The thing I found most intriguing about New Criticism was the way that it differs from the way we look at texts now. Because we use the concept of looking at “the text itself,” it seemed like our criticism should be very similar to New Criticism, but it’s interesting that “New Critics believed that a single best, or most accurate, interpretation of each text could be discovered that best represents the text itself” (Tyson 148). That view of there being one interpretation that is the “best” is so contrary to what I was taught in school (which was that as long as the text supported your interpretation, it was probably okay) that it just kind of threw me a little in how I had until then viewed New Criticism.
The most confusing aspect of New Criticism would have to be the fact that only one best interpretation should exist. Due to New Critics relying solely on the text, it would seem that many different interpretations would arise instead of only one definite interpretation. I found it interesting that "essays interpreting a literary text frequently began with a survey of other critics' interpretations of the same text in order to show that everyone else's reading fell short" (Tyson, 148). I find it a difficult to believe that all other views on the work would be considered wrong. I feel like the more ideas and thoughts surrounding a text would be more helpful in discussing the theme of a text. Other than this fact concerning New Criticism, I found this form of theory to be very compelling. I liked that the critics only focused on the text itself because perhaps the text is better or worse than how the author intended it.
I found the idea of "the text itself" to be intriguing, as I felt like that was what was asked of us in our first essay. I especially like the ideas of intentional fallacy - the mistaken belief that the author's intention is the same as the text's meaning - and affective fallacy - where the reader's background affects their interpretation of the text (Tyson 136-37). I believe that the author's intention, while valuable, is not the sole source or even the most important when determining the the meaning of a text. Likewise, I believe that we have to step outside our own experiences (or at least as much as we can) when interpreting a text. However, I, at first reading, found the idea of single best interpretation to be a little daunting. I have always seen various interpretations as lending to a more diverse way of thinking and therefore, the more interpretations the better. To have one interpretation that suggests all the former ones are inadequate is certainly new to me.
Like quite a few people have already mentioned, I find that trying to find one succinct and proper answer to a literary text astounding; however, I don’t find it necessarily surprising that people would try to do that. I find it a bit narrow-minded that the New Criticism theory believes that they can prove other answers wrong. To argue against something like that seems to be a moot point; for years I’ve found that most people want you to find your own answers to a literary text, much like we did in class on our poems. Tyson states it clearly enough: “It’s rather ironic, then, that New Criticism’s gift to critical theory – its focus on the text itself – was responsible for its downfall” (Tyson 149). By not being able to accept that there could be multiple correct outcomes, themes, and answers to a text, there was no way that this theory could ever be widely accepted. However, when reading Tyson’s example of New Criticism using The Great Gatsby, I found it seemed similar to what we do in class; I think subconsciously literature classes do pick a singular theme when discussing novels. When the author stated, “Most critics agree that Fitzgerald’s novel offers a scathing critique of American values in the 1920s…” (151). I realized that, when I had to read this in high school, that’s exactly what we focused on; it is in the text and it proves it with multiple, blatant examples. Tyson’s analysis of The Great Gatsby reminded me much of what I’ve always done when I wrote a paper over a literary text.
I can see why New Criticism is not commonly practiced anymore. To call yours “the single best interpretation” would certainly spark some arguments between New Critic and New Critic (not to mention any other type of critic such as psychological, sociological, or philosophical critics). In the text, Tyson states: “…during New Criticism’s heyday, essays interpreting a literary text frequently began with a survey of other critics’ interpretations of the same text in order to show that everyone else’s reading fell short…” (Tyson 148). So, basically everyone was trying to one-up the person before him/her and prove that his/her interpretation was the “truly best” reading of the text. I find this perplexing and am glad that this theory is no longer in practice. - Ann Reagan
I understand why New Criticism is no longer practiced. I found after reading the chapter I was confused as to how there could only be a single interpretation of every text. In every English class I have ever taken, at least, interpretations were drawn from many sources. I've always felt this is the best approach to interpreting a text. It's important to look at the text itself, but looking at additional sources helps create a more diverse interpretation of the text. You can learn something about the text you may have never seen before.
