[the] ENGLISH-BLOG [.com]

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
1/27/09

Questions For Formalism/New Criticism

1.
Q: In the Tyson text, the author explained the term intentional fallacy. What are New Critics referring to when they use this word?
A: This term refers to the misperception that the author’s objective for writing the work is the same as the text’s meaning.

2.
Q: In New Criticism, the text is an unchanging, timeless object. Thus, what does the New Critic term heresy of paraphrase mean?
A: This term implies that if a person changes any part of the poem, for example—a line or word, then the poem will mean something different; thus, it becomes a new literary work.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
Jan. 27, 2009

Discussion Questions

According to Tyson, the difficulty faced by new historicists is the “impossibility of objective analysis. What is this?

The term “thick description” is important. Why is it significant and what field was it borrowed from?

Rivkin and Tyson mention the “intentional” and “affective” fallacy. What are these things and why might they matter to lit. theory?

Travis Rathbone
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
January 27, 2009

Discussion Questions for January 28th

When defining Formalism, the Rivkin/Ryan text states: “In order for literature to be literature, it must constantly defamiliarize the familiar and constantly evolve.” Cite a few examples of how this statement might apply to the text by Joyce?

As far as New Criticism is concerned, what is the benefit of “throwing out” all outside influences on the work and performing close readings on the text itself?

The Tyson text places great import on the phrase “the text itself” when defining New Criticism. What does this phrase mean?

Ava L.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
25 January 2009

Short Answer Questions for Reading Check on Formalism and New Criticism

1. Discuss the differences between intention fallacy and affective fallacy and why they are important to New Criticism.

A. Intentional fallacy, coined by New Critics, refers to the mistaken belief that the author’s intention is the same as the text’s meaning (Tyson 136). New Critics place particular emphasis on Intentional fallacy implying that the text itself is often more meaningful than the author’s intentions (Tyson 136).

B. Affective fallacy, also coined by New Critics, refers to the emotions that are produced from reading the text (Tyson 137). Affective fallacy will often allow the reader to associate with the text itself based on a past experience. Affective fallacy often leads the reader to experience an impressionistic response. An example of this type of response may be that the reader does not like a character in the text and therefore assumes that the character within the text is evil (Tyson 136).

2.Why is literary language important to New Critics and how does it affect the readers perception of the text being read?

A. Literary language is important to New Critics because, when applied correctly, it communicates tone, attitude, and feelings throughout the text. It creates an aesthetic experience. It unites the work causing all components of the text to be inseparable, which is the criterion that New Critics use to judge the quality of a literary work (Tyson 138).

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. Rutledge: New York, 2006.

Liz H.

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

January 27, 2009

Reading Check Questions

1. What is defamiliarization according to the Russian Formalists?

2. What two major components make up narrative literature for the Formalists?

Cecilia B.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
27th January 2009

1. In New Criticism, what do intentional fallacy and affective fallacy mean?
- Intentional fallacy (similar to the interests of new historicism) jumbles the origins of a text by focusing on its historical context and authorial biography and intention to discover the text’s meaning. On the other hand, affective fallacy (similar to the interests of reader-response) confuses the emotions and reactions it ignites from the reader. For instance, if a reader dislikes a character, he will automatically project his feelings onto that character’s meaning within the text (i.e. bad feelings=evil character) (Tyson 137).
2. For New Critics, what are the literary values embodied in a text’s organic unity?
- As written by Tyson, complexity and order are the criteria of literary values for organic unity. Complexity involves the numerous meanings in a text which are typically contradictory and stem from any of these four literary devices: paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension. However, order within the text’s organic unity must resolve the contradictions from these linguistic devices so as to ultimately lend themselves to the text’s overall meaning or theme (Tyson 138).

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
28 January 2009
Formalism – Two Questions
1) According to Tyson, even though New Criticism is not focused on any more, why is it important to give appropriate attention to?
a. Answer – New Criticism provides literary study with a foundation which help supports the class room instruction of literature.
2) According to Tyson, why is New Criticism sometimes referred to as formalism?
a. Answer – New Criticism is referred to as formalism because literature is approached and understood through its form which is its devices and elements.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide. New York: Garland Publishing, 1999.

