From New Criticism to Postcritique: Kate Millett's Method in the History of the Present

Criticism ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Allen
Keyword(s):  
New Criticism ◽  
History Of

1952: Justification by Works

PMLA ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 115 (7) ◽  
pp. 1855-1855
Author(s):  
Albert C. Baugh
Keyword(s):  
Literary History ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
New Criticism ◽  
True Source ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Proper Perspective ◽  
New Critics ◽  
History Of Literature

Some of the writers whose remarks I have quoted may belong to the school often referred to as the New Critics. At any rate, if we can trust their frequently expressed disapproval of current scholarship, the New Critics would not disagree with those remarks. I do not wish to be intolerant of those whose intolerance I deprecate. There is more than one fruitful approach to a work of literature, and while some of the New Criticism seems to me to be quite sterile I am ready to welcome any method of interpretation which leads to the fuller understanding and enjoyment of a work of literature. What I am not willing to admit is that the New Criticism is the only true source of illumination. Behind the poem is the poet, and whatever in his own life or in the life of his time helps us to understand the man helps us to understand his work. Literary history is a frame which enhances the work of art, or, if I may change the figure, a means of displaying it, a setting which permits us to view it in proper perspective. Without it we should be like the historian who would interpret Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence without reference to the conditions which called these documents into being. Besides this, literary history as a part of the history of man is as legitimate an object of interest and as worthy of study as political or economic history, or the history of science or art. And the history of literature has been made possible only by the patient labors of scholars who have quarried and shaped the stone out of which the edifice has been built. We need criticism and we need the historical perspective which investigation makes possible. Let us seek for a fruitful union of the two without disparaging the share which each contributes to the common end.

scholarly journals The scholarly rebellion of the early Baker Street Irregulars

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Mills
Keyword(s):  
Institutional History ◽  
Sherlock Holmes ◽  
New Criticism ◽  
National Organization ◽  
History Of ◽  
Fan Practices ◽  
Over Time

This work provides and analyzes an early institutional history of the pioneering Sherlock Holmes American fan club, the Baker Street Irregulars (BSI). Using the publications and records of these devoted Sherlockians, I track the BSI's development from a speakeasy gathering in 1934 to a national organization by the mid-1940s. This growth was built on a foundation of Victorian nostalgia and playful humor. Yet at the same time the members of the Irregulars took their fandom seriously, producing Sherlockian scholarship and creating an infrastructure of journals, conferences, and credentialing that directly mimicked the academy. They positioned themselves in contrast to prevailing scholarly practices of the period, such as New Criticism. I trace both how their fan practices developed over time and how this conflict with the academy led to many of the BSI's defining characteristics.

scholarly journals “Aixo era y no era”: The Ontological Paradox of Metaphoric Reference

2020 ◽  
pp. 30-46
Author(s):  
Galyna Dranenko
Keyword(s):  
Literary Text ◽  
New Criticism ◽  
Semantic Approach ◽  
Current Period ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
History Of ◽  
Everyday Reality ◽  
Linguistic Approach ◽  
History Of Literature ◽  
Metaphorical Process

A quick look on the history of criticism and literary theory of the current period shows curious reversals and strange returns. Indeed one can see the slow and unrelenting disappearance of rhetoric, justly qualified as restricted, since it has been all too often limited to identifying and classifying of the various figures. It has been replaced by a new criticism, a fundamentally formalist one, the assumptions of which are akin to those of the “text sciences”; if the structure, the “poetical function” of the texts were underlined, it was to the detriment of their functional reference and their meaning to put it simply. There is no doubt that today this approach is running out of steam and is meeting some decline. For that reason, the history of literature is coming back in force and finds a new youth with the developments of the theories of perception. But there reappears also a new interest in a semantic approach of the texts, which is concerned with their references. This approach, which comes from logistics (G. Frege), undoubtedly opens a philosophical horizon, particularly on some kind of ontology. Thus it is not surprising to find that a great many studies question the metaphorical process again from that perspective given the paradoxical nature of its reference and thus of its ontology which could be summed up through the usual exordium of the Majorcan storytellers: “Aixo era y no era” (it was and was not). Paul Ricœur insists on the paradoxical nature of the metaphorical reference since “the metaphor is a way of working on the language which consists in giving the logical subjects predicates that are incompatible with the first ones” (From Text to Action). In his book The Living Metaphor, the French philosopher analyses the concept of the “ontological metaphor” from the idea of the “divided reference”. Ricœur moves away from a purely stylistic or linguistic approach, centred on the word (a deviant denomination) to describe the metaphorical process on the level of the phrase and of the discourse (a non-pertinent predication): “Then there is a metaphor, since we can discern <…> the resistance of words <…> their incompatibility on the level of a literal interpretation of a sentence” (From Text to Action). But that non-pertinence and the abolition of the reference in the everyday reality are not a purely gratuitous verbal game, for they liberate “another kind of reference to other dimensions of reality” (The Living Metaphor). It is that way of tension of the metaphor which we intend to present in our study for it expresses some kind of „ontological vehemence” as Ricœur puts it so well? Let us add that the metaphor seen as a new description of reality, can be conceived, so to speak, as a “model”, in the sense of a prototype which accounts of the way a literary text functions when it is a “opening on the world”, when it places itself “in the service of things that want to be expressed” and when it responds “to the need of a discourse that comes from all forms of experience” (Mimesis, Reference and new figuration in “Time and Narrative”).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document