucei'44211013.1r Cover 111usirationirhoto: Fotolia: Reflecting white fo..ather (

17 at t, alin

rrinter and tiirider. RR Donnelley SE Sons, Inc.

without the )1' b' Copyright © 201, 2007, 2003 by rearson Education, Inc. Aii rights reserved.

No part of a —

publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form , '

Is v

any

eans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

otherwise,

written permissiontlf the publisher.

Printed in the United State...J.

Catalogue in

Publication data available from the Library of Congress

5 6 7 8 9 10--DOH-15 14 13

Longman is an imprint of

www.pearsonhlghered.com

TNl -13: 978-0-205-21214-9 IS 3N-13:

ISI3N-10: 0-205-21214-X

, , , n c c l i„ 8 wWU- .....

ss & ______________________rinter and » » ^ -------- ------ - rj^hts reServed. No part of this__ _ — — ------T T lIo n Education, Inc- transmitted, in any form or by

- - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . o r e d in a ^ t o r d t n g , or o.herwise, w„h„u, .he pn.„

'?°bl ^ ^ . h e U h r a r r u r C o u ^j . f i a v a u ^ ie i

- « • - - t i A l l

Makeup: ...........* r » * / W <

1 . r t i l

5 6 7 8 9 1()—DOH—15 14 13

Longmanis an imprint of

www.pearsonhighered.com

205-2 21 - „ e 01214-

CONTENTS

Foreword xi To the Reader xiii

1 Defining Criticism, Theory, and Literature 1 Listening to a Conversation 1 Eavesdropping on a Literature Classroom 2 Can a Text Have More Than One Interpretation? 4 How to Become a Literary Critic 5 What Is Literary Criticism? 6 What Is Literary Theory? 7 Making Meaning from Text 9 The Reading Process and Literary Theory 10 What Is Literature? 12 Literary Theory and the Definition of Literature 14 The Function of Literature and Literary Theory 15 Beginning the Formal Study of Literary Theory 17

2 A Historical Survey of Literary Criticism 19 Introduction 19 Plato (c. 427-347 BCE) 20 Aristotle (384-322 BCE) 22 Horace (65-8 BCE) 24 Longinus (First Century CE) 25 Plotinus (204-270 CE) 26 Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) 27 Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) 28 Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) 29 John Dryden (1631-1700) 30 Joseph Addison (1672-1719) 32 Alexander Pope (1688-1744) 33 William Wordsworth (1770-1850) 34 Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) 37 lippolyte Adolphe Taine (1828-1893) 38

Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) 40 I fenry PIT'S (1843-1916) 42 Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) 44 Modern Literary Criticism 46

Co n t e n t s

Foreword xi To the Reader xiii

\ Defining Criticism, Theory, and Literature 1Listening to a Conversation 1Eavesdropping on a Literature Classroom 2Can a Text Have More Than One Interpretation? 4How to Become a Literary Critic 5What Is Literary Criticism? 6What Is Literary Theory? 7Making Meaning from Text 9The Reading Process and Literary Theory 10What Is Literature? 12Literary Theory and the Definition of Literature 14 The Function of Literature and Literary Theory 15 Beginning the Formal Study of Literary Theory 17

2 A Historical Survey of Literary Criticism 19Introduction 19 Plato (c. 427-347 BCE) 20 Aristotle (384-322 BCE) 22 Horace (65-8 BCE) 24 Longinus (First Century CE) 25Plotinus (204-270 CE) 26 Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) 27Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) 28Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) 29John Dryden (1631-1700) 30Joseph Addison (1672-1719) 32Alexander Pope (1688-1744) 33William Wordsworth (1770-1850) 34Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) 37Hippolyte Adolphe Taine (1828—1893) 38Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) 40Henry James (1843-1916) 42Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) 44Modern Literary Criticism 40

V

vi Contents

Russian Formalism and New Criticism 48 Introduction

Russian Formalism 48

Bridging the Gap between Russian Formalism and Applying Russian Formalism to a Literary Text

New Criticism 52

Historical Development 54

Assumptions 56 Methodology 60 Questions for Analysis 63

Critiques and Responses 63

4 Reader-oriented Criticism 65

Introduction 65 Historical Development 69

1. A. Richards 70

Louise M. Rosenblatt 72

Assumptions 73 Methodology 75

Structuralism 76 GERALD PRINCE 76

Phenomenology 77 HANS ROBERT MUSS 78

WOLFGANG ISER 78

Subjective Criticism 80 NORMAN HOLLAND 80

DAVID BLEICH 80

A Two-step Methodology 81 Questions for Analysis 82 Critiques and Responses 83

5 Modernity/Postmodernism: Structuralism/ Poststructuralism: Deconstruction 85 Modernity 85 Poststructuralism or Postmodernism 88 Modernity to Modernism 90 Structuralism: Its Historical Development 91

91 Pre-Saussurean Linguistics Saussure's Linguistic Revolution 92

93 The Structure of Language Langue and Parole 96 Saussure's Redefinition of a Word

Assumptions of Structuralism 96

Methodologies of Structuralism 98 Claude Levi-Strauss

100 Roland Barthes

101100

48

New Cri 51

5]

VI Contents

, Russian Formalism and New Criticism <IntroductionRussinn Formalism 48B duintf the Gap between Russian Formalism and New Applying Russian Formalism to a Literary Text 51New Criticism 52 Historical Development 54Assumptions 56Methodology 60Questions for Analysis 63 Critiques and Responses 63

4 Reader-oriented Criticism 65Introduction 65Historical Development

7. A. Richards 70Louise M. Rosenblatt 72

Assumptions 73Methodology 75

Structuralism 76Gerald Prince 76

Phenomenology 77H ans Robert Jauss 78W olfgang Iser 78

Subjective Criticism 80N orman H olland 80 David Bleich 80

A Two-step Methodology 81Questions for Analysis 82Critiques and Responses 83

69

5 Modemity/Postmodernism: Structuralism/ Poststructuralism: Deconstruction 85Modernity 85Poststructuralism or Postm odernism 88 Modernity to M odernism 90 Structuralism: Its Historical D evelopm ent 91

Pre-Saussurean Linguistics 91 Saussure's Linguistic Revolution 92The Structure o f Language 93Langue and Parole 96

96 98

100

s Redefinition of Assumptions of Structu

Mr/h0? 0lw8ies of S ^uct C/awrfe Levi-Strauss pRoland Barthes 101

gaikhtin Circle. By 1924, the group had moved to Leningrad. Here Bakhtin

struggled financially as his illness (osteomyelitis in his leg) and his lack of proper political credentials prevented him from finding work. In 1929 h

e

was arrested for supposedly participating in the underground Russian Orthodox Church. Sentenced to exile isi Siberia for ten years, he appealed his

sentence

because of his weakening physical condition and was then sen-

tenced to six years of internal exile in Kazakhstan. Throughout the 19305, Bakhtin worked

as Saransk,

a bookkeeper th oeftenn as to a

teacher at Mordovia State Teachers College in moving

escape further imprisonment during various political purges. In 1938 his os

tromyelitis advanced, causing his, right leg to he amputated. Although he was plagued with pain for the rest of his life, his scholarly work dramatically

improved after the amputation. In 16:46

he successfully defended Iii dor-

trral dissertation on Rabelais and his world. And from the late 1940s until

his retirement in 1961, Bakhtin taught at me Mordov l'edagogical Institute, how the University of Saransk. In the latter part of the 195Cla, Russian acade-

mics and scholars were once again interested in his work and were more

than surprised to discover that he was still alive. Producing a new edition or %is 1929 study of Dostoevsky along with additional works on Rabelais

and the Renaissance culture, Bakhtin quickly became the "poster scholar for Russian scholarship. After his death in 1075, a variety of his manuslirs became available, few being edited by the author himself. By the l9K

5

and '90s, Bakhtin was regarded as one of the most profound scholarsoi 0

twentieth century.on,

pvrrAd

His most renowned academic writings include his first work,— 1 •

Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929, 2nd ed., 1963); his doctoral clsertati ez''''

m Coe."

, • A Historical fwurvey of Literary Criticism

goKTIN 05-1979

slikliAll

ferhar5"- ,,,,uday rary m. than any obit

Ills )dern_day literary theorist, Mikhail BaartIchisti a

theory because Bakhtin himself repres rt:in

d intecests. Bakhtin has been dubbeed-s

di9cigles anher, a Writer, a semiotician, .-- a

literary historian, an ethicist, and a t. -

e,i‘enTillicsSeinic

iirselli t' - h : 'Maraxirstilciir°itsicC,Pa • stonan, ._ i ver.e aCa cul.

Forrolig CrhC• A ' • on tle

is one of the most original thinkers of the

ritthout quo° `

tu:1,2111'.c-c'elInvtuBrY

akhtin received little attention during his lifetime,weixtcheonutt

ironica . idnes°re

sa before moving to Petrograd to study

family Russia, to a middle-class

Perhaps urae his plaitenrvyirnairuss. aBnodrno

5akbun g- w up

in of St Petersburg in 1913. Leaving the university

ii lie

univ-. dies, he then moved first to Nevel then to Vitebsk, where

ences of the Russian

he his S.a-htij It ,acher At Vitebsk, he was surrounded

by a ero

Lritellectua6 who addressed the social and cultural influ " -

peat

he WOW,. as a ,--00 €

Recolunon ansi its rule under Joseph Stalin. Today this group of scholars, la

eluding Ba

kfitin, P. N. Medvedev, and V N. Voloshinov, is known as the

Chapter 2 • A Historical Survey of Literary Criticism 45

aia' His World, that was successfully defended in 1946 but not published

until 1968; and The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (edited,

translated, and published in 1981). Since Bakhtin's death in 1975, many other speaches and essays have been translated and published, but the core of his

ifnrastic and literary theories can be discovered in the earlier works. Central to Bakhtin's critical theory is the concept of the dialogic.

According to Bakhtin, all language is a dialogue in which a speaker and a listener form a relationship. Language is always the product of at least two people in a dialogue, not a monologue. And it is language that defines us as individuals. Our personal consciousness consists of the inner con-

versations we have only in our heads, conversations with a variety of

voices that are significant for us. Each of these voices can respond in new and exciting ways, developing who we are and continually helping shape

who we become. In one very real sense, no individual can ever be

completely understood or fully known. That any person always has the

capability to change or never fully be known in this world Bakhtin labels

unfinalizability. Because Bakhtin posits that all language is a dialogue, not monologic, he

employs the term heteroglossia (a translation of the Russian word raznorecie, meaning "other or different tongues" or "multilanguagedness") to demon-strate the multiplicity of languages that operate in any given culture. Bakhtin thus expands the traditional definition of the word language from being defined only as the spoken tongue of a given, cultural people. tor Bakhtin, all forms of social speech that people use in their daily activities constitute heteroglossia. Professors speak one way while lecturing to their

classes, another to their spouses, another to their friends, another to the clerk at the store, another to the server at a restaurant, and another to the police of-

ficer who gives the professor a speeding ticket. Each individual speech act is a dialogic utterance that is oriented toward a particular listener or audience, demonstrating the relationship that exists between the speaker and listener.

In his essay "Discourse in the Novel" (1935), Bakhtin applies his ideas

directly to the novel. le believes that the novel is characterized by dialogized heteroglossia. Within the novel, multiple world views and a va-riety of experiences are continually dialoguing with each other, resulting in multiple interactions, some of which are real and others of which are imag-ined.