I also have to admit that the "single best interpretation" aspect of New Criticism doesn't make very much sense to me. Seeing a single text as "an independent entity with a stable meaning of its own" (Tyson 148) seems rather limiting when analyzing a work of literature. Even though New Criticism replaced biographical-historical criticism, it seems just as limiting as trying to determine "authorial intention." I get the sense that the supposed single best interpretation is presented as fact once found, which is absurd. It's also pretty ridiculous to say that one person's interpretation of a text is the actual best one ever. Multiple interpretations, with considerable amounts of evidence to back them up, can approach texts from multiple angles and each can be as excellent as the next.
As many of my classmates have already stated, I do not understand how there can be a "single best interpretation." I feel as though this would be different for each person critiquing the piece. So if five people read a poem and deemed their interpretation the "single best interpretation" of the poem, there would be five different "single best interpretations." That in itself is simply confusing. On the other hand, I find it very intriguing how we have basically integrated New Criticism techniques into many high school and college classes. Just like in our explication we had to write, we went off of only the text to explicate the poem. I think these techniques are essential, but I feel as though you cannot only have one interpretation that exceeds all others. Using "the text itself" can be very useful for specific interpretations, but to get the best all-around interpretation of the piece, using outside sources is necessary.
New Criticism offered a bunch to the field of literature, specifically text analysis. It created techniques students and scholars still use today. I believe the idea of a "single best interpretation" ought to be done away with. A "general understanding" sounds much better because it provides a concrete base writers and readers can use to build abstract ideas. Additionally, I fail to understand why it focused primarily on paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension when there are so many dozens more techniques that can be examined in a text, such as imagery, structure, and juxtaposition. I'm not certain if New Criticism denounced outside research, because outside research was used as a benchmark and was attempted to be "proven wrong."
Many classmates have already stated that there cannot be a "single best interpretation" New Critics do believe "that a single best, or most accurate, interpretation of each text could be discovered that best represents the text itself" (148). I do not understand how this is possible, many people could read the same text and have different view points on it. Who is to say who is right or who is wrong?
The thing that was most intriguing about New Criticism was probably the idea that it aimed to find a single best interpretation of the text. It makes sense to me that at some point in time scholars aimed to do this because it would make studying literature much easier. However, I also found it so contrary to the way I have always approached reading. I have always felt that as long as an interpretation can be supported than it had merit, so the fact that New Criticism presents an idea so contrary to my own way of thinking was why it was so interesting to read about.
In reading chapter 5, I found that the most intriguing aspect of New Criticism is the aspect of the text itself. I found it both intriguing and confusing in the same sense. For instance, I thought it was interesting to learn about the authorial intention, and how in earlier centuries it was found common to study the author's life. By studying the author's life, the readers are able to see the meaning that the author intended to have. I found this aspect of the text itself category most intriguing because I enjoy getting to know the author of a piece in the best sense that I can. For example, in pursuing research about Gwendolyn Brooks, I found her biography and information about the culture at the time to be knowledgable information. Understanding the era in which she wrote allowed me to dig deeper into her poem, "The Mother." However, as I continued to read I learned that New Critics believed that sure, the information was helpful, but it did not explain the text itself. The challenging aspect of this category came when I understood through the examples given, that even if Shakespeare left a record, we still wouldn't know the extent of information we would if were able to call him to ask ourselves. This is more of a challenge in research, and having to dig deeper into the text itself, than in understanding New Criticism. It was interesting to learn that sometimes the text's meaning is simply different than the meaning the author intended for it to have.
I really thought that the fact that New Criticism is not used anymore is very interesting. However, I do think that this is possibly for the best, as each version of analyzing a text simply looks for the one best way to sum up a piece of literature, thus stifling those who wish to explicate a piece of work. I really think that in order to understand a piece of literature that you need to be able to see multiple views of a piece.
