This document provides an overview of New Criticism as a literary theory that emerged in the early 20th century. It discusses how New Criticism rejected the biographical and historical approaches that were dominant at the time, instead advocating for an approach that focuses solely on analyzing the text itself through close reading. The document traces the origins and key figures of New Criticism, such as T.S. Eliot, John Crowe Ransom, and F.R. Leavis. It explains the core tenets of New Criticism, including rejecting authorial intention and reader response in favor of searching for an objective meaning within the text. The document also covers how New Criticism analyzes formal elements through close reading and compares

1. New Criticism
By
Mehdi Hassanian esfahani (GS 22456)
October 2008
Literary Theory (BBL 5201)
Lecturer: Dr. Malachi Edwin Vethamani
University Putra Malaysia

2. Hassanian |2
Index
Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 3
Historical background ……………………………………………………. 5
New Criticism V.S. Biographical and Traditional
Historical criticism ……………….……………………………….. 9
What should we do in New Criticism? ….……………………………...... 11
What is close reading? …………………………………………..… 14
What should we look for in the close reading? …….……………... 14
The downfall ……………………………………………………….…..… 16
Influences of New Criticism ……………………………………………... 18

3. Hassanian |3
Introduction
The dominated literary theory in 1940s was New Criticism. It was almost
a reaction toward Biographical and Traditional Historical criticism, which was
focused on extra-text materials, such as the biography of the author. New
Criticism claimed that the text, as a complete work of art, is adequate for
interpretation, and one should look at the text, and only the text, in order to
analyze it and get the true meaning of it. New Criticism is quite well connected
with the term “close reading”, which means the careful analysis of a text with
paying attention to its structure, syntax, figures of speech, and so one. In this
way, a New Critic tries to examine the “formal elements” of the text, such as
characterization, setting of time and place, point of view, plot, images,
metaphors and symbols to interpret the text and find the theme.
These formal elements, as well as linguistic elements (i.e., ambiguity,
paradox, irony and tension) are the critic’s references to interpret and support
the theme of a literary work. New Critics believe that there is a unique and
universal theme in [great] works of art, which is timeless and independent of the
reader or social, historical events. And these elements are the only true means
by with a critic can understand and should interpret the text.
Although New Criticism was once successful in a way to ask critics and
readers for a change in their view point of evaluating a literary text, after a

4. Hassanian |4
while it was accused of being too restrictive by denying the historical and
biographical information, and too linguistic, and not universally practical,
consequently it was replaced with other literary theories, such as Reader
Response, New Historicism and Cultural Studies. New Criticism was practiced
from 1920s to early 1960s, and can be considered a dead theory now. Affirming
this, Tyson states that it is no longer in practice, but also comments that some of
its features are still in use and important to observe, such as the notion of close
reading. Thompson, also, believes that New Criticism has received a great
attention and its popularity among literary publications and academic programs
is because of its elusiveness. “It has never been a school in the sense Russian
Formalism has and therefore its commentators could exercise pleasant freedom
in singling out its characteristics and defining its boundaries” (33-34). This is
the reason we can find different definitions and principles about New Criticism,
and we cannot 100% agree on a particular group of people to call them the
founders of New Criticism, although there are well-known advocators.
It is worth mentioning that because New Critics tried to provide verbal or
textual evidences for their claim, their approach is objective. They believe that
the text provides a way to be interpreted, and formal elements help this to be
done. That is why New Criticism is sometimes called objective criticism. It is
also called an intrinsic criticism, because it is just concerned about the text itself
(Tyson).

5. Hassanian |5
Historical Background of Criticism in Nineteenth Century
Back to nineteenth century and the first two decades of twentieth century,
Biographical and Traditional Historical criticism was the dominated literary
theory, which was practiced in academics and by critics. It had focused on all
documents about or related to the text and the author. But it had gone to
extreme, and had forgotten the original text itself. This (for New Critics, and for
us a well,) negligence was academically accepted and so common that in a
poetry class, students had expected the lecturer to talk about the poet and give
“a description of poet’s personal and intellectual life: his family, friend,
enemies, lovers, habits, education, beliefs and experiences” (Tyson 118),
without analyzing or even reading the poem!
T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) was among the first ones who claimed that poetry
stands for its own, and in his essays asked critics to pay attention to the poem,
rather than the poet. He believed that “the poet does not influence the poem with
his or her personality and emotions, but uses language in such a way as to
incorporate within the poem the impersonal feelings and emotions common to
all humankind” (Bressler, 57). And as a result, study of poet’s personal life is
not useful. He, himself, examined Dryden’s poetry and that of Metaphysical
poets of Donne’s school in the same way. Baldick explains that he attended to
the poems, and analyzed those poems; he was concerned about the wit and the
emotions presented in them. According to Thompson, Eliot, who asked for the