Although the characters' u tterancesa re indeed important, it is

ati o sf

commenting narrator's dialogic utterances, khtin asserts, that are the mostB.3 the

important. For through these utterances, diverse voices and interactions and relationships

tefoxrtmpo, speaker nor in the text, kels, t

oaccurrin

calls hybridization.

a complex unity, Whatever meaning the lan- guage

sZasb

tin'g says Bakhtin, resides not in the intention of the

sornewhere between the speaker or writer, or

g, for even within reader

Such dialogized heteroglossia is conti all ehveen the listener or re

nu y process Bakhtin

a single utterance, two different languages clash,

.,1 sur y . i . A H's'°r a

ofUte Critie>sm

daV literary theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin modem-aay _ „ lliP Bakhtin himself represent.

ll... rary nisw* *«***/-------------- - *“*'*

3 ne of the most original thinkers of the ie is ont:

-.ther , because ............... ^pieseivir,thon^y°' rary 'he° r^ L t s . Bakhtin has been dubbed

rhaps"1. p ^ n t-J^ ' peS and m‘e * iteI. a semiotician, an artist^ pW£adf,nic dlSa ph'los0ptlfterarv historian, an ethicist, and a c ''er>e 1 historian' F foe, a llte \ ,u„ mnst original thinkers nf i guisb a * ; a Marxist cn

. B,1’ ,r years. Bo' " ' Pssa before moving to Petrograd to study haps m nis ‘ yilnius and uoe Leaving the university withoutditin grew «P f st Petersburg m ^ Nevel then to Vitebsk, where:he UrUVte studies, he ‘hen, ^ L bsk, he was surrounded by a group of np^hng*' h00iteachet At V ■ !tural influences of the Russian worked,fwho addressed the s o c i a l ^ Today tWs group of scholars, in. ellectua rule under Josep v N Voloshinov, is known as the

Takhhn, F N- Medvedev and U ningrad . Here BakhtinLMin Circle. By 1924,th e f ° “P(p‘ teomyelitis in his leg) and his lackol J J e d financially as ^g'prevented him from finding work. In 1929 heoper political credentials pre _i t .ns -n the underground Russianas arrested for supposedly P Psiberia for ten years, he appealed hisrth„dox Church.S.-ntenceakeninR physical condition and was then sen-

S s U ^ o f t ^ a i e x U e m ^ - bookkceper then as a Throughout the 1930s, Bak c in Saransk, moving often to

■acher at Mordovia State e varioUs political purges. In 1938his»icape further imprisonment R , to be amputated. Although he■omyelitis advanced, causing ■ R f 8 his scholarly work dramatically ;as plagued with pain for the ms of halite, tas defended h s doenproved after the amputation. In And from the late 1940s w®aral dissertation on Rabelais and hi ' ordov Pedagogical lnsti^lis retirement in 1961, Bakhtin taught at me Russian acadel o w ! University of Saransk. In the latter part of the W5 ^ ^ nics and scholars were once again mtere producin!, a new edition han surprised to discover that he was stlU aU . , jtlonal works on Ra*!. nis 1929 study of Dostoevsky along with the "poster schand the Renaissance culture, Bakhtin qui<*jy 0f his mam* Pfor Russian scholarship. After his death m l , h*^self. Bv the became available, few being edited by the au found scholarsand '90s, Bakhtin was regarded as one of the most ptwentieth century. , bis first work, Uais

His most renowned academic writings inc u e j-ssertation' 1 Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929, 2nd ed., 1963); his doctora

a a

a cul-

, ,.Hte attention during his lifetime, except mtiethcen,u7. htin received htt Russia, 10 a m,ddle-class famiW,' ironically Bax Rnrn m D _______ ,,lr ,y in Peirnarad

Chapter 2 • A Historical Survey of Literary Criticism 45

, i_ijs vjorld, that was successfully defended in 1946 but not published a" .. w 68‘ and The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (edited,

uteraly_______ __““luitui Unt's|ated, and published in 1981). Since Bakhtin's death in 1975, many other,dern-day Bakhtin himself represent tran* bes and essays have been translated and published, but the core of histheory tc Bakhtin has been dubbed! sPe* istic and literary theories can be discovered in the earlier works.

'^ C e n tra l to Bakhtin's critical theory is the concept of the dialogic.rding to Bakhtin, all language is a dialogue in which a speaker and a

ACC° e r form a relationship. Language is always the product of at least llsteneople in a dialogue, not a monologue. And it is language that defines tW° P individuals. Our personal consciousness consists of the inner con- us as . we have only in our heads, conversations with a variety of VefSa that are significant for us. Each of these voices can respond in new V°dexciting ways, developing who we are and continually helping shape an we become. In one very real sense, no individual can ever be " mpletely understood or fully known. That any person always has the C°pabiiity to change or never fully be known in this world Bakhtin labelsunfinalizability. . ,

Because Bakhtin posits that all language is a dialogue, not monologic, he , the term heteroglossia (a translation of the Russian word raznorecie,

Waning "other or different tongues" or "multiianguagedness") to demon­strate the multiplicity of languages that operate in any given culture. Bakhtin thus expands the traditional definition of the word language from being defined only as the spoken tongue of a given, cultural people. For Bakhtin, all forms of social speech that people use in their daily activities constitute heteroglossia. Professors speak one way while lecturing to their classes, another to their spouses, another to their friends, another to the clerk at the store, another to the server at a restaurant, and another to the police of­ficer who gives the professor a speeding ticket. Each individual speech act is a dialogic utterance that is oriented toward a particular listener or audience, demonstrating the relationship that exists between the speaker and listener.

In his essay "Discourse in the Novel" (1935), Bakhtin applies his ideas directly to the novel. He believes that the novel is characterized by dialogued heteroglossia. Within the novel, multiple world views and a va­riety of experiences are continually dialoguing with each other, resulting in rnulnple imeractions, some of which are real and others of which are imag- comment ° Uf’ 1 6 cBaracters utterances are indeed important, it is the important FoTthm^ h utterances, Bakhtin asserts, that are the mostrelationships form m t . eSe utterances- Averse voices and interactions andsvageof the text posses^e^savs^khP Unity, W hatever meanmg the lan- speaker nor in the text K V Y BaPhtm' res‘des not in the intention of the between the listene^or r e a l T f " , betWeen the SPeaker or writer, or occurring, for even withjnt . uch dialogized heteroglossia is continually

Process Bakhtin calls hybridization ‘W° different languages clash,

Chapter 2 • A I listorical Survey of Literary Criticism 47

•

chow 2 • A I listorical Survey of literary Criticism novels, especially those written b

&Otto nnaintrshttohlt. I'4ntffiln(einpolyphonic novels, the author know):

h.:ituis'eshibited in the ork. In a polyphonic novel,

writer

the d'.

Dostoevsky, arehpo-YVvet whtte wraing the novel's beginning. Theel,

tiK

the ending (4 t-e n('

s' actions and choices, and the author also k

re. In this kind of novel, the author's understan

knows all the characutetru.

no overall oudined struct ON or resorbed outcome, nor is the text a wroe Is

the work's entire

ing out of the author's , , h an

d

-,ic, n truth of worldview or

understanding of truth 1.,_e

rk..

no of troth 14 W

I IS an active crtatiiin in 1

on. .o__nesses of the

then, p nove

- - mi-

ho the readers, and the characters, allo

wing o genuine surprises for all

tconcerned. All participants —author, reader,

characters—interact as

equals in creating the novel's "truth," for truth requires a plurality of

C0115C tor Bakhtin, the polyphonic nature of the novel implies that there

are

1i1Usnetitieti.

!flatly

truths, not just one. Each character speaks and thinks his or her own truth. Although one truth may be preterred to others by a character, a reader,

Of

the author, no truth is particularly certain. Readers watch as one character

influences another, and featiers listen to the multitude of voices heard Ix

each character as these vo4o.”. Ishare those who hear,. them. What develops,

says Bakhtin, is a carnival istic atmosphere, a sense of joyful relativity. Teas

sense c it carnival is one ot liakhtin's most significant contributions to literary theory and helps describe the novel's polyphonic style, especially the novels

of Dostoevsky. Polyphonic novels, asserts Bakhtin, have a carnival sense of

the world, a sense of joyful abandonment where many voices are simultane

-

ously heard and directly influence their hearers. Each participant tests both

the ideas and the lives of other participants, creating a somewhat seriocomic

Bakhtin's interest in language, culture, literature, religion, and politirsen env ironment•

compasses much of contemporary literary theory and criticism. His ideas

have become starting points for conversations and dialogues among compet-

ing and often conflicting voices in various contemporary cultural theories.

diversified, with no one voice speaking ex cathedra or no one theory tena- ciously held by all. At the end of the nineteenth century, most critics empha- sized either a biographical or a historical approach to texts. Using Taine's

historical interests in a text and Henry James's newly articulated theory of the novel, many critics investigated a text as if it were the embodiment of its author or a historical artifact. In the years that follow Arnold and James, no single, universally recognized voice dominates literary theory. Instead, many distinctive literary voices give rise to a host of differing and exciting

ways to examine a text. What follows in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is a variety of

schools of criticism, with each school asking legitimate and relevant but dif-ferent questions about a text. Most of these schools abandon the holistic approach to literary study, which investigates, analyzes, and interprets all

elements of the artistic situation in favor of concentrating on one or more specific aspects. For example, modernism (and, in particular, the New Criticism, the first critical movement of the twentieth century) wishes to

break from the past, deemphasizing the cultural and historical influences

that may affect a work of literature. The text, these critics declare, will inter-pret the text. On the other hand, Cultural Poetics, a school of criticism that

first appeared in the 1980s and continues to develop its underlying assump-

tions and methodologies, argues that most critics' historical consciousness

must be reawakened because, in reality, the fictional text and its historical

and cultural milieu are amazingly similar. For these critics, a reader can

never fully discern the truth about a historical or a literary text since truth

itself is perceived differently from one era to another. For those who espouse

the principles of Cultural Poetics, the text-only criticism of the early and

mid-twentieth century appears biased and incomplete.

In the remaining chapters of this book, we will examine the most promi-

nent schools of twentieth- and twenty-first-century interpretation. For each

of These diverse schools, we will note the tenets of the philosophy underly-

ing their literary theory. Most, if not all, have borrowed ideas, principles, and concerns from the literary critics and theories already discussed. We will ex-amine closely what they borrow from these past schools of criticism, what theym aemdeanbdou, t terry anlidwahatconcepts they add. We will also note each school's

i historical development, ts working assumptions, its particular vocabulary,

and its methodology for interpreting texts. By so doing, we will become M-

ei a text. theorists and critics who articulate clearly our analyses MODERN LITERARY CRITICISM ,,, deiiii

Matthew Arnold's death in listi8 (and to a lesser degree Henry

Jam - me

in 1916) marks a transitional pt nod in literary criticism. Like DrY

en'A to;

and Wordsworth before him, Arnold was the recognized authority art'..adiki

ing literary critic of hit; day, and it is his theories and criticisrn that

.enliw-and

the major ideas of his era. With the passing of Arnold, the preaornic veto

anymcvone person or set of ideas representing a broad time period

c .004.

