Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
002729
ENG 371
What is “Literary Criticism”? According to one definition, it means “analysis, interpretation, and evaluation
of works of literature in light of existing standards of taste, or with the purpose of creating new standards”.1 Should
literary criticism only analyze literary works, or, can it expand into other areas of study—philosophy, science,
politics, psychology, theology etc? In this essay, I will attempt to illustrate how literary criticism should not just deal
with literary works, but also political, sociological and cultural issues. I will also show the development of literary
Historically, literary criticism has started with the works of Plato. Ever since Aristotle wrote about the
works of Plato, literary criticism has been the history of critical arguments. In the 20th century, by the establishment
of English literature departments, F.R Leavis dismissed “all literature except the small amount of genuinely realized
work which represented the “great tradition”.2 Leavis made an assumed distinction between good literature and
According to Leavis, every work of art must contain within itself vibrant language, must have a moral point
and also must connect to the organic community. A piece of literature that does not employ these characteristics,
according to his taste, would be considered not a good literature. Obviously, Leavis’ biased notion of what is good
and bad literature is a subjective opinion of his own understanding of literature. First, because what is considered
moral, vibrant piece will be seen differently by the eyes of another reader—it might be vibrant to me, but it may not
be vibrant to someone who has read literature 30 years (which, of course, has a accumulated vocabulary).
Furthermore, to give another example, Shakespeare’s work might be culturally vibrant now, but was an
ordinary language at the time he was writing. Leavis thought that literature had intentional vibrant language whereas
that was not the case; he looked literature in its moral sense. That is why the first criticism was called “moral
criticism”. Again, in moral criticism, authorial intention was present because critics sought to understand the moral
point of the author—if there was any, of course. In moral criticism, critics looked at the conflict between good and
Uludag / 2
bad; and who was the main character of the story. To give a broad example, fairy tales exemplified these moral
characteristics.
Russian Formalism emerged in Russia during the second decade of the twentieth century and remained
active until 1930s. Formalists, “first and foremost emphasized the autonomous nature of literature and consequently
the proper study of literature as neither a reflection of the life of its author nor as by product of the historical or
cultural milieu in which it was created”.3 This also parallels with the theory of New Criticisms which they thought
that literature is just about itself. The main two characteristics of Formalism are “defamiliarization” [ostranenie] and
“literariness”. Defamiliarization, as the word suggests “makes strange” either by the function of the form, or by the
function of the content. Formalists thought that literature is different from non-literature; and what makes a piece of
writing is its literariness. Again, one can ask the question: what is special about this literariness? For Formalists,
perhaps it can be speculated that literature is fictional, whereas a newspaper text is factual; literature is about stories,
In United States, with the arrival of New Criticism, (analogously similar with Formalism) author’s cultural
context, biography, and intention was considered meaningless when analyzing a piece of literature. W. K Wimsatt
and Monroe C. Beardsley have identified five fallacies on this account, which the reader should consider when
reading a text. They argue, that the author is the cause of a work, but he/she are not the result [meaning]; the
presence of writing a text is not important because the readers can never be in that presence; the object [aim] of
poetry is not singlitude in meaning but multitude [ambiguity]; narrator of a text is not the author; and finally, drafts
I. A. Richards, in his Practical Criticism (1929) “emphasized the importance of close textual reading and
warned against the dangers of sentimentality, generalizations, and lazy, careless reading”. (Encarta 98) His work has
also affected the development of New Criticism. New Criticism, as it is indicated above, is involved in taking a close
look at the text, finding out what the text can say in its own. Thus, new critics limited themselves to the formal
structures of a text.
How can New Criticism be a political criticism? New Criticism, in some sense, can become political
because it makes the readers realize that meaning is not always found outside of the text, but inside. Furthermore, it
forces readers’ imaginativeness to expand by making them to focus and create commentaries about a little material
thus the readers become aware how much they can produce from less data.
Uludag / 3
A work can be political in three different ways: culturally, formally or textually4; so, in this case, New Criticism is
exclusively on them”, and also, how these phenomena represented themselves to the consciousness of the reader.
Husserl divided this consciousness into two: “noesis” (act of consciousness) and “noema” (object of consciousness).
