Criticism Question

[Tom 0]

writeby,

Before you start to recap this entire discussion and quote me and quote yourself and quote Jesus H. Christ next for all I know...there is another important quote that I'm surprised you didn't cover:

I said, "If you still want to discuss what you’ve presented, send me a private message. The purpose of this thread was merely to ask if literary criticism has been covered by Ayn Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute—from the responses and from my own research, the answer is no."

Again, I'm not going to talk to you about your "criticism" here.

[writeby 0]

OK.

But I disagree - I think it has been covered implicitly. Perhaps my focus is on lit analysis (determining meaning) and not lit drit, which I define as evaluation.

Thanks for your input.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy wrote: "Could you define what you mean by 'meaning?' "

[...]

University of Texas, Arlington

English 5340: Literary Criticism

http://www.uta.edu/english/rcct/5340luannecrit.html

[Course "description"]

←

It sounds like "lit crit" is a mystical pursuit and finding "meaning" is similar to reading tea leaves or entrails.

[writeby 0]

It sounds like "lit crit" is a mystical pursuit and finding "meaning" is similar to reading tea leaves or entrails.

←

I think lit crit, b/c of its Kantian base, has never been properly defined. So I did a thumbnail definition for myself - based on what I perceive to be the nature of art;

I consider artistic criticism - as in a film critic -- to be evaluative, while artistic analysis deals with interpreting the meaning of the art work. I got the same sort of response from my undergrad & grad profs when they heard this as I did from Tom -- that's not what we mean by lit crit.

To which I replied: What do you mean by "mean."

[Rose Lake 0]

Part of the problem with lit crit, IMO, is that it developed at a time when Trancendentalism was highly influencial, with critics like Thomas Carlyle, Mathew Arnold, etc.  (Not that I'm suggesting Arnold was, like Carlyle, an out-and-out Trans.)  James, of course, harkens back to Classicism - mechanistic, arbitrary rules.  At least, that's how I take him; and why I judge his works as studies in sheer boredom.

Coleridge & later, Emerson, were perhaps the most influential in exporting Trancendentalism (though Coleridge called it, IIRC, Idealism) to, respectively, America and England.  Of course, Idealism/Transcendentalism were just versions of German Idealism, i.e., of Kantianism.

Thus, Kant's philosophy laid the context for lit crit - and literary criticism hasn't recovered since.  The 20th century just saw its culmination with continental rationalism - structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism, New Crit, etc. 

←

Thank you for this. It's very interesting. I attended a wonderful lecture by Barry Wood at OCON last summer. A lot of the lecture was devoted to Kant's influence on art, a very interesting subject. And it's only logical that art criticism was influenced too. This explains something I observed for years, before I gave up trying to read it: How useless most literary criticism I have ever read has been. With the exception of criticism by Ayn Rand and some newer work by Objectivists, I've rarely read illuminating literary criticism.

I especially appreciate the first sentence of the last paragraph above. Of course!

[Free Capitalist 0]

Writeby, could you elaborate on what this means:

James, of course, harkens back to Classicism - mechanistic, arbitrary rules.

[Tom 0]

writeby, all I was saying is that your interpretation--the "#1 issue" that criticism works with--does not appear complete. For that reason I say it is not yet criticism--you disagree, and we can leave that at that. Without you trying to equate me with presumably mystical professors....

Again, I think it is very important to make a distinction between literary criticism (which has existed since before Kantian days) and its Kantian forms. Just be cautious, that's all.

[writeby 0]

Thank you for this...I especially appreciate the first sentence of the last paragraph above. Of course!

←

Your welcome, Rose. Thanks for the kind words. This is perhaps the most lucid rundown of lit crit that I've ever read. (I keep it bookmarked for reference whenever I need some solace.) Here's an excerpt and the link for those who are interested. It's from the Exeter Center at the University of Virginia Library:

LITERARY CRITICISM

"Literary criticism may be defined as 'discourse about

literature,' and in this wide sense, usual in English,

it includes description, analysis, interpretation as well

as the evaluation of specific works of literature and

discussion of the principles, the theory, and the aes-

thetics of literature, or whatever we may call the

discipline formerly discussed as poetics and rhetoric.