Af ter

emnt ends, although Bakhtin's concerns and voice vie for pr

o oure

Arnold, literary theory and criticism become splinten4

,.AHi***al Survey. » rarv CntK'sm

of Uterafy

•Is, especially those written byChapter iBakhtin maintains that some nove,.,

Dostoevsky, am polyphonic. In nonpolyphonic novels, the auth‘ o f the novel while writing the novel's beginning r ^ W s

‘ ' ‘■■‘ns and choices' a" d the author a[ shoe ^ riter)Vel, the author's understand-

>rk. In a \

Chapter 2 • A Historical Survey of Literary Criticism 47

diversified, with no one voice speaking ex cathedra or no one theory tena­ciously held by all. At the end of the nineteenth century, most critics empha­sized either a biographical or a historical approach to texts. Using Tame's historical interests in a text and Henry James's newly articulated theory of the novel, many critics investigated a text as if it were the embodiment of its

historical artifact. In the years that follow Arnold and James, nothe end'"* 01 haracters' actions aiknows all the c (ure. in this . ln a polyphonic novel, there is author or a .the work's entire hlblted m the w ’ nor is the text a work- sinele, universally recognized voice dom inates literary theory. Instead,............. anding of truth. The truth ol b literarv voices give rise to a host of differing and excitingno overall out , worldview or ur _ -----«,’c r'trviKinPSSPS nf thp an.

1 ° * ,he f novel is an active creation inout i e creiu iv nrters, allowing for genuine surprises for all

der, and characters—interact as for truth requires a plurality of

c nature of the novel implies that there are■ ■ * *•---»____

many distinctive literary voices give ways to examine a text

“ v*the polyphonic nuv*. ... thor, the readers, and the characters,concerned. All participants—author, reader, and characters— equals in creating the novel's "truth," • . . . ,nteractas

nsciousnesses.consciour.. - —For Bakhtin, the polyphonic no.— - - -nv truths not just one. Each character speaks and thinks his or her own

truth Although one truth may be preferred to others by a character, a reader, the author, no truth is particularly certain. Readers watch as one character

•’ r, and traders listen to the multitude of voices heard by these...... .. ‘ ’ - - What develops,

says Bakhtin, is a carnivalistic atmosphere, a sense oi -------- ,■ i.uii„'K most significant contributions to literary'■ •» «avo|c

orinfluences anoint each character as ,h„ . * * ® !»

theory ana neips UWv.---of Dostoevsky. Polyphonic novels, assertsthe world, a sense of joyful abandonment where many voices aiv ouslv heard and directly influence their hearers. Each participant tests both

iii;o«; 0f other participants, creating a ‘

? of Bakhtin's most significant u . . . ._____?l's polyphonic style, especially the novels

Bakhtin, have a carnival sense of voices are simultane-

-----.■ k- — ■the ideas and the lives c ‘ somewhat seriocomic

environment.Bakhtin's interest in language, culture, literature, religion, anu compasses much of contemporary literary theory' and criticism. His ideas

become starting points for conversations and dialogues among compel-1haveing

and often conflicting voices invarious contemporary cu1Itural theories-

m o d e r n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m

•n 1916) marks a tran* m and to a lesser degree Henry James s dea and Wordsworth befnr pcnod 'n literary criticism. Like Dryden, P°P*'ing Itterary critic of a 'm' ^ rno*d w as the recognized authority and tJtbe major ideas of hi< * ^ 's theories arid criticism thatettl j

01 h'S Pra' Wl* the passing of Arnold, the p ^ o m W j J — a b roa d time period or 1 .• ■-wforpro^

What follows in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is a variety of schools of criticism, with each school asking legitimate and relevant but dif­ferent questions about a text. Most of these schools abandon the holistic approach to literary study, which investigates, analyzes, and interprets all elements of the artistic situation in favor of concentrating on one or more specific aspects. For exam ple, m odernism (and, in particular, the New Criticism, the first critical movem ent of the twentieth century) w ishes to break from the past, deemphasizing the cultural and historical influences that may affect a work of literature. The text, these critics declare, will inter­pret the text. On the other hand, Cultural Poetics, a school of criticism that first appeared in the 1980s and continues to develop its underlying assum p­tions and methodologies, argues that m ost critics' historical consciousness must be reawakened because, in reality, the fictional text and its historical and cultural milieu are am azingly similar. For these critics, a read er can never fully discern the truth about a historical or a literary text since truth itself is perceived differently from one era to another. For those w ho espouse the principles of Cultural Poetics, the text-only criticism of the early and mid-twentieth century appears biased and incom plete.

In the remaining chapters of this book, we will exam ine the m ost prom i-

of 1 ,° 1S ° f twf nheth~ and tw enty-first-century interpretation. F o r each ine thSe , 1,VerSe schools' we wiU note the tenets of the philosophy underlv-

^ t e S 1* M ° St' if n0t a" ' have b° rrOWed ’d eas' P ™ ciP 'es. and amine closely w h a fh W thcories already discussed . W e will ex-theY amend, and what m*3™ ? theSe paSt sch ools of criticism , w hat historical development ™ Cept;\they a d d - We will also note each sch ool's and its m J L - w orking assum ptions, its p articu lar vocabulary,___ _ »fcw, «ulW llg cand its methodology for interpreting formed about literary theorists and

1 a text.g texts. By so doing, w e will b ecom e in­critics w ho articulate clearly our analyses

any one person or set of ideas representing a v 0ice vie ° r , alV mrw/ompnl although Bakhtin s concerns a cpUnte^

,0$movement ends, although Bakhtin s w . —- - - ec0tne s1 After Arnold, literary theory and criticism

Chapter 3 • Russian Formalism and New Criticism 49

practitioners such members as Roman Jakobson, Jan Mukarovsky, Peter Hogatyrev, and G. 0. Vinokur. The following year in Petrograd, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ) was formed, including in its membership Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, and Victor Vinogradov. Although the adherents of both groups often disagreed concerning the prin-ciples of literary interpretation, they were united in their rejection of many nineteenth-century assumptions of textual analysis, especially the belief that a work of literature was the expression of the author's worldview and their dismissal of psychological and biographical criticism as being irrelevant to interpretation. These Russian scholars boldly declared the autonomy of literature and poetic language, advocating a scientific approach to literary interpretation. Literature, they believed, should be investigated as its own discipline, not merely as a platform for discussing religious, political, socio-logical, or philosophical ideas. By radically divorcing themselves from previ-ous literary approaches and advocating new principles of hermeneutics, these members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle and of the Society for the Study of Poetic Language are considered the founders of modern literary criticism, establishing what is known as Russian Formalism.

Coined by opponents of the movement to deprecate Russian Formalism's supposedly strict methodological approach to literary interpre-tation, the terms Formalism and Formalist were first rejected by the Russian Formalists themselves, for they believed that their approach to literature was both dynamic and evolutionary, not a "formal" or dogmatic one. Nevertheless, the terms ultimately became the battle cry for the establish-ment of what they dubbed a science of literature.

The first task of the Russian Formalists was to define their new science. Framing their theory on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, the French lin-guist and founder of modern linguistics, the Formalists emphasized the au-tonomous nature of literature. The proper study of literature, they declared, is literature itself. To study literature is to study poetics, which is an analysis of a work's constituent parts—its linguistic and structural features—or its form. Form, they asserted, included the internal mechanics of the work itself, espe-cially its poetic language. It is these internal mechanics or what the Formalists called devices that compose the artfulness and literariness of any given text, not a work's subject matter or content. Each device or compositional feature possesses peculiar properties that can, as in any science, be analyzed. For the Formalists, this new science of literature became an analysis of the literary and artistic devices that the writer manipulates in creating a text.

The Formalists' chief focus of literary analysis was the examination of a text's literariness, the language employed in the actual text. Literary lan-guage, they asserted, is different from everyday language. Unlike everyday speech, literary language foregrounds itself, shouting, "Look at me; I am special; I am unique." Through structure, imagery, syntax, rhyme scheme, paradox and a host of other devices, literary language identifies itself as

practitioners such members ns Roman Jnkobson, Jan Mukarovsky, Peter Bogatyrev, and G. O. Vinokur. The following year in Petrograd, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ) was formed, including in its membership Victor Shklovsky, Boris Hichenbaum, and Victor Vinogradov. Although the adherents of both groups often disagreed concerning the prin­ciples of literary interpretation, they were united in their rejection of many nineteenth-century assumptions of textual analysis, especially the belief that a work of literature was the expression of the author's worldview and their dismissal of psychological and biographical criticism as being irrelevant to interpretation. These Russian scholars boldly declared the autonomy of literature and poetic language, advocating a scientific approach to literary interpretation. Literature, they believed, should be investigated as its own discipline, not merely as a platform for discussing religious, political, socio­logical, or philosophical ideas. By radically divorcing themselves from previ­ous literary approaches and advocating new principles of hermeneutics, these members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle and of the Society for the Study of Poetic Language are considered the founders of modern literary criticism, establishing what is known as Russian Formalism.

Coined by opponents of the movement to deprecate Russian Formalism's supposedly strict methodological approach to literary interpre­tation, the terms Form alism and Form alist were first rejected by the Russian Formalists themselves, for they believed that their approach to literature was both dynamic and evolutionary, not a "formal" or dogmatic one. Nevertheless, the terms ultimately became the battle cry for the establish­ment of what they dubbed a science of literature.

The first task of the Russian Formalists was to define their new science. Framing their theory on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, the French lin­guist and founder of modern linguistics, the Formalists emphasized the au­tonomous nature of literature. The proper study of literature, they declared, is literature itself. To study literature is to study poetics, which is an analysis of a work's constituent parts—its linguistic and structural features—or its form. Form, they asserted, included the internal mechanics of the work itself, espe­cially its poetic language. It is these internal mechanics or what the Formalists called devices that compose the artfulness and literariness of any given text, not a work's subject matter or content. Each device or compositional feature possesses peculiar properties that can, as in any science, be analyzed. For the Formalists, this new science of literature became an analysis of the literary and artistic devices that the writer manipulates in creating a text.

The Formalists' chief focus of literary analysis was the examination of a text's literariness, the language employed in the actual text. Literary lan­guage, they asserted, is different from everyday language. Unlike everyday speech, literary language foregrounds itself, shouting, Look at me; I am special; I am unique." Through structure, imagery, syntax, rhyme scheme, paradox and a host of other devices, literary language identifies itself as

Chapter 3 • Russian Formalism and New Criticism 49

idisemfaamodaNi: New zCriticismation.coined

N, chapter 3

do . h patterns, ultimately producing tt.,_ byFo r rtnhael i' 'least d;ejir::

dela miliarization is the process tit usslim at new liocilt 'Illswiii

delviatic'n5 from. R:errvianrinfernissa,

MR feature of litehk

alovsky,

Formalist Victor S.e) the familiar, of putting the old ;

,p here of new perception." By making strange 'i 4,1, strange (ostran.dna „7

ihklovsky calk. zatIon (or what some Russian the act of perception of everyday word call 'rotor. '

_I.:familiar', down

poetry and t fi,

estrangement) slows or reader to reexamine the image. For 5 or ob.

read in a recn leas, forcing the Its

tenhi, . the words "dazzling darkness," our at r'canlPle o... of these words. Our ordinary expel.;_ rt is when we

slowed down because we must now unpack the of we do so, s theme

everyday

caught by the unusual pain g language is slow

's choice of language. When Pc't trY with i, a . c- ing of the author has called attention to itself as

compan,

ving poetic diction d

of wing its listeners or rea ers to experience a small pmtl;I '

by intensifying the act of perception. literariness, a, their world ra tan w way .