Thus, marked the interconnection between the reader and the text. Phenomenology believes that texts do not exist in
isolation; they only exist—or become existent—when there is a reader to contemplate what the text is about.
Moreover, it deals with how the reader is affected by a work and in the long rung, how that work will be affected by
its reader. So, reader and the text is extricably dependent on each other. Reader can not exist in solitude, nor can the
object itself. Phenomenology was probably the thirst theory to discuss the effects of a text upon its reader by
Then, how do we apply all these theories to literature itself? What different interpretations can we come up
with? In what ways do these theories overlap with each other? For instance, Waiting for Godot, in moral criticism is
about the hopeless and remedyless situation of humanity, thus, the characters in the play are waiting for purification
by divine will. It can also be about the perverse nature of humanity, where there is no harmony between one and
For the Formalists, it was an attempt to “make strange” our beliefs about the nature of play per se. Or, with
the content presented, it can also be an eccentric play because there is no happy ending and the readers are totally
astonished to see that this guy/girl called Godot does not arrive. For the New Critics, the play was just about itself.
The conflict between Pozzo and Lucky is relevant because in some ways it displays the binary oppositions in the
Phenomenological approach would be the immediate affect it had on the readers. While reading Waiting for
Godot, we have constructed ourselves into believing that there is such thing as Godot in the play that must somehow
arrive. Let’s say that Godot was going to show up at the end of the text, we would have never known it before
reading it. Therefore, the play needs a reader—audience—to convey its ideas, it cannot exists alone. Beckett did not
write this play into thinking that nobody will ever read it, maybe he did. What Beckett did is that he “bared the
device” he showed the “means of production” in his play because the readers, while reading, understood the different
types of discourses that were taking place in the play—the discourse or economics, religion, politics etc.
Uludag / 4
So where is the politics of all these interpretations? What about “laying bare” the device? For readers to
understand that what they are reading is just a piece of art, the writer has to reveal the device which it was made so
that the readers can understand that what they are reading is just literature. And because of this, suspension of
On the account of literature, a literature that does not discuss political issues, gender issues, racial issues,
class issues is not really about politics. Simultaneously, because it does not talk about it, it then also becomes
political because it does not talk about it. Why does it not want to talk about?—because it does not want to disturb
the peaceful order of the society, does not want to disturb the ruling class’s power.
Walter Benjamin discusses the role of art in his essay “Work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”
and says that art has become the tool of politics, meaning politicians have “aestheticised politics”, made politics look
like art. So the duty of art must be otherwise: writers should “politicize aesthetics”, be political in their narrative; and
they should use politics to convey their political issues. When Foucault talks about power and how it is exercised, he
also mentions that those who subject themselves to power have the opportunity to reverse this hierarchy “each
constitutes for the other kind of permanent limit, a point of possible reversal”.5
For the conclusion, should then theory only be about literature, or what is at least considered literature. Or,
as Terry Eagleton suggests, should it also be about other relative fields of study—philosophy, politics, science, etc.
Literary theory which succumbs itself into interpreting the meanings of words in language is not really doing what is
necessary for humanity’s existence. What is necessary is to expose the realities which we live in, to indicate that
there are enough bombs in this world that 10 percent of it can eradicate everyone in this world, if it is used. And it
costs millions of dollars to make these bombs; and for what reason? To kill each other at the end with our own hands
and with the objects of our own creation? Perhaps, that’s where the world is going.
1
End Notes
have adopted these ideas to reveal the politics behind the text.
5
Michel Foucault’s “The Subject and Power”, hereafter cited in text as (Power)
Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. “Work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”. A Cultural Studies Reader: History, Theory,
Practice. Ed. Jessica Munns and Gita Rajan. London and New York: Longman, 1995. 88-91.
Foucalt, Michel. “The Subject and Power”. Michel Foucault: Collected Essays. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.
Leavis, F.R. “Literature and Society”. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol II. New York: Norton
Publishers, 1980.
Lechte, John. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. London and New York: Routhledge, 1994
Poulet, Georges. “Criticism and the Experience of Interiority”. The Structuralist Controversy. Baltimore: John
W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy”. Twentieth Century Literary Criticism. Ed.