Approaches of New Criticism Essay Example for Free

Approaches of New Criticism Essay A literary movement that started in the late 1920s and 1930s and originated in reaction to traditional criticism that new critics saw as largely concerned with matters extraneous to the text, e.g., with the biography or psychology of the author or the works relationship to literary history. New Criticism proposed that a work of literary art should be regarded as autonomous, and so should not be judged by reference to considerations beyond itself. A poem consists less of a series of referential and verifiable statements about the real world beyond it, than of the presentation and sophisticated organization of a set of complex experiences in a verbal form (Hawkes, pp. 150-151). Major figures of New Criticism include I. A. Richards, T. S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, David Daiches, William Empson, Murray Krieger, John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, F. R. Leavis, Robert Penn Warren, W. K. Wimsatt, R. P. Blackmur, Rene Wellek, Ausin Warren, and Ivor Winters. Archetypal/Myth Criticism A form of criticism based largely on the works of C. G. Jung (YOONG) and Joseph Campbell (and myth itself). Some of the schools major figures include Robert Graves, Francis Fergusson, Philip Wheelwright, Leslie Fiedler, Northrop Frye, Maud Bodkin, and G. Wilson Knight. These critics view the genres and individual plot patterns of literature, including highly sophisticated and realistic works, as recurrences of certain archetypes and essential mythic formulae. Archetypes, according to Jung, are primordial images; the psychic residue of repeated types of experience in the lives of very ancient ancestors which are inherited in the collective unconscious of the human race and are expressed in myths, religion, dreams, and private fantasies, as well as in the works of literature (Abrams, p. 10, 112). Some common examples of archetypes include water, sun, moon, colors, circles, the Great Mother, Wise Old Man, etc. In terms of archetypal criticism, the color white might be associated with in nocence or could signify death or the supernatural. Psychoanalytic Criticism The application of specific psychological principles (particularly those of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan [zhawk lawk-KAWN]) to the study of literature. Psychoanalytic criticism may focus on the writers psyche, the study of the creative process, the study of psychological types and principles present within works of literature, or the effects of literature upon its readers (Wellek and Warren, p. 81). In addition to Freud and Lacan, major figures include Shoshona Felman, Jane Gallop, Norman Holland, George Klein, Elizabeth Wright, Frederick Hoffman, and, Simon Lesser. Marxism A sociological approach to literature that viewed works of literature or art as the products of historical forces that can be analyzed by looking at the material conditions in which they were formed. In Marxist ideology, what we often classify as a world view (such as the Victorian age) is actually the articulations of the dominant class. Marxism generally focuses on the clash between the dominant and repressed classes in any given age and also may encourage art to imitate what is often termed an objective reality. Contemporary Marxism is much broader in its focus, and views art as simultaneously reflective and autonomous to the age in which it was produced. The Frankfurt School is also associated with Marxism (Abrams, p. 178, Childers and Hentzi, pp. 175-179). Major figures include Karl Marx, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, Raymond Williams, Louis Althusser (ALT-whos-sair), Walter Benjamin (ben-yeh-MEEN), Antonio Gramsci (GRAWM-shee), Georg Lukacs (lou-KOTCH), and Friedrich Engels, Theordor Adorno (a-DOR-no), Edward Ahern, Gilles Deleuze (DAY-looz) and Felix Guattari (GUAT-eh-ree Postcolonialism Literally, postcolonialism refers to the period following the decline of colonialism, e.g., the end or lessening of domination by European empires. Although the term postcolonialism generally refers to the period after colonialism, the distinction is not always made. In its use as a critical approach, postcolonialism refers to a collection of theoretical and critical strategies used to examine the culture (literature, politics, history, and so forth) of former colonies of the European empires, and their relation to the rest of the world (Makaryk 155 see General Resources below). Among the many challenges facing postcolonial