In addition to era mining the constituent devices present in

Ivied narrative prose and declared that the structret'Y'

. scts. tabula (story) and syuzhet (plot), Fabul re Fa Shklovsky also anal

a 1., iite narrative has two asp, I of Inc story and can be considered somewhat akin to th. raw matena

writer's working outltae. This outline contains the chronological seriesot events of the 4ory. The svuzhet is the literary devices the writer uses to transform a story (the tabula) into plot. By using such techniques as digres.

sions, surprises, and disruptions, the writer dramatically alters the fabula making it a work of literature that now has the potential to provoke defarnii: iarization. "to make strange" the language of the text and render a fresh

view of language and 'Or the reader's world. What Russian Formalism contributed to the study of literature and liter-

ary theory is a reevaluation of the text itself. Bringing a scientific approach in literary studies, the Formalists redefined a text to mean a unified collection of various literary devices and conventions that can he objectively analyzed Literature is not, they declared, the vision of an author or authorial intent Using linguistic principles, the Formalists asserted that literature, like all sci-ences, is a self-enclosed, law-governed system. To study literature is to stuck: a text's form and only incidentally its content. For the Formalists, form is su-perior to content.

As a group, the Russian Formalists were suppressed and disbanded in 1930 by the Soviet government because they were unwilling to view litera-ture through the Stalinist regime's political and ideological perspective. Their influence did continue to flourish in Czechoslovakia through the work of the Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in 1926, its leadingfigurebeing Roman Jakobson) and through thework

Vladimir P Fortunatelyof the Russian folktale scholar

ropp. for the advancement of literary theoryand crit- icism, Russian Formalism resurfaces structuralism (see Chapter 5).

in the 1960s in French and American

Chapter 3 • Russian Formalism and New Criticism 51

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN RUSSIAN FORMALISM

AND NEW CRITICISM

Russian Formalism is sometimes paired with the first modern school of Anglo-American criticism: the New Criticism. Dominating both American

and British criticism from the 1930s to the 1950s, New Criticism can be con-

sidered a second cousin of Russian Formalism. Although both schools em-ploy some similar terminology and are identified as types of Formalism,

there exists no direct relation between them. New Criticism has its own unique history and development in Great Britain and the United States. Interestingly, in the 1940s, two leading Russian Formalists, Roman Jakobson and Rene Wellek, came to the United States and actively participated in the scholarly discussions of the New Critics. The interaction of these Russian Formalists with the New Critics does evidence itself in some of Russian Formalism's ideas being mirrored in New Critical principles.

APPLYING RUSSIAN FORMALISM TO A LITERARY TEXT

Read carefully the following poem by the contemporary American essayist, poet, scholar, and editor Mary M. Brown. After reading the text several times, be able to apply, discuss, and demonstrate how the following terms from Russian Formalism can be used in developing an interpretation of this text:

• poetics • form • devices • literariness • foregrounchng of literary language • defamiliariza lion.

Early Spring Anbade

The branches outside this office window too often block the light, but today the early

morning sun wavers, then prevails, stippling this space with a tentative dawn that crawls

toward an even more fragile day. All the failures of my life on earth are erased in this quivering

grace that works its lacy way through its own curious birth. This is the one appointed hour

Chap‘s RussianFormalistand New Criticism

. v cneech patterns, ultimately produc ervday f , .^ : i ;arization. Coined K,,deviations from ^ ■ n ess^ T efam i'iariw tion . Coined b y " ^ ^

dt of literann • . fami|iarization is the proces.n g feature or literariness, *--- :ormahst Victor Shklovsky, defamiliarixation is th itrange (ostranenie) the familiar, o f putting the olH ^r° CeSs >hklovsky called a "* •> R> ^ ,r> new

• • i*T'll,ar' '■~n{\ slows . to reexamnu: me imaj’“ ['"fore** the words "dazzling darkness,"Then we read in a t**™ pf ,hcse words. Our ordinary experi “ aught by the unusual pa down because we must now unpack the

evervdav language .s slow age whcn We do so. poetry wi,h >ing of the author scht eaUed attention to itself as poetry and *companying poehc diet. n or readers to experience a small pa *literariness, allowing its £ 2 ^ the act of perception. oi^ i , world in a new « . ,he constituent devices present in p0f

In addition to narrative prose and declared that the structure of'Shklovsky also analy d^ {story) and syuzhet (p,ot) Fabu]anarrative has.twoasp and can be considered somewhat akin to Zraw material ottn outline contains the chronological series of

s or Th" svu?.he. is the literary devices the writer u s ^ 6 f 1 a story (the tabula) into plot. By using such techniques as dig** transform a story di tions, the writer dramatically alters the fabula

sums, surpr^t ^ literalure that now has the potential to provoke defamil' iari/atfon "to make strange" the language of the text and render a fresh

View ^ ^ ,lt" - *er-arv theory is a reevaluation of the text itself. Bringing a sc.ent.fic approach to literary studies the Formalists redefined a text to mean a unified collection of various literary devices and conventions that can be objectively analyzed Literature is not'thev declared, the vision of an author or authorial intent Using linguistic principles, the Formalists asserted that literature, like all sci­ences, is a self-enclosed, law-governed system. To study literature is to study a text's form and only incidentally its content. For the Formalists, form is su­perior to content.

Llamili ”"0"

US$j,urthe rau‘‘*“**' -- * ~ „ D . . ’ tight

‘ here of new perception. By making s t r a n ^ S ’P (or what some Russian F o r n ^ H

|| ob.

°ur atteXample

ation V'-'1 .. c , ‘"aiKf.down the act of perception of everyday vvord'

- reader to reexamine the image. F0r

As a group, the Russian Formalists were suppressed and disbanded in 1930 by the Soviet government because they were unwilling to view litera­ture through the Stalinist regime's political and ideological perspectives. Their influence did continue to flourish in Czechoslovakia through the work of the Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in 1926, its leading figure being Roman Jakobson) and through the work of the Russian folktale scholar Vladimir Propp. Fortunately for the advancement of literary theory and crit­icism, Russian Formalism resurfaces in the 1960s in French and American structuralism (see Chapter 5).

Chapter 3 • Russian Formalism and New Criticism 51

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN RUSSIAN FORMALISM AND NEW CRITICISM

Russian Formalism is sometimes paired with the first modern school of Anglo-American criticism: the New Criticism. Dominating both American and British criticism from the 1930s to the 1950s, New Criticism can be con­sidered a second cousin of Russian Formalism. Although both schools em­ploy some similar terminology and are identified as types of Formalism, there exists no direct relation between them. New Criticism has its own unique history and development in Great Britain and the United States. Interestingly, in the 1940s, two leading Russian Formalists, Roman Jakobson and Rene Wellek, came to the United States and actively participated in the scholarly discussions of the New Critics. The interaction of these Russian Formalists with the New Critics does evidence itself in some of Russian Formalism's ideas being mirrored in New Critical principles.

APPLYING RUSSIAN FORMALISM TO A LITERARY TEXT

Read carefully the following poem by the contemporary American essayist, poet, scholar, and editor Mary M. Brown. After reading the text several times, be able to apply, discuss, and demonstrate how the following terms from Russian Formalism can be used in developing an interpretation of this text:

• poetics• form• dev ices• literariness• foregrounding of literary language• defamiliarization.

Early Spring AubadeThe branches outside this office window too often block the light, but today the early

morning sun wavers, then prevails, stippling this space with a tentative dawn that crawls

toward an even more fragile day. All the failures of my life on earth are erased in this quivering

grace that works its lacy way through its own curious birth. This is the one appointed hour

bti Charter 4 • Rc.hler-ot wilted Criticism

Student B objects, declaring that Student A's interpretation is not

• ameni Yaw for the twenty-first century. Student Avsisticli(:rerveicit,itci

Ha w'thorne's chief

truth

within all of

rve When she notes that Goodman Brown reaelli fz ver Purpo., . Brown does not recognize the evil in himself. I

be applied today. Such us. 1i "Young Goodman Brown" is to show

hypocrisythenin

story's significance rests in how its meaning can Suc h

IiinesrsS:how-

_.ivers,L hypocrisy and prejudice, contends Student B, still exist in Our un' - town. We all have the potential to be Goodman Browns, people filled vv rY

prejudice and hypocrisy, thinking that we alone know and understandjth

and goodness. Student C affirms that although both Student A and Student B have made

valid criticisms of Hawthorne's text, they have overlooked the change that takes place in Goodman Brown himself. After the events of that fateful night in the forest—either real or imagined—no longer do we see a Goodman Brown who trusts in the goodness of humanity. We now have a character whose entire life—his thoughts and actions—is one of despair, a life that sees no good in anyone. Everyone in the Salem village, Brown believes, is living a lie because all are hypocrites. And for the rest of his life he remains a solemn person who casts suspicious and supposedly knowing glances at his peers and his wife, all of whom, he believes, have pledged their allegiance to evil. And thus Brown's "dying hour was gloom," just like his life after the forest scene.

With a quiver in her voice, Student D remarks that Goodman Brown re-minds her of her friend Rita. Whenever Rita's husband meets her in public—at the mall, grocery store, or McDonald's—he gives her a quick stare then looks the other way. Even when they are at home together, he prefers to sit in his study watching a movie on his computer than sitting with her and their two children in the family room watching one of the children's favorite movies. Like Faith Brown, says Student D, Rita has no idea what she has done to distance herself from her husband. Nightly she cries herself to sleep, wishing her husband would hold her. In "Young Goodman Brown," asserts Student D, Hawthorne has successfully captured the predicament of some twenty-first-century wives, women whose lives are filled with despair and they know not why.

Each of these four students sees something slightly different in Hawthorne's passage, peeking into the text from different windows and, thus, seeing different scenes, receiving different impressions, and coming away from their readings with different interpretations. Consciously or un-consciously, each of their interpretations rests upon different theoretical as-sumptions with their corresponding interpretative methodologies. four interpretations, Student A's is the

Of the

an overall textual the passage. Seeing most. theoretically distinct approach to

text is autonomous; it • must interpret itself with student presupposes

other extrinsic factors, with little or no help cal, societal, or any

from' that the

with all itsparts relating back to its

valid criticisms of Hawthorne's text, J ey haV(f ov«rl™ k(ed1 cha"ge thattakes place in Goodman Brown himself. After the events of that fateful night in the forest-cither real or imagined-no longer do we see a Goodman Brown who trusts in the goodness of humanity. We now have a character whose entire life—his thoughts and actions—is one of despair, a life that sees no good in anyone. Everyone in the Salem village, Brown believes, is living a lie because all are hypocrites. And for the rest of his life he remains a solemn person who casts suspicious and supposedly knowing glances at his peers and his wife, all of whom, he believes, have pledged their allegiance to evil. And thus Brown's "dying hour was gloom," just like his life after the forest scene.

With a quiver in her voice, Student D remarks that Goodman Brown re­minds her of her friend Rita. Whenever Rita's husband meets her in public— at the mall, grocery store, or McDonald's—he gives her a quick stare then looks the other way. Even when they are at home together, he prefers to sit in his study watching a movie on his computer than sitting with her and their two children in the family room watching one of the children's favorite movies. Like Faith Brown, says Student D, Rita has no idea what she has done to distance herself from her husband. Nightly she cries herself to sleep, wishing her husband would hold her. In "Young Goodman Brown," asserts Student D, Hawthorne has successfully captured the predicament of sometwenty-first-century wives, women whose lives are filled with despair and they know not why.