6. Hassanian |6
new poetry, and the new poetry criticism, started his essays by attacking the
past and current critics. He called them either historian, if they were interested
in historical events, or philosophers, if they treated the work of art as a
philosophical formulation. He attacked the poems at the same time. In his
critical essays, he emphasized the text and found the faults within the text.
Thompson believes that his collection of essays (and among them ‘Traditional
and Individual Talent’) “is the first in the line of New Critical attempts, to
demonstrate an impersonal non-biographical continuity which later were
undertaken in regard to English poetry, by Leavis and Brooks” (41).
In 1927, Laura Riding and Robert Graves in their book A Survey of
Modernist Poetry examined the poems of T. S. Eliot and Cummings in a new
way of criticism, too. This new way of criticism was paying attention to the
text. Through their careful reading, they showed that a poem is more than some
general ideas, and the concluded that “only those words in that exact order and
arrangement could produce the precise effect intended; no simpler statements of
an idea could be substituted for it” (Baldick, 79).
I. A. Richards (1893-1979) also tried to differ between the traditional
reading of a poem, which was similar to paraphrasing the text, and the modern
view of poetry. He was less concerned about close reading, but “helpfully
classified the numerous ways in which reading of poetry could go wrong”
(Baldick, 79). He reinforced what Riding and Graves have claimed, that readers

7. Hassanian |7
are dependent on poet, by examining a technique, known as practical criticism,
in which he gave his students some untitled poems, without any reference to the
poet, to analyze. The result was significantly unacceptable, and he claimed that
the way of teaching criticism is not complete and proper, because students are
dependent on the poet’s name or hints about the poet’s biography (Baldick).
If we agree with Litz that Eliot wrote the first essays which became the
“corpus of acceptable interpretive techniques by I. A. Richards” (7) we should
name Richard’s student who followed the exercises of these techniques. He was
William Empson.
Another important figure in New Criticism was F. R. Leavis who claimed
that the old way of looking at poetry is not sufficiently convincing and as a
result contributed in making a new way of reading and looking at the poetry.
Eventually in 1941 John Crowe Ransom, who is considered as the
‘Philosopher General of the New Criticism’ (Jancovich, 11), called this new
formalist view of analyzing a text “New Criticism” and introduced it to
American critics by his book New Criticism. Bressler explains that Ransom,
before publishing his book, had made the Fugitives (a literary group including
some other university professors and some of his students) where they could
freely discuss about their new point of view, regarding literature and criticism,
and practice it together. Then he tried to publish his ideas and explain his
personal interpretative approach in New Criticism. He explained that a “poem

8. Hassanian |8
(used as a synonym in New Criticism for any literary work) is a concrete entity
… [and should] be analyzed to discover its true or correct meaning independent
of its author’s intention or of the emotional state, values or beliefs of either its
author or reader ” (Bressler, 55). However, according to Thompson, there is no
fixed and unique definition for New Criticism. He believes that different people
thinks of it in different way, as
R. W. Stallman considers the concern with ‘the dissociation of
modern sensibility’ to be the distinguishing mark of a New Critic.
The growing disparity between scientific and aesthetic sensibility
is, in his view, the fact which the New Critics attempt in various
ways to construct, or at least vividly to record. David Daiches
regards New Criticism as an American phenomenon which arose
on the basis of contemporary interest ‘in myth and symbol’ and in
high standards of professional criticism. He observes that it has
developed ‘its own scholasticism’ and ‘its own technical jargon’
which limits its appeal considerably. Ransom himself (whose
central position in New Criticism nobody questions) … grouped
together such disparate people as T. S. Eliot and Ch. Morris.
Walter Sutton sees as the distinguishing feature of the New Critics
‘their practice of close textual analysis’ and ‘the conservatism of
their literary, social and political views’. (Thompson, 34)

9. Hassanian |9
New Criticism V.S. Biographical and Traditional
Historical criticism
According to Tyson, in overcoming the Biographical and Traditional
Historical criticism and replacing the extra-text materials with internal
references to the text itself, New Criticism had to face “the authorial intention”.
Traditional readers and critics believed that there is always an idea (or intention)
behind every literary work which its author had in his mind, before writing.
This is the reason he has written the book; to communicate it, implicitly or
explicitly, with us. That’s why they studied the author’s biography, his life and
time. But New Criticism rejected the authorial intention, by pointing out the
intentional fallacy. They doubted if there is an authorial intention at all, when
most of great authors of past are death and cannot come to tell us how their
books are supposed to be read. And, based on New Criticism, even if there is
such a claim, it may be just an intentional fallacy. Too many times an author
wants to say something, but the result is different and it is possible if the poet is
not aware of the intention of his poem at the first stage. Therefore, whatever an
author says about his work is just an interpretation of it, like many other
interpretations by its readers. When it is not supported by the text, it is not
valuable.

