New Criticism, How I Used It, and Confusions
Permalink for this paragraph 2 While reading chapter three of the “Texts and Contexts” book I could see how I have used this technique in my previous English classes when analyzing writings. I also noticed some differences and confusions about how the New Criticism theory works. My first question arises on page 43. Lynn is describing the approach used by a man named I. A. Richards. Richards thought that students could read poems more richly by removing “the distraction of authors’ names, dates, even titles” (43). Looking on my past experiences dealing with analyzing writings I don’t think I have considered the author or dates of the poem as a huge significance in the meaning of the writings. It might be interesting to know the time period it was written in or the biography of the author but I’m not sure I see a major significance. So while I might be on board with Richards with removing the date and author when reading, especially if this information distracts the reader, but I have to disagree with removing the title. In my opinion the title is very important to the meaning and understanding of any form of writing. I understand that not all new criticism critics believe the same methods but I still do not understand the use of removing the title. How does that make a readers’ understanding better or “richer”??
Permalink for this paragraph 1 Another part of the chapter I questioned was on page 44. Lynn says that “the writer should not be evaluated”. While I understand what Lynn is saying I fail to how it is possible to completely ignore evaluating the writer. When you are evaluating something someone wrote aren’t you evaluating the author in turn? You always ask “why did they do this” or “why did they use this wording”. Isn’t that kind of evaluating the author? I may be on a whole other wave length than the new criticism critics but I honestly don’t understand that part.
Permalink for this paragraph 0 When I finally got to the part in the chapter with the example a new criticism critique I was surprised by how many questions were asked. It seems like every single word and phrase was brought into question. I knew that new criticism questioned a lot but I was was not prepared for how intense it was. I have never looked so in depth into any writings. I have obviously questioned things in writings before but these critics seem to take it to a new level. I think using this theory will take my thought pattern and analyzing ability to a new level.
sevescott
Maybe by removing the title the reader removes the “judging the book by the cover?” That’s the only reason I can come up with. Removing the title would remove the temptation for the reader to make assumptions about the poem before even reading it. I suppose this also forces the reader to focus only on the contents of the poem and not other extraneous information.
I agree with your opinion on the title of a poem. A poem does not have to be titled, however, if it is I feel as though it can be a vital part of the poem’s meaning. A title can shed light on meaning, or open up new interpretations of the poem. If the author included a title, then that is part of the poem as a whole. If one was to delete the title of some poems it would be like deleting the first line of the poem.