Kristin Brittain

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

1/27/2009



Q: Although new criticism is no longer used by literary theorist what components of new criticism are still utilized that laid the foundation for use in other theories today?

A: The idea of close reading, the importance of textual evidence, and the close attention paid to formal elements such as images, symbols, plot, and point of view are a few components pertinent to new criticism that are still utilized in other theories.


Q: Why didn’t new critics believe in paraphrasing a piece of literary work?

A: New critics did not believe in paraphrasing literary work because they saw the work as “the text itself,” the sole source of any kind of interpretation of the work. They believed that every word, sentence, and page was put in a specific order to create a one of a kind object and meaning. They argued if you change one word of the work it would be a different piece of literature.

Wesley J.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
February 1, 2009

Précis of Formalism Article: “The Language of Paradox” by Cleanth Brooks

Cleanth Brooks’ article “The Language of Paradox” seeks to explain the nature of poetic language. Initially, he notes the difficulty inherent in discussing poetry as a linguistic paradox. Our predisposition to regarding paradox as a thing of trickery disables us from noticing initially the fit of paradox and poetry. But, Brooks’ article continues to illuminate the paradoxical nature of poetry; specifically, he focuses on the poetry of William Wordsworth and John Donne, identifying their respective use of the paradox.
Without focusing too much on the detail that Brooks uses, it should come as no surprise that Wordsworth and Donne are the focus of the article. As a Romantic, Wordsworth sought to cast the familiar in an unfamiliar light for readers. In a similarly paradoxical move, Donne’s metaphysical poetry combines the common world and uncommon worlds beyond the secular and clerical dimensions. So, as both poets combine unfamiliar territories, they employ paradox in their work. Brooks highlights these paradox’s in order to instruct the anti-scientific notion of understanding language. Science seeks truth through deconstructing paradox and creating facts. But, for Brooks, truth can only be understood through comparisons. Therefore, he focuses on analogies that create paradox within poetic language.
In “The Language of Paradox” Cleanth Brooks is intent upon explaining that for poetic language, connotation is more important than denotation. For the scientific community, the opposite is true. Ultimately, Brooks’ article ends upon the philosophical implications of paradox. Through understanding that paradox is the language of poetry, Brooks attempts to impart that the nature of imagination itself is intrinsically paradoxical. And, one cannot truly understand or examine imagination without noting the paradox inherent.

Work Cited
Brooks, Cleanth. “The Language of Paradox.” _Literary Theory: An Anthology_. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Blackwell, 2004.

Travis R.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
February 1, 2009

Formalism/New Criticism Précis: “Art as Technique” by Viktor Shklovsky

Shklovsky states that through living life existence becomes habitual and automatic. Habits are unconscious endeavors, and people live their lives without knowing they are living at all. The example of dusting a divan is used: If one cannot remember dusting the divan, and no one witnessed the divan being dusted, then the dusting did not take place. If this act is so habitual that one can perform the action unconsciously, it is as if the action had not been performed at all. Concordantly, if life proceeds on an unconscious level, it is as if life is not being lived to its fullest, or at least, the practitioner does not perceive it as existing. Art, then, should reel against the ubiquity of habitual existence. The primary focus of art should be to perceive life in new ways; it should make what is familiar unfamiliar, thus ejecting the object (and the practitioner) out of the realm of automatism. One need not look further than literature for an example of this.
Shlovsky uses the works of Tolstoy to exemplify the defamiliarisation of art. In “Kholstomer,” Tolstoy employs a horse in the role of the narrator, forcing the audience to interact with the theme of private property in an unfamiliar, new way.
Poetry is another art form Shlovsky addresses, and this is a form of art where the structure and rhythm serve the purpose of removing automatism. The characteristics Poetry champions: language, archaisms, and intricacies/obscurities of style lend themselves easily to the unfamiliar. There are a few instances, however, where poetry’s language models that of prose, but in these instances the language is still considered roughened through the rhythm of the poem and this roughing of the poem keeps it from slipping into “familiar” territory.

Work Cited
Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique.” _Literary Theory: An Anthology_. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Blackwell, 2004. 15 – 21.