10. H a s s a n i a n | 10
New Critics also rejected any personal interpretation by referring it to the
affective fallacy, which is an understanding or interpretation of a text, based on
personal feelings, understanding or experiences which cannot be supported by
the text. New Criticism admits that different readers may have different
interpretations based on their personal backgrounds, but such an interpretation
is not universally acceptable, and is not the true interpretation of the text. It may
be suitable for a particular critic, but is not for others. It is made by a personal
reading of a text, and contrasts the universal theme of it.
New Critics claimed that the text itself is the only source or evidence that
a critic should focus on. As a result, New Criticism stated that the text is our
sole evidence or reference, not the author’s claim and the only important
materials are the printed words on the page. Based on fundamental principles of
New Criticism, in order to find the universal theme of the text, a critic should
avoid his subjective personal interpretations, called affective fallacy.
On the other hand, New Criticism never fully ignored the reader’s
response or the author’s intention. They rejected the judgment or the criticism
solely based on these interpretations. In a New Critic analysis of a literary text,
any interpretation which may help to find or develop the connection between
the formal elements of the text and its theme is welcomed. Therefore a New
Critic may concern about the authorial intention, but just as much as he
concerns about other interpretations.

11. H a s s a n i a n | 11
What should we do in New Criticism?
New Criticism searches for meaning within the structure of the text, and
finds it by examining the text though the close reading and analyzing the formal
elements (elements that form the text) within the text. That is why New
Criticism seems to be a kind of new formalism, although the purpose is different
here. In New Criticism, one may examine “all the evidence provided by the
language of the text itself: its images, symbols, metaphors, rhyme, meter, point
of view, setting, characterization, plot and so forth” (Tyson 119), to find their
relationship with the theme, in a way that confirms the single best interpretation
of the text, because New Criticism believes that there is such a single complete
interpretation, which is timeless and is not related to individual readers or social
events. Accordingly “the critic’s job … is to ascertain the structure of the poem,
to see how it operates to achieve its unity and to discover how meaning evolves
directly from the poem itself” (Bressler, 60).
This process of analyzing the text is more fitted to short texts like poems,
as New Critics are mostly interested in lyrical poetry too, but if the literary work
is too long, one can explain just some aspects of its form, like setting or imagery
of the text.
To analyze the text closely, New Critics first need to examine the words, and
may need to trace back the meaning(s) of individual words to the time the

12. H a s s a n i a n | 12
literary text was written as well. Bressler mentions that for example “if a
fifteenth-century poet called someone a ‘nice person,’ the New Critics would
investigate the meaning of the word nice in the fifteenth century, discovering
that at that time nice meant foolish” (60). Looking carefully at the words, New
Critics would find both connotations and denotations for each one. Different
literal and implied meanings create “ambiguity”. Ambiguity is “language’s
capacity to sustain multiple meanings” (Bressler, 62) which intensifies the
complexity of the language. This complexity, which is made by organic unity of
the text, is a positive characteristic of a text, but should be resolved by the
critics. “If a text has an organic unity, then all of its formal elements work
together to establish its theme, or the meaning of the work as a whole. ... A
literary work must have [complexity] if it is to adequately represent the
complexity of human life” (Tyson, 121).
Tyson maintains that multiple meaning of the text is the results of four
linguistic elements: paradox, irony, ambiguity and tension. Paradox means a
statement which seems to be self-contradictory. At the first sight, it contradicts
or conflicts itself, but when analyzed deep, it intensifies the meaning by
suggesting broader areas to the statement. Irony is also a statement or an event
which seems to be contrary to its literal sense; an ironic statement, most of the
time, presents a meaning which is opposite of the intended meaning. And
tension, in New Criticism, means the conflicts within the text. Bressler defines