Each of these four students sees something slightly different in

aww fmm m0;r ....... jc iving different impressions, and coming

Chapter 4 • Reader-oriented Criticism 73

For Rosenblatt, readers can and do read in one of two ways: efferentlu or aesthetically. When we read for information—for example, when we read the directions for heating a can of soup—we are engaging in efferent reading (from the Latin effere "to carry away"). During this process, we are interested only in newly gained information that we can "carry away" from the text, not in the actual words as words themselves. When we read efferently, we are motivated by a specific need to acquire information. When we engage in aesthetic reading, we experience the text. We note its every word, its sounds, its patterns, and so on. In essence, we live through the transactional experi-ence of creating the poem. Of primary importance is our engagement or our unique "lived-through" experience with the text. Rosenblatt adds that at any given moment in the reading process a reader may shift back and forth along a continuum between an efferent and an aesthetic mode of reading.

When reading aesthetically, Rosenblatt maintains that we involve our-selves in an elaborate give-and-take encounter with the text. Though the text may allow for many interpretations by eliciting and highlighting different experiences of the reader, it simultaneously limits the valid meanings the poem can acquire. For Rosenblatt, a poem's meaning is not a smorgasbord of infinite interpretations; rather, it is a transactional experience in which sev-eral different yet probable meanings emerge in a particular social context and thereby create a variety of "poems."

What differentiates Rosenblatt's and other reader-oriented critics' con-cerns from other critical approaches (especially New Criticism) is their purposive shift in emphasis away from the text, as the sole determiner of meaning and toward the significance of the reader as an essential participant in the reading process and the creation of meaning. Such a shift negates the Formalists' assumption that the text is autonomous and can be scientifically analyzed to discover its meaning. No longer is the reader passive, merely ap-plying a laundry list of learned, poetic devices to a text in the hope of dis-covering its intricate patterns of paradox and irony, which, in turn, will lead, supposedly, to the one correct interpretation. For reader-oriented critics, the reader is an active participant along with the text in creating meaning. It is from the literacy experience (an event that occurs when a reader and print transact), they believe, that meaning evolves.

literary 4111d lytilti, reader oriented criticism Lioes body 01 theory or a single methodological ai3-hat those who call themselves reader-response s, reader c ritic s, or and ience-oriented critics

•r. Relieving that a literary work's interpretation

ASSUMPTIONS

Similar to most approaches to not provide us with a unified proach for textual analysis. W critics, reader-oriented critic share is a concern for the reach

For Rosenblatt, readers can and do read in one of two ways: efferentlu or aesthetically. When we read for information— for example, when we read the directions for heating a can of soup we are engaging in efferent reading (from the Latin effere "to carry away"). During this process, we are interested only in newly gained information that we can "carry away" from the text, not in the actual words as words themselves. When we read efferently, we are motivated by a specific need to acquire information. When we engage in aesthetic reading, we experience the text. We note its every word, its sounds, its patterns, and so on. In essence, we live through the transactional experi­ence of creating the poem. O f primary importance is our engagement or our unique "lived-through" experience with the text. Rosenblatt adds that at any given moment in the reading process a reader may shift back and forth along a continuum between an efferent and an aesthetic mode of reading.

When reading aesthetically, Rosenblatt maintains that we involve our­selves in an elaborate give-and-take encounter with the text. Though the text may allow for many interpretations by eliciting and highlighting different experiences of the reader, it simultaneously limits the valid meanings the poem can acquire. For Rosenblatt, a poem's meaning is not a smorgasbord of infinite interpretations; rather, it is a transactional experience in which sev­eral different yet probable meanings emerge in a particular social context and thereby create a variety of "poem s."

What differentiates Rosenblatt's and other reader-oriented critics' con­cerns from other critical approaches (especially New Criticism) is their purposive shift in emphasis away from the text, as the sole determiner of meaning and toward the significance of the reader as an essential participant in the reading process and the creation of meaning. Such a shift negates the Formalists' assumption that the text is autonomous and can be scientifically analyzed to discover its meaning. No longer is the reader passive, merely ap- plying a laundry list of learned, poetic devices to a text in the hope of dis­covering its intricate patterns of paradox and irony, which, in turn, will lead, supposedly, to the one correct interpretation. For reader-oriented critics, the reader is an active participant along with the text in creating meaning. It is from the literacy experience (an event that occurs when a reader and print transact), they believe, that meaning evolves.

Chapter 4 • Reader-oriented Criticism 73

A SSU M PTIO N S

Similar to most approach.-* to literary analysis, reader-oriented cri.totsm does provide us with a unified body of theory or a sm,;le n.ethodoloK>ca! ap­

proach for textual analysis. What those who call themselves reader-response Cr’hcs, reader-oriented critics, reader cr,tics, or audience-oriented cnt.es •**M* is a concern for the reader. Ilelievin,; that a literary work s interpretation

Chapter 4 • Reader-oriented Criticism 83

• Using Bleich's subjective criticism, can you state the difference between your re-sponse to "Young Goodman Brown" and your interpretation?

• In a classroom setting, develop your class's interpretive strategies for arriving at the meaning of "Young Goodman Brown."

• As you interpret "Young Goodman Brown," can you cite the interpretive com-munity or communities to which you, the reader, belong? By so doing, you will be identifying how this community or communities have influenced your interpretation.

CRITIQUES AND RESPONSES

Like most schools of criticism that have emerged since the 1960s, reader-oriented criticism is a collective noun embodying a variety of critical positions. Unlike New Criticism's "text and text alone" approach to interpretation that claims that the meaning of a text is enclosed in the text itself, reader-oriented critics emphasize the reader of a text, declaring that the reader is just as much (or more) a producer of meaning as is the text itself. To vary-ing degrees, the reader helps create the meaning of any text. In approach-ing a work, the reader brings to the interpretive process his or her forestructure, one's accrued life experiences, memories, beliefs, values, and other characteristics that make an individual unique. In making sense of the text—what we call the interpretation—the elements of the reader's forestructure interact, transact, or intermingle (depending on the reader's theoretical stance), thereby producing the actual interpretation. Because reader-oriented critics agree that an individual reader creates the text's meaning, reader-orientated criticism declares that there can be no one cor-rect meaning for any text, but many valid interpretations. What the reading process is and how readers read are major concerns for all reader-oriented critics. Their answers to these and similar questions, however, are widely divergent.

Reader-oriented criticism has been harshly critiqued by scholars who believe that the text, not the reader, creates meaning. If multiple interpreta-tions of the same text can exist side by side, how can we ever say what a text means? Can a text actually mean anything a reader says it means? Are there no clearly delineated guidelines for interpretation? Are there no fixed val-ues in any text? If the reader is the producer of meaning, then the reader's physical or mental condition while reading a text will directly influence the interpretation, producing an array of bizarre and, more frequently than not, misguided and pointless interpretations. In response, reader-oriented critics provide a wide range of answers, from Wolfgang Iser's gap theory, to Louise Rosenblatt's transactional theory, to Stanley Fish's rather relativistic assumption that no text can exist until either the reader or an interpretive community creates it.

......H II- --------------------------------------. ----------- .. - > * * ..,.*

Chapter 4 • Reader-oriented Criticism 83

• Using Bteich s subjective criticism, can you state the difference between your re­sponse to Young Goodman Brown" and your interpretation?

• In a classroom setting, develop your class's interpretive strategies for arriving at the meaning of "Young Goodman Brown."

• As you interpret Young Goodman Brown," can you cite the interpretive com­munity or communities to which you, the reader, belong? By so doing, you will be identifying how this community or communities have influenced your interpretation.

CRITIQUES A N D RESPO N SES

Like most schools of criticism that have emerged since the 1960s, reader- oriented criticism is a collective noun embodying a variety of critical positions. Unlike New Criticism's "text and text alone" approach to interpretation that claims that the meaning of a text is enclosed in the text itself, reader- oriented critics emphasize the reader of a text, declaring that the reader is just as much (or more) a producer of meaning as is the text itself. To vary­ing degrees, the reader helps create the meaning of any text. In approach­ing a work, the reader brings to the interpretive process his or her forestructure, one's accrued life experiences, memories, beliefs, values, and other characteristics that make an individual unique. In making sense of the text—what we call the interpretation—the elements of the reader's forestructure interact, transact, or intermingle (depending on the reader's theoretical stance), thereby producing the actual interpretation. Because reader-oriented critics agree that an individual reader creates the text's meaning, reader-orientated criticism declares that there can be no one cor­rect meaning for any text, but many valid interpretations. What the reading process is and how readers read are major concerns for all reader-oriented critics. Their answers to these and similar questions, however, are widely divergent.

Reader-oriented criticism has been harshly critiqued by scholars who believe that the text, not the reader, creates meaning. If multiple interpreta­tions of the same text can exist side by side, how can we ever say what a text means? Can a text actually mean anything a reader says it means? Are there no clearly delineated guidelines for interpretation? Are there no fixed val­ues in any text? If the reader is the producer of meaning, then the reader's physical or mental condition while reading a text will directly influence the interpretation, producing an array of bizarre and, more frequently than not, misguided and pointless interpretations. In response, reader-oriented critics provide a wide range of answers, from Wolfgang Iser's gap theory, to Louise Rosenblatt's transactional theory, to Stanley Fish's rather relativistic assumption that no text can exist until either the reader or an interpretive community creates it.

Chapter 5 • Modernity/Postmodernism 93

language system and how it operates rather than its evolution, Saussure drew attention to the nature and composition of language and its constituent parts. For example, along with examining the phonological antecedents of the English sound h, as in the word boy (a diachronic analysis), Saussure opened a new avenue of investigation, asking how the b sound is related to other sounds in use at the same time by speakers of Modern English (a synchronic analysis). This new concern necessitated a rethinking of language theory and a reevaluation of the aims of language research, and it finally resulted in Saussure's articulating the basic principles of modern linguistics.

Unlike many of his contemporary linguists, Saussure rejected the mimetic theory of language structure. In its place, he asserted that language is primarily determined by its own internally structured and highly system-atized rules. These rules govern all aspects of a language, including the sounds its speakers will identify as meaningful, the grouping of various combinations of these sounds into words, and the process whereby these words may be arranged to produce meaningful communication within a given language.

The Structure of Language

According to Saussure, all languages are governed by their own internal rules that do not mirror or imitate the structure of the world. Emphasizing the systematized nature of language, Saussure asserts that all languages are composed of basic units called emes. The task of a linguist is to identify these units (sometimes called paradigms or models) and/or to identify their rela-tionships among symbols—like the letters of the alphabet, for example—in a given language. This task becomes especially difficult when the emes in the linguist's native language and those in an unfamiliar language under inves-tigation differ. According to Saussure, the basic building block or unit of language is the phoneme—the smallest meaningful (significant) sound in a language. The number of phonemes differs from language to language, with the least number of total phonemes for any one language being around eleven (Rotokas, a language spoken by approximately four thousand people in Bougainville, an island east of New Guinea) and the most being 112, found in several tonal languages. American English, for example, consists of ap-proximately forty-three to forty-five phonemes, depending on the specific dialect of American English being spoken. Although native speakers of American English are capable of producing phonemes found in other lan-guages, it is these forty-five distinct sounds that serve as the building blocks of American English. For example, the first sound heard in the word pin is the /p/ phoneme, the second /1/, and the last /n/. A phoneme is identified in writing by enclosing the grapheme—the written symbol that represents the phoneme's sound—in virgules or diagonal lines.