Frequently, however, literary criticism is contrasted

with a descriptive, interpretative, and historical ac-

count of literature and restricted to evaluative, 'judi-

cial' criticism. In other languages the more narrow

conception is preferred, particularly in German where

Kritik usually means only 'the reviewing of literary

novelties and the judging of literary and musical per-

formances in the daily press' (Reallexikon der deut-

schen Literaturgeschichte, Bern [1959], 2, 63), though

recently, probably under English and American influ-

ence, the wider use has again become common.

"Criticism in English emerged early in the seven-

teenth century, apparently based on the analogy of

such sixteenth-century terms as Platonism, Stoicism,

skepticism, etc., devised to avoid the homonym which

arose from the impossibility of distinguishing in English

between 'critic,' the person, and 'critique,' the activ-

ity. Dryden, in the Preface to the State of Innocence

(1677), said that by 'criticism, as it was first instituted

by Aristotle, was meant a standard of judging well,'

and in the same year in a letter (Letters, ed. C. E. Ward

[1942]) he spoke of Thomas Rymer's Tragedies of the

Last Age as 'the best piece of criticism in the English

language.' Two years later, his play, Troilus and Cres-

sida, was introduced by a preface on 'The Grounds

of Criticism in Tragedy.' Pope's Essay on Criticism

(1711) established the term for good, though for a time

the term 'critic,' 'critick,' or 'critique' was used in

the eighteenth century where we would say 'criticism' ..."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DH...i.cgi?id=dv1-71

[writeby 0]

Writeby, could you elaborate on what this means:

←

His insistence that point of view must be wholly psychological -- e.g., characterization, for instance, is primarily what characters think and feel, less what they do.

His assertion in AOF that a novel could not express a "conscious moral purpose" -- a novel being a picture, "how [can] a picture be either moral or immoral."

H claim regarding the preeminence of form and his belief that fiction must be free to treat any and all aspect of life, the summits and the sewers, as potential and proper subject should the novelist so choose.

Come to think of it, perhaps my direction should have been towards the postmoderns and New Criticism; nonetheless, there is much I find in his claims that strike me as arbitrary as those of the Classicists.

He does strike the iron, though, when he speaks of selectivity; I only wish he'd have practiced what he preached in that regard.

If James is a favorite of yours, let me add that there is much value in the fiction that he wrote. I don't wish to savage the man. he was brilliant. But what he wrote was not to my taste; and much of what he had to say about fiction and the novel I perceive as somewhat rationalistic.

I hope this answers your question

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] from the Exeter Center at the University of Virginia Library:

LITERARY CRITICISM

"Literary criticism may be defined as 'discourse about

literature,' and in this wide sense, usual in English,

it includes description, analysis, interpretation as well

as the evaluation of specific works of literature and

discussion of the principles, the theory, and the aes-

thetics of literature, or whatever we may call the

discipline formerly discussed as poetics and rhetoric.

←

What I find interesting about this description is that, in the last sentence, it implies that literature is not only fiction (such as novels and plays) but also includes other forms of writing (or speaking), as in poetry (including ancient drama, I suppose) and rhetoric.

Apparently, as I suggested in an earlier post, "literature" among some academics is not synonymous with "fiction" -- that is, made-up stories. "Literature" then apparently refers to writings that are distinguished not by their subject matter but by their manner of expression. Is that correct?

For example, a political speech by an ancient Athenian could be considered literature, because it is an instance of rhetoric -- that is, information (if any) stylized for the purpose of entertainment or persuasion rather than straight-forward communication of facts.

Likewise, a poem could describe a war that really took place, so the poem itself is not fiction. What distinguishes this poem as "literature" is the poet's manner of delivery, not its subject matter. (By contrast, can't some poems be simply mnemonic devices, as in remembering the number of days in the months?) In other words, what distinguishes some poems as "literature" is their artistic rather than functional intent.

In summary, I -- and others in our local Objectivist writer's group -- find such terminology to be confusing: fiction/nonfiction; literature vs. other writing (such as in history); and poetry (which may have a wide variety of subjects and purposes).

Do you have a logically structured mini-lexicon that would straighten-out this confusion?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Writeby, could you elaborate on what this means:

James, of course, harkens back to Classicism - mechanistic, arbitrary rules.