I believe the most intriguing part of new criticism is the part where it talks about only using the text to explain the meaning of the poem. It is hard to just focus on the text itself because in order to properly analysis a work of literature you have to know the context of the poem. If the context of the poem is not known then you can say anything about the poem and what you say may not go along with the poem. I do believe there should be one best interpretation for some poems. For example if the poem is too abstract I want a scholar to make it so where I can understand it then I can draw my own conclusion. I got a poem in mine, but I forgot the poem name. I know that it has two lines though.- Christopher Catlett
Like a lot of my classmates have said, I find it very confusing (and intriguing) that New Criticism only believed in a single best interpretation of a text. According to the text, "new critical theory insisted on analyzing the text as an isolated aesthetic object with a single meaning" (149). That way of thinking COULD make reading and analyzing literature easier. If there is one main idea that stands out, then understanding the text would be simple. However, I can see how New Criticism died out. Extrinsic forms of criticism can utilize psychological, sociological and philosophical frameworks that can ultimately aid the reader in analyzing a text and creating more than one 'single best interpretation'.
Under the “The text itself” section, when the book talks about how most of the time we do not have written documentation of the authors intended meaning with their writings; and even if we do, their writing often has greater meanings than the author intended or it does not meet the authors intentions. I found this most intriguing because it aloud me to understand the misguided, over analytical idiots that feel they know and understand what the Founding Fathers meant in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights better than they did when they were written instead of taking them to mean what they wrote. There are many literary works that definitely have deeper and often mystic meanings that are not always visible to everyone or are left to be interpreted differently by each reader, and by all means we should analyze and over analyze till our hearts content with these works. However, people should be careful not to over analyze and try to find deeper meanings than what the writer or writers intended in documents like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, speeches from Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson which are often misquoted and/or taken out of context, and other documents that dictate the layout of this country and what it was founded on.
After reading Chapter 5, I realized that the thing I found most intriguing about New Criticism is the idea of leaving the meaning of the text up to the text. I instantly felt like the reason New Criticism was no longer commonly practiced was because it is a theory that is too free spirited and hippie-ish. Each critic was entitled to their own interpretation of the text yet they rarely agreed on the meaning or how it came about. So they just let the different interpretations of the same text dwell amongst each other. I love it. Other aspects of Chapter 5 that I enjoyed learning about were the fallacies. I never thought about the fact that the author's intention could differ from the text's meaning. I've always felt that literary pieces only go as far as the author intends for them to go. I never thought of the fact that an author's piece could fail to live up to their expectations or exceed them all together.
New Criticism seems to basically be the way my high school teacher for AP Lit. taught us to analyze a book, I just did not know it as this term at the time. Maybe I missed it or something, but why exactly is New Criticism no longer used to break down literary works? Does a text always have to be seen through different lights? Surely not every text out there was written with multiple different criticisms in mind. I believe that every text actually does have a certain analysis that is superior to all the others. It might be interesting to mention the other views, but we usually seem to stick with what one has the most support or is the most obvious to the reader. Also, if a contemporary author were to analyze a text in the New Criticism light, would it still be accepted as a proper analysis?
The idea of only having the text itself is very intriguing. I have taken a class on the philosophy of aesthetics and new criticism seems to be very similar. By only looking at the text there by completely eliminating reader response, you have only the face value of the original text to look at. I think this challenges the idea of good writing because if the text is well written then the text should be able to stand alone. However, I do think there are some outside facts that are necessary to know such as the historical context and allusions. Without these, there would be large portions of certain texts that would be rendered obsolete by new criticism. I also think that sometimes it is unavoidable as a critic to take these things into account. I assume that this is probably the main reason that it is no longer practiced readily. I did not find it to be confusing, but I could use some clearing up on the process of looking exclusively at the text. It just seems a little daunting.
I found looking at "text itself" to be the most intriguing. When a writer is giving evidence for their interpretation of the text, I feel as though the evidence supporting their claim should be found in the text's words, because there are little hints that can drive your interpretation home if you can support it through the author's text. I also think that by looking solely at the "text itself" it allows the reader to respond more to the text because there are not any outside influences that alter or shape our initial reaction to the poem. This allows the reader to make their own interpretations, but allows gives them the challenge of finding textual evidence to support their claim. I do however think that having addition information, such as a biography of the author could also be beneficial to understanding the author's mindset and the historical context in which the piece was written.