93

language system and how it operates rather than its evolution, Saussure drew attention to the nature and composition of language and its constituent parts. For example, along with examining the phonological antecedents of the English sound b as in the word toy (a diachronic analysis), Saussure opened a new avenue of investigation, asking how the b sound is related to other sounds in use at the same time by speakers of Modern English (a synchronic analysis). This new concern necessitated a rethinking of language theory and a reevaluation of the aims of language research, and it finally resulted in Saussure s articulating the basic principles of modem linguistics.

Unlike many of his contemporary linguists, Saussure rejected the mimetic theory of language structure. In its place, he asserted that language is primarily determined by its own internally structured and highly system­atized rules. These rules govern all aspects of a language, including the sounds its speakers will identify as meaningful, the grouping of various combinations of these sounds into words, and the process whereby these words may be arranged to produce meaningful communication within a given language.

Chapter 5 • M odernity/Postmodernism

The Structure of Language

According to Saussure, all languages are governed by their own internal rules that do not mirror or imitate the structure of the world. Emphasizing the systematized nature of language, Saussure asserts that all languages are composed of basic units called ernes. The task of a linguist is to identify these units (sometimes called paradigms or models) and/or to identify their rela­tionships among symbols—like the letters of the alphabet, for example— in a given language. This task becomes especially difficult when the ernes in the linguist's native language and those in an unfamiliar language under inves­tigation differ. According to Saussure, the basic building block or unit of language is the phoneme—the smallest meaningful (significant) sound in a language. The number of phonemes differs from language to language, with the least number of total phonemes for any one language being around eleven (Rotokas, a language spoken by approximately four thousand people in Bougainville, an island east of New Guinea) and the most being 112, found in several tonal languages. American English, for example, consists of ap­proximately forty-three to forty-five phonemes, depending on the specific dialect of American English being spoken. Although native speakers of American English are capable of producing phonemes found in other lan­guages, it is these forty-five distinct sounds that serve as the building blocks of American English. For example, the first sound heard in the word pin is the /p/ phoneme, the second /I/, and the last /n/. A phoneme is identified in writing by enclosing the grapheme—the written symbol that represents the phoneme's sound—in virgules or diagonal lines.

New Critics, who believe that the .,. untlike the

_ and from the language of science 14s

Chapter ii) •

1 0 analr'' . w different . . .

Postrolonialism

t that the language of texts ttosainlyszi5e such writings. For their, toat4 and of Myra y

re is willow

ation, t!"` P nape and form the text

the lativik everyday c,"ntveThm

.wse of literature discourse or culturally bound

is not distinct f- , In other Wor i analysis helps sha

, in literary as used langttage -7-i,1

the iiit;tlacg)SetniUts)eddecri:to,

anatiLy maintain, the text and the Ian ;4

a discour4L.

language of '"e-- „ nnot Separate,

i d. W- ca 'cs, faregcage helps create and shape--

being analyze . page used t°, al.

arate,

can what we call '

ti ue it. For these crib,

w,

be created by language, many post.

i

objec i . qfve reality." •

onstruct. From this point of vie instead, many realities exist. In

4 Believing that

objectiv . . e reality

modernists assert t . _aiity exists; critics believe that reality is

that all reality is a social c

a unive , his or her subjective understand- disavowingno single or primary objective

ob3ectwe re

• rsal reality, these

i

perspectival, with eac . .

o s tor r in ogdoeordn, thinkleitYrs isi

if. How, then, do we come to agree upon public h individual creating

ing of the nature of ma-1-J I tv itself,

! acid

g, and its

social concerns, such as values,aenthsicse,rarodr tthheesceomp

different for each individual? The .t r .

within itself a dominant cultural or, using the Marxist term, its t

1 that each society or culture

contains

and wron i group who

determines that culture's ideology hegemony—that is, its dominant values, its

sense of right

sense of personal self-worth. All people in a given culture are consciously and

1 i

unconsciously asked to conform to the prescribed hegemony. What happens, however, when one's ideas, one's thinking, or one's per-

sonal background does not conform? What happens, for example, when the dominant culture consists of white, Anglo-Saxon males and one is a black fe-male? Or how does one respond to a culture dominated by white males if one is a Native American? For people of color living in Africa or in the

I

Americas, for Native Americans, for females, and for gays and lesbians, and a host of others, the traditional answer already has been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence. Live quietly, work

I quietly, think quietly. The message sent to these "Others" by the dominant culture has been clear and consistent—conform and be quiet; deny yourself,

1

and all will be well. But many have not been quiet. Writers and thinkers, such as Toni.

Morrison, Alice Walker, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Carlos Fuentes, Gayatn 1 Spivak, Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, and Judith Butler, to name a few, have

dared to speak out and challenge the dominant cultures and the dictatesif

these cultures decree. They continue to refuse silence and choose defiance, necessary. They believe that an individual's view of life, of values, and of ethics really matters. They assert a different perspective, a vantage point not

of the dominant culture, but one from which to view the world and its pee ples: They speak for not one cult ure, but many; not one cultural perspective' but a host; not one interpretation of life, but countless. Speaking for the oppressed, supp

ressed, and silenced, scholars—African, Austral in, Native

critic`

American, female, gay

these cr and lesbin,

„ r 10 • r °stcl Chap** lu

,lon>‘jU»m ' Wh° beUf VC ^,be t f e * ,b e la n g u a g e of science and

.. . ^ g s f c ^ s t s s s s ai S I S " " “ I S t “ " S 5 <» * " ’ & » " • “ ‘ “I T * " ’ , I “ ” >u „u e of u Tt,afie u B a * the dl8 ruaoe and form the text

^ e ’ryday t"e 'p oth er w®^\y8i» ^ ^ a i n , text and theisn o »dfe‘! " a d i * 01"0*'i'n U ‘crary ,? e tW Y n ' a '" aKe h e l p s c re a te an d shape W « y * e e 'lideas f ^ nnot se p a 'fce itics, tons’18* *

used to « » ^ “e created b y lan gu age, many pos(.5 3 we call • « * £ * tive reaUty can b From this point of view.

Believing that « ^ 1S a see1* instead, many realities exist. Inmodernists assert ob- ctive reality e ^ critics b e liev e that reality isno single or P " objective his or her subjective understand-disavowing a individual ere g com e to agree upon b

? erSP(eihe nature of reality itself the com m on good, if reality is“ Asocial concerns, “ ^ " a n s w e r for these p ostm od ern thinkers isdifferent for each individual? The a ^ a d o m in a n t culturalthat each society or cu ltu r e .deo)ogy or, u sing the M arxist term, itsgroup who determines that c ^ of right and wrong, and itshegemony-that is, its do ^ a iven culture are consciously andsense of P ^ n a l " r t h AU P^ P g prescribed hegem ony.

UnC° l ^ t happens, however, when one's ideas, o n e 's th inkin g, or one's per- sonal background does not conform? W hat happens for exam ple, when the dominant culture consists of white, Anglo-Saxon m ales and one is a black fe- male? Or how does one respond to a culture d om inated b y w hite males if one is a Native American? For people of color liv in g in A frica or in the Americas, for Native Americans, for females, and for gays and lesbians, and a host of others, the traditional answer already h as b ee n articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegem ony: silence. L ive quietly, work quietly, think quietly. The message sent to these "O th e rs" b y the dominant culture has been clear and consistent— conform and b e quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well.

But many have not been quiet. W riters and th in k ers , such as Toni Morrison Alice Walker, Gabriel Garcia M arqu ez, C arlo s Fuentes, Gayatri

Edwar,d Said' F jantz Fanon, and Judith Butler, to nam e a few, have fhese cultmes d p ?1 and challen§e the d om inan t cu ltu res and the dictates necessary. Thev BpV Th<l7 continue t° refuse silence and choose defiance, if

ethics really matters'They assTrt'adiff' S V‘eW ° f ^ ° f Va' UeS’ “ fno of the dominant culture bm “ , dlfferent perspective, a vantage point notpies: They speak fornni' ? fr° m w hich view the w orld and its peo- but a host; not one intermvt n* ^ Ut m any ; not one cultural perspective'

Speaking fo r the onn ^ ' Ufe' but countless, scholars— African, A u s h ^ iT x i ' su P P ressed , and silen ced , these cn«

n' N ative A m erican, fem ale, gay and le bi1

: J W

' •••••• • •••••,..a • •alie.6...S.seabilia....."

-:

2t41 Readings on Literary Criticism

(It could no doubt be demonstrated that this ration supplementaire o f sign. f.

l cation is the origin of the ratio itself.) The word reappears a little i

n .rther - h.

after Levi-Strauss has mentioned 'this floating signifier, which is the ser u

tude of all finite thought': '

In other words—and taking as our guide Mauss's precept that all social phe_

nomena can be assimilated to language—we see in mana, Wakau, oranda and

other notions of the same type, the conscious expression of a semantic function, whose role it is to permit symbolic thought to operate in spite of the contradic-tion which is proper to it. In this way are explained the apparently insoluble antinomies attached to this notion. .. . At one and the same time force and ac-tion, quality and state, noun and verb, abstract and concrete, omnipresent and localized—mana is in effect all these things. But is it not precisely because it is

none of these things that mana is a simple form, or more exactly, a symbol in the

pure state, and therefore capable of becoming charged with any sort of syrn_ bolic content whatever? In the system of symbols constituted by all cosmolo-

gies, mana would simply be a zero symbolic value, that is to say, a sign marking

the necessity of a symbolic content supplementary [my italics] to that with which

the signified is already loaded, but which can take on any value required, pro_ vided only that this value still remains part of the available reserve and is not, as phonologists put it, a group-term.

Levi-Strauss adds the note: 'Linguists have already been led to formulate hypotheses of this type.

For example: "A zero phoneme is opposed to all the other phonemes in French in that it entails no differential characters and no constant phonetic value. On the contrary, the proper function of the zero phoneme is to be op-posed to phoneme absence." (R. Jakobson and J. Lutz, 'Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern', Word 5, no. 2 [August 1949]:155). Similarly, if we schema-tize the conception I am proposing here, it could almost be said that the func-tion of notions like mana is to be opposed to the absence of signification, without entailing by itself any particular signification.'xiv

The overabundance of the signifier, its supplementary character, is thus the result of a finitude, that is to say, the result of a lack which must be supplemented.

It can now be understood why the concept of play is important in Levi-Strauss. His references to all sorts of games, notably to roulette, are very frequent, especially in his Conversations," in Race and History ,"°i and in The Savage Mind. Further, the reference to play is always caught up in tension.

Tension with history, first of all. This is a classical problem, objections to which are now well worn. I shall simply indicate what seems to me the formality of the problem: by reducing history, Levi-Strauss has treated as it

deserves a concept which has always been in complicity with a teleological

and eschatological metaphysics, in other words, paradoxically, in complicity

(It could no doubt be domonstr.i cation is the origin of the ratio it: after Ltfvi-Strauss has mentione tude of all finite thought':

pure state, and therefore capable o f becom ing ch arged w ith an y sort o f sym- bolic content whatever? In the system of sym bols con stitu ted b y all cosm olo­gies, m am would sim ply be a zero sym bolic value, that is to say, a sign marking the necessity of a symbolic content supplem entary [m y italics] to that w ith which the signified is already loaded, but w hich can take on any valu e required, pro­vided only that this value still rem ains part o f the availab le reserve and is not, as phonologists put it, a group-term .

Levi-Strauss adds the note:'Linguists have already been led to formulate hypotheses of this type.