←

Are you puzzled or concerned about the term "Classicism" and what its relation to "the classics" might be?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Yes I was puzzled by that. I am completely a layman in respect to literary studies, i.e. knowing modern authors and various literary styles and such, but in my limited experience I've never heard the term "Classicism" used in this purely literary context, denoting some kind of literary style. I assumed it had something to do with the other meaning of "the classics", and was kind of confused how a literary style and a historical tradition could be discussed on the same terms, and in the same context. Well I've heard the term used in the phrase like, "the literary classics of Western Literature", which means people who defined Western literature, i.e. Chaucher, Dante, Shakespeare, Hugo, etc; that about exhausts my understanding of what else the word could mean.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Yes I was puzzled by that. I am completely a layman in respect to literary studies, i.e. knowing modern authors and various literary styles and such, but in my limited experience I've never heard the term "Classicism" used in this purely literary context, denoting some kind of literary style. I assumed it had something to do with the other meaning of "the classics", and was kind of confused how a literary style and a historical tradition could be discussed on the same terms, and in the same context.

←

Writeby or others will correct me, but here is my understanding of Classicism. It was the belief, common in the Enlightenment, that all art, to be proper art, should conform to certain canons (standards). An example might be that every play should have three acts.

Of course, such a standard is not objective. It is, in fact, a sort of frozen abstraction. Some good plays had three acts, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the principle of form and function and latch onto one particular example and use it as a standard -- demanding that all plays have three acts.

A consequence of Classicism is sterility. The artist follows rules instead of creating. Classicism means the death of innovation, as a consequence. The Romanticists -- at least, the good half of that movement -- rejected Classicism and built new forms of literary art steeped in emotion (coming from values and volition) rather than only the predefined forms that Classicists had ordained were proper.

I have a vague memory that some ancient writers on art -- particularly Aristotle in his Poetics -- was held up by Classicists to be the final word in art. In that sense, if that is a valid memory, there is a (false) connection between Classicism and "the classics." But Aristotle should not be blamed for what nonthinkers did 2000 years later.

Philosophically, I suspect that Classicism paralleled the rise of Rationalism (Leibniz and others). They died together around the time of the death of Kant (1724-1804).

[Free Capitalist 0]

Okay right, I have heard about this. This is why people describe Mozart's music, or Brahms' music as "Classical", as in adhering to strict and predefined norms, while someone like Beethoven is only "Classical" in a loose sense of being a composer whom people still admire and imitate centuries after his death.

Coming back to literary "Classicism" however, and risking to divert the discussion from the original subject, I'd like to ask what gave rise to those constricting norms? I'd be satisfied even with just a book or an online resource.

[writeby 0]

Do you have a logically structured mini-lexicon that would straighten-out this confusion?

←

I. Literature In General

In the widest sense, literature (as I grasp the concept) can refer to anything in written compositional form.

My working definiton for written compositional form is any systematically organized series of written sentences intended to achieve some purpose.

Literature in this general sense could include anything from:

- a letter to a company's policies and procedures; from the operating instructions of a piece of machinery to the manual that came with your computer (As in, I haven't read the accompanying literature that came with my Dell 503a.); from an op-ed to a magazine article to a newspaper story;

- a pledge or an oath ("I swear to do my duty...") to the lyrics of an opera or a song;

- The Autobiography of a Slave to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich;

- The Theory of Relativity to TEW;

- The Organon to VOS;

- the Iliad to Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner;

- A Midsummer Night's Dream to the film script of On the Waterfront;

- The Tell Tale Heart to AS.

And (to cover any omission I might have made) everything in between.

IMO, literature in this sense would not include (as some lit crit academes insist) things like lists, graffitti, directions (Slide section "A" into widget "Z."), bullet points, flow charts, graphs; and &c.

I do not think, either, that lit as here defined would include such things as amphorisms, mottos and the like as these don't represent IMO formal written compositional forms. Nor -- and here I'm a bit shakey -- written muscial compositions or scores.

I'm open to argument, though, on inclusion of these last.

II. Literature As Serious Nonfiction & Fiction

In a narrower sense, literature refers to serious forms of nonfiction and fiction writing. Here I will yield to Aristotle's organization and definitions, which I think the best of what I've so far read on the topic.

