As most of you know, I actually like New Criticism. Yeah, yeah it's passé and it's elementary. However, despite its canonical/"Traditional" elitism, there is an undeniable accessibility to its school of thought. Wimsatt and Beardsley state, "we ought to impute the thoughts and attitudes of the poem immediately to the dramatic speaker, and if the author at all, only by biographical act of interference" (1234), by giving all emotional and dramatic power to the speaker, the emotion acts as a universal. Meaning, anyone who has been affected by the said emotion can relate to the speaker. The author or poet's intent is negated because the work or art (I am going to state they are synonymous) is capturing a moment of catharsis. Later critics and New Historicists claim that the biography and culture is crucial to the text. Although that is a discussion for a later date, it insinuates the author's life after the work has been created should be taken into account. I argue that at times, consideration of the author may be detrimental to the work and its influence. Take Jean Toomer's Cane for example (you're welcome, Pax and Natz). Jean Toomer published Cane in 1923, during a period in his life where he felt forced to assimilate to states north of the Mason-Dixon line. He yearned to return to the South, and believed he would become more whole and more human if he was (re)introduced to his slave ancestors. At the time, he was proud of his race, and believed it was a time for Black Americans to stand together and salvage their waning history. However, despite Cane's popularity and success, Toomer betrayed his heritage and adamantly said he was "not black." In his unpublished autobiography, Earth-Being, Toomer writes that his desire to connect with his roots was a phase in his life.
Should these facts influence a Cane reader? I do not think so. Although Toomer's later life seems to undercut the integrity and sentiments of Cane, I do not believe it should cast a shadow on its merits. Wimsatt and Beardsley write, "the use of biographical evidence need not involve in intentionalism, because while it may be evidence of what the author intended, it may also be evidence of the meaning of this words and the dramatic character of his utterance" (1240). In many ways, Toomer captures his personal meanings and emotions in Cane, however, if we include all his personal context these meanings and emotions may shift, for his later criticism on Cane conflicts with his beliefs at the time.
Although Jean Toomer is a narrow example of the merits of a closed text, it reflects an issue that New Critics acknowledge and address. Bash it all you want, but humans are not consistent. Therefore, we must take try and provide concretes to prevent the text or work from growing absurd.
Lesley, I would agree with you (I don't think many would be surprised that I, too, am something of a fan of New Criticism). However, the defense I would give for New Historicism and similar theories is a sort of New Critical defense; it keeps the reader from becoming too Reader Response-- reading too much of their own ideas and thoughts into the text. I think that for that reason, even as someone who really values New Critical values, a balance of the ideas in the different theories (such as New Historical and Reader Response) is necessary to understand the text responsibly.
ReplyDelete