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
2 February 2009
Précis: Formalism
“The Formal Method” Boris Eichenbaum
Boris Eichenbaum provides an overview of the Formalism theory is his article “The Formal Method”. His discussion outlines the basic principles of the theory and is based on the works of Russian Formalist critics from the 1920s such as Roman Jakobson, Lev Jakubinskij, Andrej Bleyj, Osip Brik, and Sklovskij. Eichenbaum begins by stating the mission of Formalism as according to Jakobson. He states that the theory is a focus on linguistics, poetics, and form; the combinations of these literary elements are used to investigate a specific text.
The distinction of language is examined more closely by Eichenbaum as he discusses the contributions made by Jakubinskij. There are two forms of language “practical language” and “poetic language”. Practical language is defined as language being used merely as a form of communication. Poetic language is more complex because it takes on autonomous value. The use of images is provided as an example because they are used to create a special perception rather than to enhance comprehension. The images help construct different perceptions and produce a procedure used by the literary elements. Eichenbaum looks at how different critics use literary works to apply the theory of Formalism.
Sklovskij applies Formalism to both Don Quixote and Tristram and Shandy. Through Sklovskij, Eichenbaum explains that these two texts illustrate the relationship between procedure and construction and also the distinction between plot and “story-stuff” (filler). These concepts demonstrate the aesthetic quality of literary elements within a specific work.


Works Cited
Eichenbaum, Boris. "The Formal Method." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Julie Rickin and
Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 7-14.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2/2/09

Précis: Art as Technique

Viktor Shklovsky, a formalist critic, claims that human’s perceive the world through a series of steps, in which their perception of the world becomes both habitual and automatic. The familiarity of perception becomes a routine because it is part of one’s unconscious nature. Thus, important ideas can be lost when one over-automates an object. Shklovsky uses the term prose perception to connect this idea of habitual perception with literature.

To relate one’s perception to art, Shklovsky comments in his article, Art as Technique, that the purpose of art is to leave behind preconceived notions, instead perceiving objects through personal identification versus ordinary interpretation (16). Thus, one understands that the automatism of perception can be changed through art, where readers view the text in different ways. In practical application, Leo Tolstoy used this idea in his work through the technique of defamiliarization. Particularly, Shklovsky believes that defamiliarization is found in all literature and is an important part of parallelism—taking the usual perception and changing it into a unique, new form.

In poetry, readers find artistic differences everywhere, through the structure, distribution of words, and word characteristics. Poetry draws away from the practical, scientific use of language; instead, transforming language to fit the artistic mode of expression. Further, Shklovsky classifies poetry as formed speech, and prose as ordinary speech, also claiming that the rhythm of prose is an automatizing element whereas the rhythm of poetry is not.

Shklovsky, Viktor. "Art as Technique." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Ava L.
DR. Hobbs
ENG 435
29 January 2009
The Language of Paradox

Cleanth Brooks examines the correlation between the language of poetry and the language of paradox. He claimed that very few people were “willing to accept the two, both the language of poetry and the language of paradox were one in the same” (Brooks 28). The language of paradox is a sophisticated language that stems from an intellectual approach rather than an emotional approach. It is not meant to invoke emotion from the reader. It requires wit. Brooks claims that it is should be regarded as a language that is “clever rather than profound, and rational rather than divinely rational” (Brooks 28). The intended purpose of paradox is not to contradict what is being stated, although this is a common misperception, but to focus on revealing the dual nature of the poetry. It attempts to reveal to the reader that although the paradox contradicts what is being said, it reveals some form of truth. Brooks claimed that “it is a language that places equal importance on the connotations and denotations” (Brooks 31). The language of paradox that exists in poetry is inevitable and therefore can only be controlled or directed. The language of paradox requires contradiction to reveal the truth that the author is trying to reveal.
Work Cited:

Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. “The Language of Paradox.” Cleanth Brooks. Blackwell: MA, 1998.