Aristotle divides the literature of (serious) nonfiction & fiction into, respectively: A. Rhetoric & B. Dialectic and C. Poetics .

A. Dialectic

"The goal of this study [of Dialectics] is to find a method with which we shall be able to construct deductions from acceptable ... premises concerning any problem that is proposed and ... will not say anything inconsistent. (100a18-21)

The Dialectic, then, deals with the art of logical argument, both inductive ("acceptable premises") & deductive, in both oral and written forms.

IMO, this would cover such things as debates (e.g., Lincoln-Douglas), political treatises (e.g., Locke's Treatise on Government) and philosophical writings(e.g., Critique of Pure Reason, ITOE), as well as -- I'm here surmising -- scientific research papers (Newton's papers on gravity, &c.); and so on. (All of which would fall under that narrower term of literature.)

Regards any written form of the above, I would take that to be the pervue of literary criticism -- the analysis (including the study of how one can best achieve the goal of this form of literature) and the evaluation of such.

B. Rhetoric

Rhetoric, however, as I understand Aristotle's meaning, refers to the art of persuasion by means of argument.

"The argumentative modes of persuasion are the essence of the art of rhetoric...[which is defined as] the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."

Aristotle divided rhetoric into three parts: 1) Ethos; 2) Pathos; 3) Logos and defined them as:

1) the speaker's power of evincing a personal character which will make his speech credible

2) his power of stirring the emotions of his hearers

3) his power of proving a truth, or an apparent truth, by means of persuasive arguments

As I understand Aristotle, there are three kinds of rhetoric: x) Political; y) Forensic (legal); and z) Epideictic (ceremonial oratory)

Classic modern examples of each would include, IMO:

x) Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, FDR's request for declaration of war against Japan, &c.

y): Any opening or closing statement by an attorney in a trial; any argument before SCOTUS; &c.

z) The Gettysburg Address; Kennedy's Inaugurational Speech

Literary criticism of rhetoric would deal with written forms of such -- with their analysis and evaluation.

C. Poetics

This will probably be more familiar ground for most. Included here would not only be the novel & short story, but also poetry and drama (plays).

Lit crit here would, of course, deal with the analysis & evaluation of such.

III. Summation

Summing up, literature in the most general sense can be construed to mean anything in writing.

In the narrower sense, though, literature refers to any written form of A. logical argument; B. persuasive argument; and C. fictive writing.

Obviously, these can overlap, and I can think of no better example of such overlapping than Atlas Shrugged.

I hope this helps, Burgess.

[writeby 0]

Summing up, literature in the most general sense can be construed to mean anything in writing.

←

Obviously, I meant "writing" as I first defined it - any systematically organized series of written sentences intended to achieve some purpose.

As a postscript, let me add that I am open to any and all rational input on this topic. While I have a degree (BA) in English proper (i.e., grammar, usage, mechnics, etc.), as well as in literature (incl. lit crit) and creative writing and an advanced degree (MS) in the context of English ed curriculum & instruction -- which I made certain covered the basics of philosophy, canonical literature from classical to postmodern, including criticism of such, and English proper -- I do not consider myself anywhere near an expert in the field of literary criticism.

That reminds me, I forgot to address the literature of disclaimers.

[writeby 0]

amphorisms

←

aphorisms

Murphy-Brock's law: If something simple can be misspelled, I'll find it.

[writeby 0]

Writeby or others will correct me, but here is my understanding of Classicism. It was the belief, common in the Enlightenment, that all art, to be proper art, should conform to certain canons (standards). An example might be that every play should have three acts.

←

Yes.

Technically, I suppose, it ought to be referenced as Neo-Classicism.

[writeby 0]

Coming back to literary "Classicism" ... I'd like to ask what gave rise to those constricting norms?

←

To follow in what was perceived as the rational tradition of the ancients, who, IIRC, had their own set of requirements for dramas and poetry, etc., e.g., a play must contain a chorus, etc.

I'd be satisfied even with just a book or an online resource.

←

Off the top of my head, a good general overview text, which covers from the ancients to the moderns, is Fleming's Arts & Ideas, older editions - 2nd or 3rd. You can try newer editions, I just can't vouch for them; though they really oughtn't to be substantially different.

~~~

Classical & classics are related in the sense of timelessness and universality.