For example: "A zero phoneme is opposed to all the other phonemes in French in that it entails no differential characters and no constant phonetic value. On the contrary, the proper function of the zero phoneme is to be op­posed to phoneme absence." (R. Jakobson and J. Lutz, 'N otes on the French Phonemic Pattern', Word 5, no. 2 [August 1949]:155). Similarly, if we schema­tize the conception I am proposing here, it could almost be said that the func­tion of notions like mana is to be opposed to the absence of signification, without entailing by itself any particular signification.'xiv

The overabundance of the signifier, its supplementary character, is thus the result of a finitude, that is to say, the result of a lack w hich must be supplemented.

It can now be understood why the concept of play is important in Levi-Strauss. Flis references to all sorts of games, notably to roulette, are very frequent, especially in his Conversations , x v in Race and History,™ and in The Savage Mind. Further, the reference to play is alw ays caught up in

Tension with history, first of all. This is a classical problem, objections to which are now well worn. I shall simply indicate what seems to me the form ality of the problem: by reducing history, Levi-Strauss has treated as it deserves a concept which has always been in com plicity with a teleological and eschatological metaphysics, in other words, paradoxically, in complicity

tension.

278 Readings on Literary Criticism purple quiet, lying content

old and I Sout

°f mauve eroaonind

h—utter haunting and appeal- phrase

" and shining in the

marble;sun;

a little thing

melody enus of Milo;7 a • Suipi.

where on a throne rest Veys6 in West Africa, a , black and velvet S,

• the Southern

the broken curves ye.lowing

real- ing, suddenly arising out ,

f night and eternity, beneath the moon. is infinite, its possibility is endless. In no ,

phrase of music in o

Such is Beauty. Its variety life all may have it and the mass of human beings are and made ugly. This is not

have it yet again•

only wrong, t choked away

The world is full of it; and yet t,,, al

It is silly. Who shall right this well-

nigh

it, and their lives distorted

Who shall re- store

well.

*. a m ay

nigh universal failing? Who shall let this world be beautiful?

of sunsets and the peace of quiet sleep? have within us as a race new store to men the glory

We black folk may help for we stirrings, stirrings of the beginning of a new appreciation of joy, of a new desire to cre-ate, of a new will to be; as though in this morning of group life we had awak-ened from some sleep that at once dimly mourns the past and dreams a splendid future; and there has come the conviction that the Youth that is here today, the Negro Youth, is a different kind of Youth, because in some new way it bears this mighty prophecy on its breast, with a new realization of itself, with new determination for all mankind.

What has this Beauty to do with the world? What has Beauty to do With Truth and Goodness—with the facts of the world and the right actions of men? "Nothing," the artists rush to answer. They may be right. I am but an humble disciple of art and cannot presume to say. I am one who tells th

e truth and exposes evil and seeks with Beauty and for Beauty to set the world right. That somehow, somewhere eternal and perfect Beauty sits above Truth and Right I can conceive, but here and now and in the world in which I wor they are for me unseparated and inseparable. k

This is brought to us peculiarly when as artists we face our own past as a people. There has come to us—and it has come especially through the man we are going to honor tonights—a realization of that past, of which for long years we have been ashamed, for which we have apologized. We thought nothing could come out of that east which we wanted to remember; which we wanted to hand down to ou

r children. Suddenly, this same past is taking on form, color and reality, an

din a half shamefaced way we are beginning to be proud of it. We are rememberin die and lie forgotten in the Middle Age; that if you w

th g at the romance of theantromwoanriccle dtoiddneoatl with you must have it here and now and in your own hands.

6_0ne

of the !vlandingo peoples of Senegal, West Africa. 'Famous classical statue of Aphrodite, Greek

goddess of love (2d C. B.C.E. copy of a 4th c.

original), now armless. 8

Carter G. Woodson (1875-1950), to whom the NAACP in 1926 awarded the

Spinarnvvi_o

for African American achievement,

furyn African American educator and historian n

1916 founded the Journal of Negro H

Medal

Veys‘ in West Africa, a little thing f 'room w here o n a th ro n l re°sf ent and shininB in tire sun; a ^ c u r v e s of the Venus of M ilo /old and yellowing marble; the b kuth_ utter m elody, haunting and apPe8'e phrase of music in the South^ . and eternity, beneath the m oon. P al' ing, suddenly arising out ot n b its possibility is endless. In norTv

Such is Beauty. Its variety is * The w orld is full of it; and Ve? ? ? al

* ■ -We black folk may help for we have w ithin us as a race new stirring

stirrings of the beginning of a new appreciation of joy, of a new desire to cre­ate, of a new will to be; as though in this m orning o group life w e had awak- ened from some sleep that at once dim ly m ou rn s the p a st and dreams a splendid future; and there has come the conviction that the Youth that is her today, the Negro Youth, is a different kind of Youth, b ecau se in some n ^ way it bears this mighty prophecy on its breast, w ith a new realization itself, with new determination for all mankind. °*

What has this Beauty to do with the w orld? W hat has Beauty to d Truth and Goodness—with the facts of the w orld and the rieh t art ° Wltb men? "Nothing," the artists rush to answer. They m ay be right I a m ^ 8 ° f humbie disdpie of art and cannot presum e to say. I am one w ho tel truth and exposes evil and seeks with Beauty and for B eau ts c wu then 8 HtRT ^atTSOmehOW' so m e w h e re e te r n a l a n d p e r f e c t B e a u t y s i t s a h ^ and Right I can co n ce iv e , b u t h e r e a n d n o w a n d in t h e w orld • 1 TrUththey are for m e u n sep a ra te d a n d in s e p a r a b le . d w h lc h 1 w ork

a p e o p le .T h e m h a sco m e ^ ru t-a ^ ^ C sT o m e 5^ WC ° Ur own Past as we are going to honor tonight8_ a realiz^Ho 1 Pe c ,ally through the man years we have been ashamed, for whir i f f that P ast' of which for longnothing could come out of that nagf u- u"6 bave aP °logized . We thoueht we wanted to hand to^em em b^; S

b e proud o f ° t " w reality ' an d ir> a h a l f s h a m t h ls s a m e p a s t is takingd L an d lie f ^ ^ U m b e r i n g t h t th ^ W * Y W e a r e b e g ^ 8 t o w ith you m u st h°aten ^ ^ M id d le A g e - I ? ! n a n c e o f th e w o r ld did not

y u m u st h av e it h e re a n d n o w a n d Y ° U W a n t r o m a n c e to deald m your ow n hands.

torAfriSnVA°OdSOn(187S- 1950)/to > ° loVe <2d c- B-C.E. copy of a 4th c.

1916 f°Unde d T e ^ ~ t , W a s° ^ A fen^ C P in 1926 aw arded the Sp ingam Medal°f "egro History. Atncan American educator and historian who in

278 Readings on Literary Critici

sf ihaneaviwi

vital 1 role

in

ings on 1.1teritv r

oil Which . inscription 0

Read

y cDecicitsotryruektion

instance is the self-chosen' • :ritti,::)...:

wtsrtihtaint twh:ip"rr.(piprrtlIts 0/

Arwther

'" big nenip: tisia(

ajttri'sfece tiaeivs cosnoemwehoofstehneacr:0-ine.,awmaesln.

Therdentify with Keatt.sIns tthtlita Kismt, ,anal. will

becom- citnmt‘tell(dithiliifse (c)nslatr(:

constructionist. 1.._ s s ironic and self_

o.x.ical con-

‘‘'nn0totiate their con,cteonns

' 11,t7;rtainal'`e.s,thl,„illel:ti)there is that these remarks, within tile c

nora his

3' The ai4a' not be taken to represent Keats's ironic and

contra- roc pointess to rather

the than

irt4, sins in the strict rhetorical implications of the words,

achievement. 46°,.,,''lle, t -ince in

but his sense. of aesthetic ilit''''tic5' expression .as aenyapeostshiteivtieclyp

fact that a

Nature plays 4 Pt):,: he had no doubt written mature poetry,

acshin _nscious

achievements. Sy h

' •insophic vision was not satisfactory. s and achie iria Phi' -

o-consciousness . ess engender Jerstanding of his aesthetic ambition

speculations? N — the tin

Nature is The major question is, how does Keats's ec

pantheistic and monistic • aesthetic and philosophical expression and s

his 's spirituality.

d by Coleridge, for

apprehende , example, from a panth • - .

dimension as a universal force which sheds light o ed from an eco-

This means, in other words, that the question is exanmill* an

tytahsea c.onstructive metaphysical dimension. Becoming can be seen criticallm isilonary ex- deferral of spiritual idealism, the argument being tha

periences encapsulated in texts are an indicator of supra-textua readings Is this the case

and therefore not closures but dynamic open-endedness.

with Keats? her of characteristic features in Keats's poetry Though there are a Hum_

which affiliate with Coleridge and Wordsworth, his nature-consciousness

will be seen to take a slightly different turn. Keats's poetry and prose show proof of certain monistic traits common in the two elder poets, justifying

the assertion that he can be discussed within the mainstream of

Romantic

idealism with regard to nature, even if he does not handle the matter in a

like manner. It can be argued equally that his poetry lends credence to apprehend na-

ture from an organicist viewpoint. Yet, his eco-poe ,

tics as we intend to

analyse, does not place priority on the visionary and transcendental and,

therefore, the dominant spiritual dimension of nature is not

like that of his

elder colleagues, for it tends to reduce nature priman

of his aesthetic quest rather than brood over-

ly within the confines

• 'tely p force or the basis of his spiritual longings.

it fundamentally as

an

a universal

Keats saw the secret of creative genius as

urged sym-

Pathy evident of life .

qua .-

- an exquisi

with nature. Apprehending nature an

ever-increasing and .

14-5

Keats infused most of his poetry

progressive momen t a

d aesthetic creativity .as if

re with this PP

in his epistolary self-corisciousness, we

that was shaping itse ,

important philosophical remarks

Readings on Literary Criticism

• the self-chosen inscription on Keats's tomb. a a n c e lS t

A„ot"*r in . .................... - •lie* one whose name was writ i„ Vv„ ilese are some of the comments that m r T identify with Keats's idealism, an ,/ !?r,,P < > , ,

v i t ia t e their contention that Keats's i/ W."1 Pfincip °« o ,--“h' .i ns him a Deconstructionist mn,c °nd sJ f‘ v Ci>|>ih• .e .....' CH''ha<lic

2S9

^hich

. him a U econsuum uiuai. ^itradictory char-f m‘lke iiriLint here is that these remarks, within m

' The ajSl , be taken to represent Keats's ironic a n /n T 'a bTO,m- nC sh° 11 In the strict rhetorical implications of the words ? d<i*‘Cal con'

life- They positively point to the f a c Z / h e Z l "J i^ 'v / expression as an a e s th e tic process rather than a final a c u m e n / of P f “C ^ had no doubt w ritten mature poetry, but his sense of a e s S c By1 wiosophic vision w as not satisfactory. Nature plays a vital role in the

Phl1 ding of his aesthetic am bitions and achievements. t fd e fstan .Qy question is, how does Keats's eco-consciousness engender

arid p h ilo so p h ica l expression and speculations? Nature is his aesthV d by C olerid ge, for exam ple, from a pantheistic and monistic apprehende a u n iv ersa l force w hich sheds light on man's spirituality, jjjnensioir as ^ er WOrds, that the question is examined from an eco- fhis means, m ngion B ecom ing can be seen critically as a constructive metaphys^l a idealism/ the argum ent being that the visionary ex-deferral of sp . j jn texts are an indicator of supra-textual readings

