New Criticism

Vema N. Riady

120810020

New Criticism was the most important theory in literary field from

1940s to 1960. It has left an enduring mark on the way we read and write

about literature. Some of its essential concepts relating to the nature and

importance of textual data, for instance the use of concrete, specific

examples from the text itself validate our interpretation – have been

incorporated into the approach most literary critics today use to support

their readings of literature. New Criticism introduced what we called close

reading, a standard method of literary reading applied in high school and

college education, in particular on literary studies for the past more than a

few decades. New Criticism is still a real presence among us and probably

will remain the same for some time to come. On the contrary of its important

invention and contribution in literary studies, New Criticism theoretical

persuasion and approach, New Criticism gained objection among the literary

researchers.

It is not acceptable to consider New Criticism as a contemporary theory

since none of the critics today put it into practice, but Lois Tyson discussed

the matter for its role to literary field. This summing up will give accounts on
its two contrary sides, its contribution and flaw. In order to understand those

theories that have developed in reaction in opposition to it, we need to

understand about New Criticism itself.

The Text Itself

New Criticism replaced biographical history criticism which

dominated the literary studies in the nineteenth century and the in the early

beginning decades of twentieth century. Biographical history criticism

approach focused on the author’s life and time of writing. The approach

intended to find authorial intention, the meaning that the author intends the

text to have. The author’s diaries, letters, and essays were important

material to study deeper, as well as biographies, autobiographies and history

books. Literary studies before were centered to the history behind the text

rather than studying the text itself, so the students studied more about the

history. When they studied about Matthew Arnold’s Dover Beach, their

lecture would tell them about Arnold’s biography instead of examining the

text. It was all about the spirit of the age. New Criticism rejects the

approach.

New Criticism strongly argued that in examining a text the only thing

that matters is only the text itself. It’s not necessary to examine the author’s

life or the time, because they don’t provide literary critics with information to

analyze the text. Rather than searching for authorial intention, New

Criticism’s target is finding the meaning of the text.

text with a standard manner. Sometimes, a text is more meaningful, rich and

complex than the author realized or intended to. The readers may interpret

Tennyson’s The House on the Hill as an image of loneliness or emptiness or

various meanings, though Tennyson’s real intention is talking about the

graveyard. We cannot call Tennyson and ask him why he wrote the poem. In

addition, the final outcome of New Criticism is they pointed out that the

earlier theory has no objective and accurate or let we say, has no standards

to interpret literature.

A literary work is timeless (does not bounded by the spirit of the age),

autonomous (self sufficient) verbal object. This is the reason why a poem

can’t be explained simply by paraphrasing it or translating it into everyday

language. They called it as heresy of paraphrase; changing one word, two

lines, will also change the entire meaning.

Then structuralism came out in the end of 1950s, rejecting the idea of

New Criticism about the text itself. Structuralism identified that a text is not

autonomous. It never stands alone, so does today. A text is related to other

texts; in making a text, the author might be influenced by past experience or

historical events or inspired by other texts he ever read, therefore it is also

essential to get to know about the background events. If the text is only the

text itself, literature won’t be upgraded to gain fruitful changes.

New Criticism let us inherited a remarkable method in studying

literature which we called closely reading. We may be familiar with the

method or we even do it in every literary reading. Here are the details about

New Criticism’s impressive contribution.

First of all, New Criticism divided language into scientific language,

everyday language and literary language. Scientific and everyday language

depends on denotation; they don’t try to be beautiful or emotionally

vocative. On the contrary, literary language depends on connotation; on the

implication, association, suggestion and evocation of meanings and shades

of meaning. Let’s take an example, the word “sun” denotes an element of

solar system, and connotes power, authority or light. Literary language

creates an aesthetic experience; it has the world of its own.

and often contradictory meanings rush all the way through it. These

meanings are produced by four prime linguistic devices: paradox, irony,

ambiguity and tension.

Paradox is a statement that seems self-contradictory but represents

the actual way things are. We can find paradox in Counting Crows’ song Big

Yellow Taxi, “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”, refers to

meanings that you have to physically lose something before you can

spiritually find it. Many of life’s spiritual and psychological realities are

paradoxical in nature, and New Criticism observed that paradox is

responsible for much of the complexity of human experience and of the

literature portrays it. Secondly, irony means a statement or event challenged

by the context when it occurs. Thirdly, it is ambiguity. It occurs when a word,

image, or event generates two or more different meaning. For example the

image of “house” in Tennyson’s The House on the Hill produces the meaning

of place (a space that has a particular purpose; events or occasion) and

“graveyard” (place to bury dead bodies). However, ambiguity is considered a

source of richness, depth, and complexity that adds to the texts value.

