In their essays "The Intentional Fallacy" and "The Affective Fallacy," William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue the meaning of a work is self-contained; therefore the success of a work depends neither on the author's intention nor the reader's personal experiences. With the removal of the author and the reader they assert only the literary critic, operating meticulously within the work, can determine a works success and meaning. Roland Barthes, in his essay "Death of the Author," echoes many of the sentiments expressed by Wimsatt and Beardsley; however, he disagrees with the importance they place on the critic over the reader. Instead he claims the removal of the author in conjunction with the critic allows the reader to exercise a freedom and playfulness within the work. Wimsatt and Beardsley define the intentional fallacy as “a confusion between the poem and its origins” (1246) that occurs when an author's background or opinions on their work is used to find the meaning of the work. This, they claim, leads to nothing more than "biography and relativism” (1246) which fails to capture the works true meaning. They explain why "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable" (1233) by stating that the design of a work does not give the author permission to establish its meaning. Further they state that the author, when asked to describe their intention for their work, may be insincere in their explanation which would skew the meaning of the work. Instead they assert that during the creation of a poem the author becomes detached from their work which is then transformed into an "object of public knowledge" (1234). This detachment between the author and work and the placing of the work within the hands of... ... middle of paper ... ...reader, “the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost” (1325), should discover the meaning of the text for themselves by playing with the work. Barthes agrees with many of the methods that Wimsatt and Beardsley advocate in their two essays, such as disregarding the author’s intention, identity and personal history as well as the reader’s personal history and emotional connection to the text. He also asserts the text’s importance above everything else. However, he revises the relationship between the author, critic and reader. While Wimsatt and Beardsley believe the critic is the most important person in the relationship and place the power of interpretation wholly within their hands, Barthes places the power in the reader who he believes should play with the text in order to find an appropriate meaning.
In the end, the readers of both the texts can see that there are similarities between the texts, yet the differences are also visible. In the texts, the authors create a lack of passion and love for their characters of Dysart and Meursault through characterization and overall tone of the text, which created isolated characters. This aids the readers of to better understand why the authors placed certain techniques throughout the texts and why they were important.
Guerin, Wilford L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1979.
Deep-seated in these practices is added universal investigative and enquiring of acquainted conflicts between philosophy and the art of speaking and/or effective writing. Most often we see the figurative and rhetorical elements of a text as purely complementary and marginal to the basic reasoning of its debate, closer exploration often exposes that metaphor and rhetoric play an important role in the readers understanding of a piece of literary art. Usually the figural and metaphorical foundations strongly back or it can destabilize the reasoning of the texts. Deconstruction however does not indicate that all works are meaningless, but rather that they are spilling over with numerous and sometimes contradictory meanings. Derrida, having his roots in philosophy brings up the question, “what is the meaning of the meaning?”
The question of whether or not an author can claim that his or her work is original has been in debate for many years now. This, compounded with the question of whether or not an author can adequately understand or express his or her own work or if the interpretation and understanding belongs in the hands of the readers or the critics, has placed the role of the author under serious scrutiny. This is especially noticeable in an age where so many works of literature are analyzed and critiqued by every reader and critique before turning the work into a movie or play, causing it to be further analyzed and discussed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the various concepts of the author’s role, originality, and intent, using the graphic novel The Crow by James O’Barr as an example of a work of literature.
Skillfully mixing criticism and biography, Klinkowitz demonstrates how Barthelmeís life influenced his work; how his time in the army as a service newspaper writer, and later as a publicity writer and editor prepared him to handle ìwords and images as blocks of material rather than as purveyors of conceptions ...î[3]But the use of autobiographical material makes a point beyond that relevant to critical biography.Klinkowitz argues that a consistent thematic in Barthelmeís writing was life as text--and therefore text as some sort of incarnation of life.As Klinkowitz writes of his meeting with Barthelme in the village, Barthelme ìwas firmly inside his text.
While on the vigorous journey through a novel, a reader can be faced with many questions, put forth intentionally by the author, as well as ones they might conjure up for themselves. Roland Barthes says “Literature is the question minus the answer.” For the most part this is true, however when one is reading for leisure or the author does not portray as well as they could this statement is invalid.