The thing I found most intriguing about New Criticism was the way that it differs from the way we look at texts now. Because we use the concept of looking at “the text itself,” it seemed like our criticism should be very similar to New Criticism, but it’s interesting that “New Critics believed that a single best, or most accurate, interpretation of each text could be discovered that best represents the text itself” (Tyson 148). That view of there being one interpretation that is the “best” is so contrary to what I was taught in school (which was that as long as the text supported your interpretation, it was probably okay) that it just kind of threw me a little in how I had until then viewed New Criticism.
ReplyDeleteThe most confusing aspect of New Criticism would have to be the fact that only one best interpretation should exist. Due to New Critics relying solely on the text, it would seem that many different interpretations would arise instead of only one definite interpretation. I found it interesting that "essays interpreting a literary text frequently began with a survey of other critics' interpretations of the same text in order to show that everyone else's reading fell short" (Tyson, 148). I find it a difficult to believe that all other views on the work would be considered wrong. I feel like the more ideas and thoughts surrounding a text would be more helpful in discussing the theme of a text. Other than this fact concerning New Criticism, I found this form of theory to be very compelling. I liked that the critics only focused on the text itself because perhaps the text is better or worse than how the author intended it.
ReplyDeleteI found the idea of "the text itself" to be intriguing, as I felt like that was what was asked of us in our first essay. I especially like the ideas of intentional fallacy - the mistaken belief that the author's intention is the same as the text's meaning - and affective fallacy - where the reader's background affects their interpretation of the text (Tyson 136-37). I believe that the author's intention, while valuable, is not the sole source or even the most important when determining the the meaning of a text. Likewise, I believe that we have to step outside our own experiences (or at least as much as we can) when interpreting a text. However, I, at first reading, found the idea of single best interpretation to be a little daunting. I have always seen various interpretations as lending to a more diverse way of thinking and therefore, the more interpretations the better. To have one interpretation that suggests all the former ones are inadequate is certainly new to me.
ReplyDelete-- Leslie Fox
Like quite a few people have already mentioned, I find that trying to find one succinct and proper answer to a literary text astounding; however, I don’t find it necessarily surprising that people would try to do that. I find it a bit narrow-minded that the New Criticism theory believes that they can prove other answers wrong. To argue against something like that seems to be a moot point; for years I’ve found that most people want you to find your own answers to a literary text, much like we did in class on our poems. Tyson states it clearly enough: “It’s rather ironic, then, that New Criticism’s gift to critical theory – its focus on the text itself – was responsible for its downfall” (Tyson 149). By not being able to accept that there could be multiple correct outcomes, themes, and answers to a text, there was no way that this theory could ever be widely accepted.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when reading Tyson’s example of New Criticism using The Great Gatsby, I found it seemed similar to what we do in class; I think subconsciously literature classes do pick a singular theme when discussing novels. When the author stated, “Most critics agree that Fitzgerald’s novel offers a scathing critique of American values in the 1920s…” (151). I realized that, when I had to read this in high school, that’s exactly what we focused on; it is in the text and it proves it with multiple, blatant examples. Tyson’s analysis of The Great Gatsby reminded me much of what I’ve always done when I wrote a paper over a literary text.
I can see why New Criticism is not commonly practiced anymore. To call yours “the single best interpretation” would certainly spark some arguments between New Critic and New Critic (not to mention any other type of critic such as psychological, sociological, or philosophical critics). In the text, Tyson states: “…during New Criticism’s heyday, essays interpreting a literary text frequently began with a survey of other critics’ interpretations of the same text in order to show that everyone else’s reading fell short…” (Tyson 148). So, basically everyone was trying to one-up the person before him/her and prove that his/her interpretation was the “truly best” reading of the text. I find this perplexing and am glad that this theory is no longer in practice. - Ann Reagan
ReplyDeleteI understand why New Criticism is no longer practiced. I found after reading the chapter I was confused as to how there could only be a single interpretation of every text. In every English class I have ever taken, at least, interpretations were drawn from many sources. I've always felt this is the best approach to interpreting a text. It's important to look at the text itself, but looking at additional sources helps create a more diverse interpretation of the text. You can learn something about the text you may have never seen before.