13. H a s s a n i a n | 13
it as “the conflicts between a word’s denotation and its connotation, between a
literal detail and a figurative one, and between an abstract and a concrete detail”
(63).
These four linguistic devices, as well as other figurative devices such as
images, symbols, similes and metaphors control the poems structure. Tyson
argues that if they are all harmonized to the theme of the literary work, they
make a great work of art. She suggests that a New Critic should first try to
discover the theme and then analyze the ways these formal elements establish or
contribute to the theme. New Critics “were concerned with the universal aspects
of human experience” (Ryan, 3); they believed that a great work of art will
definitely have a theme of ‘universal human significance’. Thompson claims
that New Critics “do not merely investigate the ambiguities of language, but
also try to relate them to what is permanent and essential about man” (38).
Ryan also explains that for New Criticism “literary form is welded to content or
meaning in an organic unity” (3). Meaning that in a great work of art, in which
there is an organic unity among its elements, meaning and form are fused
together. A New Critic, therefore, should discuss both. He can find form with
the help of ambiguity, paradox, irony or tension. On the other hand, finding
formal and verbal elements, by supporting the theme or the meaning of it, leads
to a better understanding and interpretation of the text.

14. H a s s a n i a n | 14
What is close reading?
Kain explains that for a close reading of a text, whether the aim is to point
out rhetorical features, structural elements, or cultural references, one should
observe carefully particular details and facts within the text. She offers a three-
step procedure, in which the first step is to read carefully and underline or
highlight keywords that are significant or causes doubts or questions. It may be
the ambiguity of the text, or a something related to the characterization; it can
be anything! Next step is to “look for patterns in the things you've noticed about
the text—repetitions, contradictions, similarities”. And the last step asks the
questions of “why” and “how”. These questions should be related to the
preview data, and may make the reader look back again to the text, in order to
find more references and reasons. Interpreting these keywords, which brings
about the result of our close reading, is a kind of inductive reasoning, “moving
from the observation of particular facts and details to a conclusion, or
interpretation, based on those observations” (Kain, 1).
What should we look for in the close reading?
To briefly explain the process of New Critic interpretation of a literary
text, Tyson says that “New Criticism seeks to reveal how the text works as a
unified whole, by showing how its main theme is established by the text’s
formal, or stylistic elements” (253), like point of view, imagery, setting or

15. H a s s a n i a n | 15
symbolism. So the first thing is to find the tension within the text, the conflict
between different parts or ideas presented in the text. Then, a New Critic would
try to establish the theme, and find out the relationship between formal elements
and the theme. This detailed analysis of tensions and reconciliations of formal
elements or verbal components is the important part of the process of close
reading. The formal elements of the text should contribute to the theme, and the
theme should be supported if there are any devices like tension, irony,
ambiguity and paradox. “All of these qualities must serve the unifying purpose
of supporting the text’s main theme … so that the whole text can be seen to
achieve its artistic purpose smoothly and completely” (Tyson, 254).
But a New Critic should always be aware of subjectivity in his
interpretation. Imagination and emotion has nothing to do in the judgment.
According to Graff, the theory of imagination “which the New Critics took over
and adapted largely from Coleridge … was a vehicle by which distinctions
between opposites were transcended and the logical, analytical view of the
world overcome … but this philosophical monism at the center of organicist
poetics was necessarily fatal to the New Critical attempt to establish the
objectivity either of textual interpretation or of the literary work's reference to
the outer world” (84).

16. H a s s a n i a n | 16
The downfall
In the history of literary movements and critical approaches, there is
almost always another opposite reaction for every critical approach, and New
Criticism faced the same trouble. Jancovich implies that two major
controversial issues of New Criticism were its fully dependence on the text, and
its rejection of extra-text materials, which went to extreme. According to Graff
this text-isolation was not acceptable for some who thought that New Criticism
have “trivialized literature and literary study by turning critical interpretation
into an over-intellectualized game whose object was the solution of interpretive
puzzles. [Because] this way of viewing literature tended to ignore or destroy the
moral, political, and personal impact that literature might possess” (72). When
New Critics considered a poem an objective work of art, they ceased unrelated
interpretations to exist, but on the other hand, they ignored all other areas as
well. They ignored external influences to be studied, such as gender, race or the
social class. Subjectivity and emotion were among the things they tried to
ignore. Basically speaking, New Criticism attempted to settle a scientific
method of interpretation and evaluation literary texts. Eliot’s criticism is among
the first examples, which “was ostensibly formalist, insisting on the recognition
of literature as an object of study on its own term; it was anti-impressionistic …
it had the look of being theoretical” (Litz, 10).