writers are the attempt both to resurrect their culture and to combat preconceptions about their culture. Edward Said, for example, uses the word Orientalism to describe the discourse about the East constructed by the West. Major figures include Edward Said (sah-EED), Homi Bhabha (bah-bah), Frantz Fanon (fah-NAWN), Gayatri Spivak, Chinua Achebe (ah-CHAY-bay) , Wo le Soyinka, Salman Rushdie, Jamaica Kincaid, and Buchi Emecheta Existentialism Existentialism is a philosophy (promoted especially by Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus) that views each person as an isolated being who is cast into an alien universe, and conceives the world as possessing no inherent human truth, value, or meaning. A persons life, then, as it moves from the nothingness from which it came toward the nothingness where it must end, defines an existence which is both anguished and absurd (Guerin). In a world without sense, all choices are possible, a situation which Sartre viewed as human beings central dilemma: Man [woman] is condemned to be free. In contrast to atheist existentialism, SÃ ¸ren Kierkegaard theorized that belief in God (given that we are provided with no proof or assurance) required a conscious choice or leap of faith. The major figures include SÃ ¸ren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre (sart or SAR-treh), Albert Camus (kah-MUE or ka-MOO) , Simone de Beauvoir (bohv-WAHR) , Martin Buber, Karl Jaspers (YASS-pers), and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (mer-LOH pawn-TEE). Structuralism Structuralism Structuralism is a way of thinking about the world which is predominantly concerned with the perceptions and description of structures. At its simplest, structuralism claims that the nature of every element in any given situation has no significance by itself, and in fact is determined by all the other elements involved in that situation. The full significance of any entity cannot be perceived unless and until it is integrated into the structure of which it forms a part (Hawkes, p. 11). Structuralists believe that all human activity is constructed, not natural or essential. Consequently, it is the systems of organization that are important (what we do is always a matter of selection within a given construct). By this formulation, any activity, from the actions of a narrative to not eating ones peas with a knife, takes place within a system of differences and has meaning only in its relation to other possible activities within that system, not to some meaning that emanates from nature or the divine (Childers Hentzi, p. 286.). Major figures include Claude LÃ ©vi-Strauss (LAY-vee-strows), A. J. Greimas (GREE-mahs), Jonathan Culler, Roland Barthes (bart), Ferdinand de Saussure (soh-SURR or soh-ZHOR), Roman Jakobson (YAH-keb-sen), Vladimir Propp, and Terence Hawkes. Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction Post-Structuralism (which is often used synonymously with Deconstruction or Postmodernism) is a reaction to structuralism and works against seeing language as a stable, closed system. It is a shift from seeing the poem or novel as a closed entity, equipped with definite meanings which it is the critics task to decipher, to seeing literature as irreducibly plural, an endless play of signifiers which can never be finally nailed down to a single center, essence, or meaning (Eagleton 120 see reference below under General References). Jacques Derridas (dair-ree-DAH) paper on Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences (delivered in 1966) proved particularly influential in the creation of post-structuralism. Derrida argued against, in essence, the notion of a knowable center (the Western ideal of logocentrism), a structure that could organize the differential play of language or thought but somehow remain immune to the same play it depicts (Abrams, 258-9). Derridas critique of structuralism also heralded the advent of deconstruction thatlike post-structuralismcritiques the notion of origin built into structuralism. In negative terms, deconstructionparticularly as articulated by Derridahas often come to be interpreted as anything goes since nothing has any real meaning or truth. More positively, it may posited that Derrida, like Paul de Man (de-MAHN) and other post-structuralists, really asks for rigor, that is, a type of interpretation that is constantly and ruthlessly self-conscious and on guard. Similarly, Christopher Norris (in Whats Wrong with Postmodernism?) launches a cogent argument against simplistic attacks of Derridas theories:

Whitewater vs. Watergate :: American America History

Whitewater vs. Watergate. Both are political sandals that have rocked the nation. As Watergate unraveled, many of Nixon's dirty tactics were learned, including assorted lists of enemies (a number of which became targets of IRS tax audits), wiretapping, political sabotage, burglary, blackballing, and smear campaigns. Similarly, as Whitewater unfolded, the scandal appeared to involve more than just an illegal loan. It touched on possible hush money paid to witnesses and includes the acquisition of more than 900 confidential FBI files on Bush and Reagan appointees. In many aspects, the two are very similar. They are alike in the cover-ups they both produced. But they still are about two totally different events. Each of these scandals is associated with a central criminal event and both involved a web of political intrigue.1 First, what were Whitewater and Watergate? Whitewater started as a land development of riverfront property in Arkansas in the 1980s. The Clintons received a large share of the development without putting up any money. The development went bad, so additional capital was needed. There is evidence and testimony suggesting that this cash was obtained illegally from the federal government and never paid back. As for Watergate - though it was revealed by the Senate Watergate committee as an unprecedented abuse of presidential power that was extremely dangerous to the country, it is remembered 25 years later as a strange and unsuccessful burglary in the Watergate office building by people linked to the reelection committee of Nixon. But Watergate was so much more than a political burglary. The Senate hearings showed Watergate was composed of constant criminality by the Nixon White House, and was driven by an extreme commitment to maintain control of power by any means, including criminal co nduct. It included the break-in of a psychiatrist's office for the purpose of smearing Daniel Elsberg - the leaker of the Pentagon Papers; the misuse of the IRS and other federal agencies to punish those on the president's "enemies list"; the illegal wiretapping of journalists and members of Nixon's own administration; and the purposeful editing of government documents to enhance a political agenda.2 Many similarities come up when discussing Whitewater and Watergate. The scandals may be separated by two decades, but much irony is evident when they are compared. For example, in 1974, Hillary Rodham was employed as a lawyer by the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry, along with Bernard Nussbaum, former chief counsel at the Clinton White House. Whitewater vs. Watergate :: American America History Whitewater vs. Watergate. Both are political sandals that have rocked the nation. As Watergate unraveled, many of Nixon's dirty tactics were learned, including assorted lists of enemies (a number of which became targets of IRS tax audits), wiretapping, political sabotage, burglary, blackballing, and smear campaigns. Similarly, as Whitewater unfolded, the scandal appeared to involve more than just an illegal loan. It touched on possible hush money paid to witnesses and includes the acquisition of more than 900 confidential FBI files on Bush and Reagan appointees. In many aspects, the two are very similar. They are alike in the cover-ups they both produced. But they still are about two totally different events. Each of these scandals is associated with a central criminal event and both involved a web of political intrigue.1 First, what were Whitewater and Watergate? Whitewater started as a land development of riverfront property in Arkansas in the 1980s. The Clintons received a large share of the development without putting up any money. The development went bad, so additional capital was needed. There is evidence and testimony suggesting that this cash was obtained illegally from the federal government and never paid back. As for Watergate - though it was revealed by the Senate Watergate committee as an unprecedented abuse of presidential power that was extremely dangerous to the country, it is remembered 25 years later as a strange and unsuccessful burglary in the Watergate office building by people linked to the reelection committee of Nixon. But Watergate was so much more than a political burglary. The Senate hearings showed Watergate was composed of constant criminality by the Nixon White House, and was driven by an extreme commitment to maintain control of power by any means, including criminal co nduct. It included the break-in of a psychiatrist's office for the purpose of smearing Daniel Elsberg - the leaker of the Pentagon Papers; the misuse of the IRS and other federal agencies to punish those on the president's "enemies list"; the illegal wiretapping of journalists and members of Nixon's own administration; and the purposeful editing of government documents to enhance a political agenda.2 Many similarities come up when discussing Whitewater and Watergate. The scandals may be separated by two decades, but much irony is evident when they are compared. For example, in 1974, Hillary Rodham was employed as a lawyer by the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry, along with Bernard Nussbaum, former chief counsel at the Clinton White House.

A Model of Christian Charity & Letter to Philip Sidney

Winthrop, as mentioned before Is a dedicated Puritan, which are English colleens who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and needed to be â€Å"purified,† During this time period many Puritans and those of other religions were ridiculed and discriminated because of their faith. Many restrictions were placed on them, and additional taxes were added tot their Income. Winthrop believed the only way to purify the church was to leave England now and begin a new way of life. In his essay describes his perfect society as the inhabitants begin one with God and each other.He implies that a move now is the best way to begin purification. Hastily, and English writer and geographer saw many benefits form the colonization of the New World. With his background in geography he knew that North America would be filled with various types of raw materials and wild life. His letter gave examples of this variety mentioning the different types of wood such as cedar, oak, walnut and sund ry. He explained how these resources would not only benefit the colonies but also benefit England.He believed the resources available loud be able to be divided equally among the colonies and England. He also saw the financial benefits that they could come from colonization. Money was the most important reason for his proportions to colonize. Money was big factor in his argument. In these essays both Winthrop and Hastily emphasized that the best way to receive their desired outcome was to go now. To Hastily going now would be the best way to receive the maximum benefits from the North American raw materials.Winthrop believed leaving now was the only way to purify the church, saying that thing could be done for the church in England. Also stating the by leaving now would make the purification process to go faster. They also shared the ground on which they settled which was Massachusetts. They each believed a colony near the coast would help the more economically. A Model of Christian Charity & Letter to Philip Sidney By larders published an essay to inform his followers of his solution to the problem if the corrupt Church of England.This solution in fact was moving to the New World. Richard Hastily, in 1582, sent a letter to Philip Sidney to inform of the great believed the solution to their issues was to go and colonized North America. Winthrop, as mentioned before is a dedicated Puritan, which are English citizens who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and needed to be â€Å"purified. † During this time period many Puritans and those of other religions were ridiculed additional taxes were added tot their income. Winthrop believed the only way to coast would help the more economically.

Running a Private School