^therefore'no^ dc^sures b u t dynam ic open-endedness. Is this the case

wifh Keats? b r of characteristic features in Keats's poetryThough there are a num VVordsworth, his nature-consciousnessu ffiliate w ith C olerid ge and Keats's poetry and prose show

z h a n d le the mat,er in a

I K - re83dr qually that b i s p o e t r y - d s c "It can be argued eq u alI y Yet, h is eco-p transcendental and,

hire from an o r g a m c is t vie P ^ the visionary a ^ ^ m ,hat of his

analyse, does not p lace p ^ dim ension o n j wjthin thecon ,therefore, the d om inant sp in ' nature pnm j ntal|y as a un,veelder colleagues, for it tend* to ^ over ,t fund sym.of his aesthetic quest ra j iongings- exq uisitc-ly P *j aS anforce or the basis o f h .s s p a f " * * genius a » ! ° Je H c itself,

Keats saw the secret o f « * * • n atu re and a ^ ^ wasi ah»P' % iden<pathy w ith n a tu r e . A p p re . m o m c n ' 0 hension- ^ rem-,r 5ever-increasing a n d w ithKeats infused m o s t o f h lS P ggS/ w ore i Pin his epistolary s e lf-c o n s c io u

Readings on Literory Criticism 191

The Romantic symbol of the breeze and its impact on the creative imagina-

iitsy hteoretheevwokaeyda. :Dr nafe_

lion, common in Wordsworth, Coleridge, and SselinesIlietyiv,

also notit.ses that Keats is obviously expressing and psycho-pathology,

fects bodily health. It therefore connects with physio-

and points to the therapeu-

which Keats had studied in his medical training,

tic or pharmaceutical importance of nature to the body and soul. This eco-

therapeutic perspective is not just a Coleridgean connection, but brings to

mind post-Novalian philosophy. Novalis (Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenburg 1772-4801) was very

preoc-

cupied with the pharmaceutical operations of nature in human life, a cele-

bration of both thepsychic and somatic nature of man. He nature

consciousness, stressing that nature is a pharmaceutical principle, a poison

and a healer. He saw illness as a positive prerequisite for wholeness and the

soul as the embodiment of the ambivalence of the pharmaceutical principle.

There is a connection between Novaiis and Keats in this phenomenon. 121 In fact, Keats's broodings over nature actually point to a number of con-

cerns that are intricately related to his study of medical sciences h. and Is phi-

losophy of the imagination. The nature of the Romantic imagination here is its aesthetic implications and how it connects inextricably with his progres-sive philosophy of life. The concern here is not unrelated to Keats's imagina-tive view of art, expressed in a letter to George and Thomas Keats, dated December 21, 1817.

The excellence of every Art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeables evaporate, from their being in close relationship with Beauty and Truth (John Keats: Letters, 370)

Keats's notion of beauty and truth is highly inclusive. That is, it blends all life's experiences or apprehensions, negative or positive, into a holistic vision. Art and nature, therefore, are seen as therapeutic in function.

Keats's views on nature are not to be found only in his poetry but also in his letters. Writing to Tom (1818), he associates nature with poetic inspiration and expression. In other letters to George and Thomas Keats (1817), he talks of the negative capability of the poet that calls for a synaesthetic and em-pathic vision in life, to Reynolds (1818), he asserts the conviction that all de-partments of knowledge are to be seen as excellence and calculated towards a great whole, to John Taylor (1818), he outlines certain axioms of poetry among which is the notion that if poetry comes not naturally as the leaves to a tree, it had better not come at all. All these connect the imagination with nature-consciousness and demonstrate an affinity with the Plotinist or Spinozist monism inherent in Wordsworth and Coleridge. But the major issue lies in apprehending nature as part of the creative process rather than the poet's adherence to nature's spirituality.

I Uornrv2»)2 Readingson . ct on the creative im agina-

.. 0 f the breeze and it* 11 t « ev is here evoked. OneThe Romantic sy WorJsWorth, Coleridge, an gitivity to the w ay air af-tmn, commoi ■ obviously express” K 0 . and psycho-pathology,

w hich Keats had studied in h is . e to th e b o d y a n d so u l. is eco -tic or pharm aceutical im portance o f md c o n n e c tio n , b u t b r in g s totherapeutic perspective is not j u s t a C omind post-Novalian philosophy. , burg 1772-1801) w as very preoc-

Novalis (Friedrich Freiherr von H of mature in human life, a cele-cupied with the pharmaceutical ope of m an. H e adopted a hom e-bration of both the psychic and soma cg of natU re and hum anopathic tradition to explain is ^ P ^ aceutical principle, a poison consciousness, stressing that nat ^I nuisite for w holeness and theand a healer. He saw illness as a P °s,t^ P ^ £ * e pharm aceutical principle.soul as the embodiment in this phenom enon.

There is a connection between Novaiis anu isko. r , ,121 In fa " . Keats’s brooding* over nature actually p e n t to a num ber of con­cerns that are intricately related to his study of m edical sc.ences and his phi­losophy of the imagination. The nature of the Rom antic im agination here is its aesthetic implications and how it connects inextricably w it is progres- sive philosophy of life. The concern here is not unrelated to K eats s im agina­tive view of art, expressed in a letter to George and T hom as K eats, dated December 21,1817.

The excellence of every Art is its intensity, capable of m ak in g a ll d isag reeab les evaporate, from their being in close relationship w ith B eau ty an d T ru th (John Keats: Letters, 370)

Keats's notion of beauty and truth is highly inclusive. That is, it blends all life 's experiences or apprehensions, negative or p ositive , in to a holistic vision. Art and nature, therefore, are seen as therapeutic in function.

Keats's views on nature are not to be found only in his poetry but also in his letters. Writing to Tom (1818), he associates nature w ith poetic inspiration and expression. In other letters to George and Thom as Keats (1817), he talks of the negative capability of the poet that calls for a synaesthetic and em- pathic vision in life, to Reynolds (1818), he asserts the conviction that all de­partments of knowledge are to be seen as excellence and calculated towards a great whole, to John Taylor (1818), he outlines certain axiom s of poetry among which is the notion that if poetry comes not naturally as the leaves to a tree, it had better not come at all. All these connect the imagination with nature-consciousness and demonstrate an affinity w ith the Plotinist or Spinozist monism inherent in W ordsworth and Coleridge. But the major issue lies in apprehending nature as part of the creative process rather than the poet's adherence to nature's spirituality.

11(..itlings urn Liturdry

_ , so another argument on the Auttigichtion of k iinti n

;:itioo .a.1:1)rhenomenon with ix' as a sli

,errito Li ha e tii in:aginett i.v.e and p.1.1ilosoll► lit:I:lir] er to 1.:: :II" yelilb!,:iii(i's)i.i're,:villicl}.(sr)i:jitinrii:la:

loglt .ve moment of existence, since he u -

A_.t.tt:rtintilit."a

I-1 a death into life Suffice cJeath, which to hip- l'ici:11:1:diti Ili' c .4 is a wel ,

{ onie relief rather

c..,,,nd to

eco nepti

dc-centre the tradition ii n Itiiiii141.t:il ri...:sitt-c,..1('I.rfiflit,:e,natil.,,Ler,xKist.t.ta5ntsceis. a tternptingt

v To Pt" .,,..10 of the seasons to whichparticularmofcharacteristic fea‘tur(e: tio , a4crioe--•

of t ' be cv --- ci Not only is Autumn a seas r ipeness and fruitful- lov- he ot..e 0 bet n ' h r seasons can philosophically or metaphorically

serve the T.ez... All the

of one another from a creative and aesthetic perspective. That „..1nie OS .fr,e artistically inspiring while engendering deep philosophical is, theY c. - 1 matters of life and death, each season can be spring as well as

d .iritua . . an

The critical stance taken here is that ecology has a mutually enriching death

• warding relationship with ethics and psychology. Dissociating any

and i human activity from ecological diversity seems impossible. reaira 01

re

iOn the Grasshopper and Cricket' and 'Bright Star, would I were

thou

sted- art' are two of Keats's sonnets that necessitate critical investiga-

fasts on with reference

to the present debate on nature. In the former poem, a . advances statements that go beyond the deceptive simplicity of the

geat.0 nfjeM'S title: r The poetry of earth is never dead:

When all the birds are tre

fes

n,a voihe we ll r

ait wit th houn t sun,

And hide in cooling ci

From hedge to hedge about the new-mown mead;

That is the Grasshopper's—he takes the lead In Summer's luxury,---he has never done With his delights; for when tired out with fun

He rests at ease beneath some pleasant heed.

The poetry of earth is ceasing never.

On a lone winter evening, w hen the frost

Has wrought a silence, from the stove there shrills The Cricket's song, in warmth increasing ever, And seems to one in drowsiness half lost, The Grasshopper's among some grassy hills.

The poet's ecological assertion that the poetry of earth cannot be exhausted is a

reverberation of the Spinozist idea that we cannot

have enough of the great

treasures of nature. Poetic composition can be inspired by any season, given the

apprehension that any season can be a generative and creative spring. This re-

current thematic issue, already mentioned above, takes a seemingly simplistic

di-..nension in this poem. The grasshopper and cricket are nature's elements that

Spirarisolnand convey different time axes in terms of the changing seasons. In com-

time an insight to philosophlicalband spiritual dispositions.

nature,

and at the same to the nig. htingale poem, one sees tne lend of

aesthetics and

inH»on I.jj,.r‘,ry C.ritjt is,,, 297

alm or s s h o p p e r an d C rick et' and 'Bright Star, would I were sted-** 'On the C ra ^ Gf K ea ts 's sonnets that necessitate critical investiga-

-t as th°u art are to th e p resen t d ebate on nature. In the former poem, with sta tem en ts th at go beyond the deceptive simplicity of the

!2m 's title:r f parth is never dead.

n e p0euThe birds are faint with the hot sun,When all tne v i treeS/ a v o ic e w ill ru nAnd hide in co o i g th e new-mown m ead;

Fr0ffl hehdgG rassh o p p er's-h e takes the lead That is the Gras PP_ hag never doneIn Summer s luxu y, tjred out with fun

Wi*h ? a , eeagse b e n e a th so m e p le a sa n t heed .He rests at ea reasing never.The poetry of ear when the frostOn a lone winter e v e n in g , ^ gtove there shnUs Has w rought a s ile n c , th in creasin g ever,The C ricket's so n g , i sineSS h a lf lost,And seem s to o n e •" c g ra ssy hills.The G rasshop per s a m o i g

,t ._ t flao n n p tfV

Andseem s w ---------The G rasshopper's among some grassy • ^ ^ exhausted is a

e poet's ecological assertion that the P°*~*P[an n ot have enough of the great ^iteration of the Sp in ozist idea that ™ inspired by any season, give" th asures of nature. Poetic com position ca and creative spring-prehension that any season can be a ge takes a seemingly simfrrent thematic issue, already mentioned a b o je ,^ are natui*'s e,em ^tension in this poem. The grasshopper ^ the changing ’ nature,

aland Aifft,rpnt tim e axes m ter UK>nd 0f aesthetics a ^

?matic issue, already menuox *•- , . e naturc =>—in this poem. The grasshopper and season. In comconvey different tim e axes in tenJ? blend 0f aesthetics an> the nichtineale poem , one sees . d spiritual dispos

insight to philosophical and Pto the nightingale at the same time an ’n<