17. H a s s a n i a n | 17
New Criticism separates the text from its author and the readers, to
analyze it closely in an objective academic isolation. New Critics claim that
“literature can only be discussed in terms of its intrinsic qualities--language and
structure” (Wallace, 7). This isolation was not tolerable to proceeding critics
who spoke of interactions between the text and the reader. This scientific
objectivity was the same as dehumanization of a voice of the text which was
once narrated from a human being to share knowledge. The knowledge which
should be discussed in regards to other social, historical and cultural issues.
Opposes to New Criticism claims that poetry (or any kind of literary work) is
different from a scientific report, and should not be observed in the same
manner. Graff quotes from Richard Palmer's Hermeneutics, that this objectivity
was so emphasized that students were told in literature classes to avoid from
any personal interpretation of a poem because it was sure an irrelevant fallacy to
their interpretation and analysis. Palmer was among the people who criticized
New Criticism because of its fundamental principle of objectivity. He believed
that there should be an interaction or “a loving union between the text and the
interpreter” (Graff, 74).
According to Wellek, New Criticism “is considered not only superseded,
obsolete, and dead but somehow mistaken and wrong” (611). He strongly
rejects theory of New Criticism, and believes that it is “uninterested in the
human meaning, the social function and effect of literature” (611), and is

18. H a s s a n i a n | 18
“unhistorical” because it ignores the historical context of the text, influences of
past or its influences on the future. Wallace also states that for New Critics, “the
socio- subjective content of literature is either ignored or mystified in critical
practice” (101).
Other critics have also accused New Criticism of paying too much
attention to the text, as if worshiping or placing it on a pedestal, and ignoring all
other areas, such as history, sociology, psychoanalysis and subjective responses
of the readers, which could be relevant or necessary in interpretation of a
particular text. Jancovich maintains that “rescuing the text from author and
reader went hand in hand with disentangling it from any social or historical
context” (6).
Influences of New Criticism
Although, as we saw, New Criticism is considered by some critics as a
dead theory today, but it had a great influence on its following literary theories,
and still is useful in order to explore a text and interpret its elements for a better
understanding. Litz believes that comparing to modernism, New Criticism is “a
more systematic, more philosophical or more academic articulation of formalist
undercurrents within modernism” (3). Close reading or close analysis of a text
is what New Criticism introduced and is a fundamental tool in today’s modern
literary criticism. Some of the New Criticism’s “most important concepts,

19. H a s s a n i a n | 19
concerning the nature and importance of textual evidence-the use of concrete,
specific examples from the text itself to validate our interpretations-have been
incorporated into the way most literary critics today, regardless of their
theoretical persuasion, support their readings of literature” (Tyson, 117). Tyson
explains that even today, close reading is the predominant and standard method
of instruction in high schools and colleges for students of English Literature.
There are also professors and literature teachers who believe that New
Criticism, by paying much more attention to the text, is a helpful device in
teaching literature, if it is not to ignore other eras as well. Combination of New
Criticism and the suitable theory (for example feminism, psychoanalysis and
etc.) for a particular text, leads to a careful analysis of the text and strong
support for the theory.

20. H a s s a n i a n | 20
Works Cited
Baldick, Chris. Criticism and Literary Theory 1890 to the Present. New York:
Longman, 1996.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: an Introduction to Theory and Practice.
New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, 2007.
Graff, Gerald. “The New Criticism” Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed.
Linda Pavlovski, Vol. 146 (summer-fall 1974). Gale Cengage, 2004.
<http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism/new-criticism/
gerald-graff-essay-date-summer-fall-1974>
Jancovich , Mark . The Cultural Politics of the New Criticism. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
<http://books.google.com.my/books?id=TiDDj8HIqboC&dq=The+Cultur
al+Politics+of+the+New+Criticism&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0>
Kain, Patricia. How to Do a Close Reading. Writing Center: Harvard
University, 1998.
<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CloseReading.html>

21. H a s s a n i a n | 21
Litz , A. Walton, Louis Menand, Lawrence Rainey. “Modernism and the New
Criticism” The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (No. 7) Princeton
University, New Jersey.
<http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521300126>
Ryan, Michael. Literary Theory: a Practical Introduction. UK: Blackwell
Publishing, 2007.
Thompson, Ewa M. Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism:
A Comparative Study. The Netherlands: The Hague, 1971.
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. USA: Garland Publishing, 1999.
Wallace, David M. (1970) Literary Criticism as Ideology: A critique of New
Criticism. Master thesis. Unpublished. University of British Columbia.
Wellek, René. “The New Criticism: Pro and Contra.” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 4,
No. 4. (Summer, 1978), pp. 611-624.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-1896%28197822%294%3A4%3
C611%3ATNCPAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L>.