Barthes, a 20th century literary critic, are the basis for the dilemma posed by the
Ralph Waldo Emerson, a writer and focal figure in the supernatural development amid the 1800's, was for the most part known for his solid confidence in independence: an extremely remarkable theme amid his time. In his exposition "Independence," written in 1841, Emerson underscores the significance of trust, certainty, and the acknowledgment of one's self by proposing to the peruser that each individual obtains question in themselves. Emerson accomplishes this by utilizing a cozy tone, positive expression, and a concise correlation with himself to manufacture validity.
This essay will explore and attempt to answer the question: Through analyzing The Oval Portrait and Metzengerstein, how does Poe’s “Unity of Effect” effectively impact the reader’s emotion at the end of the text? Each work of literature has a specific intention to itself, whether that is to teach the audience a lesson, provide individual meaning for each reader, or simply to provide a good story to think about once one is finished reading. It is my belief that Edgar Allan Poe’s intention is the last option: to provide a good story that can be thought about once one is finished. However, Poe’s stories are often more complex and come with another, more specific, goal under this intention.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the great American poets, had the privilege to develop his art in a time of constant change. Born to witness to revolutions unfold, in French and American soil, he had no choice but to be a revolutionary himself. For his time, Emerson expressed views that were constantly at odds with the status-quo; mainly his separation from Christian values and his promotion of transcendental philosophy. For a more in-depth explanation of his philosophies and politics, one would need to look into his essays and letters. However, that would be beyond the scope of this essay. Through a single poem, “The Apology,” this text will attempt to demonstrate the layers of context that Emerson would often hide in his lines. Though they are
Foster suggests that readers can make connections and interpretations about meaning in an author’s work under the words. Foster suggest that if readers only focus on the words and nothing else, then they will gain greater knowledge. He says to only trust the words, because authors are also extraordinary liars and can easily make a character believe something that’s not true.
“Criticism is inevitable”. Humans tend to admire and evaluate elements of life, objects, places, ideas, whatever is in front of them. This means to analyze, judge or disapprove, is the human nature that cannot be controlled even though words are that being said, it happens in the human mind by default. When it comes to literature, criticism plays a major role as is explained in the book “The Norton Introduction to Literature”. Edited by Kelly J. Mays. Critical approaches have three essential elements in the literacy exchange or interaction process, which are the text, the source and the receiver. This three elements are so essential because eventually will help the writer to formulate questions giving the writer a solid
W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley are two of the most famous New Critical theorists. Their essay, “The Intentional Fallacy” impacted and further developed the study of New Criticism. It even has a profound impact on the way scholars practice criticism now. “The Intentional Fallacy” exposes the various “fallacious” or mistaken approaches to the interpretation of literature. It is false to believe that literature follows through with what the assumed purpose is from the author himself. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that there are a whole variety of meanings of which the author might even be unaware of or never intended to be. If the audience can produce textual evidence, that meaning is valid. Meaning is found within the text itself and not within the intentions of the author. If the reader focuses on the intentions of the author, that is a fallacy or a mistaken approach to the
Literature emerges from an amalgamation of external influence, literary form, readership, and authorial intent (Tyson 136). New Criticism asserts that only analysis of concrete and specific examples existing within the text can accurately assess literary work (135). New Criticism also discounts authorial agency and cultural force that informs construction of a text. New Critics believe sources of external evidence produce intentional fallacy, the flawed acceptance of the author’s intention as the text’s true meaning, and affective fallacy, the confusion of the text with the emotions it produces (136-37). This literary lens indicates that author’s intent, emotions prompted, and culture’s external influences result in chaos if used to assess literature (137). However, in Carol Ann Duffy’s “Little Red Cap”, these omitted factors contrarily aim to reinforce complexity and wholeness unachieved by New Criticism’s limited assessment of “formal elements” (137). Due to New Criticism’s focus on objective form and exclusion of outside influences such as authorship, readership, and culture, New Criticism fails to accurately assess Duffy’s “Little Red Cap”, thus showing the critique’s limitations as a universally applicable lens.
In their essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, two of the most eminent figures of the New Criticism school of thought of Literary Criticism, argue that the ‘intention’ of the author is not a necessary factor in the reading of a text.