ReplyDeleteI also have to admit that the "single best interpretation" aspect of New Criticism doesn't make very much sense to me. Seeing a single text as "an independent entity with a stable meaning of its own" (Tyson 148) seems rather limiting when analyzing a work of literature. Even though New Criticism replaced biographical-historical criticism, it seems just as limiting as trying to determine "authorial intention." I get the sense that the supposed single best interpretation is presented as fact once found, which is absurd. It's also pretty ridiculous to say that one person's interpretation of a text is the actual best one ever. Multiple interpretations, with considerable amounts of evidence to back them up, can approach texts from multiple angles and each can be as excellent as the next.
ReplyDeleteAs many of my classmates have already stated, I do not understand how there can be a "single best interpretation." I feel as though this would be different for each person critiquing the piece. So if five people read a poem and deemed their interpretation the "single best interpretation" of the poem, there would be five different "single best interpretations." That in itself is simply confusing. On the other hand, I find it very intriguing how we have basically integrated New Criticism techniques into many high school and college classes. Just like in our explication we had to write, we went off of only the text to explicate the poem. I think these techniques are essential, but I feel as though you cannot only have one interpretation that exceeds all others. Using "the text itself" can be very useful for specific interpretations, but to get the best all-around interpretation of the piece, using outside sources is necessary.
ReplyDeleteNew Criticism offered a bunch to the field of literature, specifically text analysis. It created techniques students and scholars still use today. I believe the idea of a "single best interpretation" ought to be done away with. A "general understanding" sounds much better because it provides a concrete base writers and readers can use to build abstract ideas. Additionally, I fail to understand why it focused primarily on paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension when there are so many dozens more techniques that can be examined in a text, such as imagery, structure, and juxtaposition. I'm not certain if New Criticism denounced outside research, because outside research was used as a benchmark and was attempted to be "proven wrong."
ReplyDeleteJacky Killian
Many classmates have already stated that there cannot be a "single best interpretation" New Critics do believe "that a single best, or most accurate, interpretation of each text could be discovered that best represents the text itself" (148). I do not understand how this is possible, many people could read the same text and have different view points on it. Who is to say who is right or who is wrong?
ReplyDeleteEmily Embry
The thing that was most intriguing about New Criticism was probably the idea that it aimed to find a single best interpretation of the text. It makes sense to me that at some point in time scholars aimed to do this because it would make studying literature much easier. However, I also found it so contrary to the way I have always approached reading. I have always felt that as long as an interpretation can be supported than it had merit, so the fact that New Criticism presents an idea so contrary to my own way of thinking was why it was so interesting to read about.
ReplyDeleteZachary Ecton
In reading chapter 5, I found that the most intriguing aspect of New Criticism is the aspect of the text itself. I found it both intriguing and confusing in the same sense. For instance, I thought it was interesting to learn about the authorial intention, and how in earlier centuries it was found common to study the author's life. By studying the author's life, the readers are able to see the meaning that the author intended to have. I found this aspect of the text itself category most intriguing because I enjoy getting to know the author of a piece in the best sense that I can. For example, in pursuing research about Gwendolyn Brooks, I found her biography and information about the culture at the time to be knowledgable information. Understanding the era in which she wrote allowed me to dig deeper into her poem, "The Mother." However, as I continued to read I learned that New Critics believed that sure, the information was helpful, but it did not explain the text itself. The challenging aspect of this category came when I understood through the examples given, that even if Shakespeare left a record, we still wouldn't know the extent of information we would if were able to call him to ask ourselves. This is more of a challenge in research, and having to dig deeper into the text itself, than in understanding New Criticism. It was interesting to learn that sometimes the text's meaning is simply different than the meaning the author intended for it to have.
ReplyDeleteI really thought that the fact that New Criticism is not used anymore is very interesting. However, I do think that this is possibly for the best, as each version of analyzing a text simply looks for the one best way to sum up a piece of literature, thus stifling those who wish to explicate a piece of work. I really think that in order to understand a piece of literature that you need to be able to see multiple views of a piece.