Cecilia B
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2nd February 2009
W.K. Wimsatt Jr.’s “The Structure of the Concrete Universal” Précis
Critic Wimsatt’s article on the concrete universal introduces the concept that words are naturally concrete generalizations, but that great literature is capable of using words to present a completely unique abstract form which “shows something implicitly” (45) to the reader. This idea, though paradoxical, is well-agreed upon by both ancient and contemporary philosophers as Wimsatt quotes from Aristotle, Johnson, Coleridge, and Tate on the concept of “variety in unity” (48). In other words, denotation and connotation lie on a continuum of meaning, and good literature possesses the ability to present an idea through a specific set of words which organically will always have limitations but go beyond themselves explicitly to a unique form. To further illustrate, Wimsatt presents the idea of character as an example of the concrete universal because a character is simply a “verbal object” (45), but this composition of words holds a complexity of human values needed to exist as well as to understand it. As a result, the difference between flat and round characters can be realized through the concrete universal of the latter since it “demands a special interpretation” (46) by bearing a variety of human actions within its limiting concrete construction. Metaphor is the key to Wimsatt’s argument, and because this new form has no limitations, an assortment of interpretations or universals will emerge, he says. The job of the writer or artist, Wimsatt defends, is to structure words so that there is unity within the infinite possibilities.
Wimsatt, W.K. Jr., “The Structure of the Concrete Universe.” Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. New York: Blackwell Pub., 1998. 41-49.

Kristin Brittain

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

1/31/2009

Précis of “The Formalist Critics”

Cleanth Brooks’ article, “The Formalist Critics” asserts the essential faiths a formalist critic holds true; literary criticism describes and evaluates the object, their principal concern is the literature’s unity, form and content are inseparable, and the form equates meaning. Brooks’ primary implication is the importance of the formalist critic’s dependence solely on the work, and the removal of the author and the reader’s responses.

In order to make the work the only concern the author’s intent and the reader’s responses must be removed from the text. Brooks’ recognizes other critic’s opposition to the removal and how it may appear ruthless and drastic. However, the formalist critic’s argument is the assumption that the author’s intentions are the ideas that were put into the text. Also, the critic must be an ideal reader. He must focus on the structure and unity of the work. Brooks’ realizes that the ideal reader is a problematic strategy, but it is the best option. Formalist critics rebuff two trendy assessments of literary value; sincerity and intensity. The author’s investment or ‘sincerity’ he placed in the work is irrelevant to the value of it, and the intensity of the reader’s reactions to the text has no critical importance.

Brooks’ believes that good criticism coincide with well developed literature. Literary work is analyzed, and boiling it down to why it was created and when—is not literary criticism, nor does it evaluate the work properly. Lionel Trilling is an opposing critic of formal criticism. In the article, “The Meaning of a Literary Idea” Trilling praises the intensity of the author and the feeling they elicit, rather then the ideals the work portrays. However, Brooks’ argues that the process is more important, and not the aesthetic effect produced by the ideals. Literature is multifaceted, but the basic understanding of it always comes from the ability to discern what it means.

Brooks, Cleanth. “The Formalist Critics.” Literary Theory: An Anthology 2nd Ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. 22-27.

Liz H

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

February 2, 2009

Précis of W. K. Wimsatt, Jr.’s “The Structure of the Concrete Universal”

In W. K. Wimsatt, Jr.’s article “The Structure of the Concrete Universal” (1954), he argues that there is value in knowing the classic arguments of Plato and Aristotle when examining poetry today. He acknowledges that through the passage of time, authors have said many different things on the topic of literature; but the concepts of the individual and the universal remain relevant for all literature study.

W.K. Wimsatt acknowledges that literary art can be individual and universal, a fact that many may overlook because of its simplicity. For purposes of defining his argument’s basis, W.K. Wimsatt reminds his readers of the difference between connotation and denotation when examining word choice. Poetry, for Wimsatt, uses both the concept of the universal and concrete. Wimsatt cites the fact we continue to study the works of Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus as evidence of why poetry is so important. Poetry allows for the expression of something innate and deep within us.

Poetry is different from literature because it can manipulate words differently than scientific or logical discourse. Wimsatt argues that literature’s complexity is a key to its greatness. Poetry’s structure, by nature, makes it complex. There is no end to poetry criticism but it is consistent and constant because it focuses on something beautiful.

Wimsatt, W.K. "The Structure of the Concrete Universal." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 40-49.