Finally, the complexity also derived by its tension. Tension is created by the

integration of the abstract and the concrete, of general ideas embodied in

specific images. It also created by the dynamic interplay among the text’s

opposing tendencies, which is among its paradoxes, ironies and ambiguities.

All of the multiple and conflicting meanings produced by the text’s

theme. Theme, or complete meaning, is not the same as the topic. Theme is

what the text does with topic. To New Critics, great literary works have

themes of universal human importance.

After understanding the “introductory”, now let’s step further to the

close reading. Close reading is the systematic examination of the complex

relationship between a text’s formal element and its theme, is how the text’s

organic unity was established by the New Critics. New Criticism believes that

a text can be understood primarily by the understanding its form, so it is

important to define and understand some important elements, such as

figurative language.

Figurative language consists of images, symbols, metaphors and

similes, is language that has more than a strictly literal meaning. For

example, “It’s raining men” doesn’t mean that men falling from the empty

sky, but refers to the time when someone has so many dating and spouses.

Image consists of a word/s that refers to an object perceived by the senses

or to sense perceptions themselves; colors, shapes, lighting, sounds, tastes,

smells, Textures, temperatures, and so on. Image is able to evoke an

emotional atmosphere as well.

We also need to pay attention closely when an image occurs over and

over again in a text; it in all probability forms symbolization. A symbol is an

image that has both literal and figurative meaning. Public symbols are
usually easy to spot, while some symbols need a careful observation for the

reason that it’s private and meaningful only to the author. We need to

highlight that how something works within the overall meaning of the text

was always the less important for New Criticism, so it doesn’t matter

whether or not our analysis of the text’s private symbolism matches the

author’s intention. As long as the analysis supports what we claim about the

text’s theme, it considered as acceptable.

Metaphor and similes are a comparison of two dissimilar objects in

which the properties of one are attributed to the other. Simile is almost

similar to metaphor, the difference lies in its necessity to add like or as (my

lover is a dime – metaphor, my lover is as valuable as a dime – simile).

New Criticism Vs Structuralism: New Criticism’s Weaknesses

As I mentioned above, New Criticism was left in the end of 1960s and

most likely it was a consequence of the development of structuralism.

Structuralism is the opponent of New Criticism, rejecting the idea that a text

is autonomous and timeless. It achieved its recognition for deconstructing

New Criticism for this way:

New Criticism asked us to look closely at the formal elements of the

text to help us discover the poem’s theme and to explain the ways which

those formal elements set it up. The New Critics believed that this is the only
way to determine the text’s value. By examining poem in this manner, they

also believed that their interpretation stayed within the context, created by

the text itself. No need to look up at the history or timeline because it won’t

help them in understanding the meaning. Text is autonomous, so it has no

connection to the other texts or historical events. In fact, all texts were made

from a process called “inspired”, Shakespeare was inspired by the life of

Cleopatra to write Anthony and Cleopatra and Othello was taken from an

Italian short story. This is what we called with ‘intertextual’. Structuralism

looks at a text as a chain; a text was made from other texts, related one to

another (although not always noticeably) and never be independent. On the

other words, by centering the attention to the form of the text and the text

itself and seeking for a single interpretation of text, New Criticism had

formalized and made literary studies becomes objective. Art, a wider field

that enclosed literature, is never objective and permanent. It has a sense of

subjectivity and it keeps art, as well as literature, improves without

limitation. Having a standard to interpret literature is fine and exceedingly

helpful; however results in interpreting literature may vary and New

Criticism’s method tends to refuse it. It is generally known that every person

has different judgments about what they read, depends on their prior

knowledge and experience. Chairil Anwar’s Aku may be interpreted as spirit

against colonialism and facing obstacles with bravery, while the other

perceived it as an expression of disappointment and stubborn, immovable

person. If we only interpret Aku formally, we will lose taste of the poem.
Learning poem will be uninteresting because we only focus on finding the

meaning, not finding its beauty.

For these reasons, structuralism won people’s attention. Though it also

rejects biographical history criticism approach, it lets the critics to think

beyond the barriers, have various interpretations and let criticism and

literature improves.

New Criticism’s approach on form fruitfully practiced in short poems

and stories, but it doesn’t work appropriately in examining long poems such

as Venus and Adonis. However, New Criticism’s approach successfully

enriches our reading of literary texts, helps us see and appreciates in new

ways the complex operations of their formal elements and how those

elements function create meaning.