ReplyDelete--Jordan Cole
I believe the most intriguing part of new criticism is the part where it talks about only using the text to explain the meaning of the poem. It is hard to just focus on the text itself because in order to properly analysis a work of literature you have to know the context of the poem. If the context of the poem is not known then you can say anything about the poem and what you say may not go along with the poem. I do believe there should be one best interpretation for some poems. For example if the poem is too abstract I want a scholar to make it so where I can understand it then I can draw my own conclusion. I got a poem in mine, but I forgot the poem name. I know that it has two lines though.- Christopher Catlett
ReplyDeleteLike a lot of my classmates have said, I find it very confusing (and intriguing) that New Criticism only believed in a single best interpretation of a text. According to the text, "new critical theory insisted on analyzing the text as an isolated aesthetic object with a single meaning" (149). That way of thinking COULD make reading and analyzing literature easier. If there is one main idea that stands out, then understanding the text would be simple. However, I can see how New Criticism died out. Extrinsic forms of criticism can utilize psychological, sociological and philosophical frameworks that can ultimately aid the reader in analyzing a text and creating more than one 'single best interpretation'.
ReplyDeleteUnder the “The text itself” section, when the book talks about how most of the time we do not have written documentation of the authors intended meaning with their writings; and even if we do, their writing often has greater meanings than the author intended or it does not meet the authors intentions. I found this most intriguing because it aloud me to understand the misguided, over analytical idiots that feel they know and understand what the Founding Fathers meant in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights better than they did when they were written instead of taking them to mean what they wrote. There are many literary works that definitely have deeper and often mystic meanings that are not always visible to everyone or are left to be interpreted differently by each reader, and by all means we should analyze and over analyze till our hearts content with these works. However, people should be careful not to over analyze and try to find deeper meanings than what the writer or writers intended in documents like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, speeches from Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson which are often misquoted and/or taken out of context, and other documents that dictate the layout of this country and what it was founded on.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Chapter 5, I realized that the thing I found most intriguing about New Criticism is the idea of leaving the meaning of the text up to the text. I instantly felt like the reason New Criticism was no longer commonly practiced was because it is a theory that is too free spirited and hippie-ish. Each critic was entitled to their own interpretation of the text yet they rarely agreed on the meaning or how it came about. So they just let the different interpretations of the same text dwell amongst each other. I love it. Other aspects of Chapter 5 that I enjoyed learning about were the fallacies. I never thought about the fact that the author's intention could differ from the text's meaning. I've always felt that literary pieces only go as far as the author intends for them to go. I never thought of the fact that an author's piece could fail to live up to their expectations or exceed them all together.
ReplyDeleteNew Criticism seems to basically be the way my high school teacher for AP Lit. taught us to analyze a book, I just did not know it as this term at the time. Maybe I missed it or something, but why exactly is New Criticism no longer used to break down literary works? Does a text always have to be seen through different lights? Surely not every text out there was written with multiple different criticisms in mind. I believe that every text actually does have a certain analysis that is superior to all the others. It might be interesting to mention the other views, but we usually seem to stick with what one has the most support or is the most obvious to the reader. Also, if a contemporary author were to analyze a text in the New Criticism light, would it still be accepted as a proper analysis?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of only having the text itself is very intriguing. I have taken a class on the philosophy of aesthetics and new criticism seems to be very similar. By only looking at the text there by completely eliminating reader response, you have only the face value of the original text to look at. I think this challenges the idea of good writing because if the text is well written then the text should be able to stand alone. However, I do think there are some outside facts that are necessary to know such as the historical context and allusions. Without these, there would be large portions of certain texts that would be rendered obsolete by new criticism. I also think that sometimes it is unavoidable as a critic to take these things into account. I assume that this is probably the main reason that it is no longer practiced readily. I did not find it to be confusing, but I could use some clearing up on the process of looking exclusively at the text. It just seems a little daunting.
ReplyDeleteI found looking at "text itself" to be the most intriguing. When a writer is giving evidence for their interpretation of the text, I feel as though the evidence supporting their claim should be found in the text's words, because there are little hints that can drive your interpretation home if you can support it through the author's text. I also think that by looking solely at the "text itself" it allows the reader to respond more to the text because there are not any outside influences that alter or shape our initial reaction to the poem. This allows the reader to make their own interpretations, but allows gives them the challenge of finding textual evidence to support their claim. I do however think that having addition information, such as a biography of the author could also be beneficial to understanding the author's mindset and the historical context in which the piece was written.
ReplyDelete~Leta Summers