Learning Outcome
At the end of the lecture, you should be able to identify, describe and give clear explanation of the various approaches to critical analysis.
APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM
There are so many schools and approaches to literary criticism that a classification seems presumptions. However, if the various approaches are not put together, two major approaches will emerge. These approaches are:
The Intrinsic Approach
The Extrinsic Approach
INTRINSIC APPROACH
This treats a work of art as complete in itself. Here, the work is autonomous and self-adequate. Critics examine the internal relations within the text. They ask such questions as what is the relationship between the plot in the novel and the narrative technique and how far has the writer succeeded in developing his message through his plot and technique of narration. This approach is also known as the autelic approach.
The Intrinsic or Autelic approach in criticism is mostly dominant in English-speaking nations. It can be seen to operate on several levels. The first level is the level of the “UNSEEN”- which is the level of literary appreciation. The second level is that of practical and textual analysis. This level has two divisions.
(A.) The first subdivision deals with the theory of forms and genres in literature. This theory states that literature has certain genetic forms e.g. drama, poetry and the novel. This division describes (i) the characteristics of the form. (ii) The different basic types within the form e.g. in poetry there the epic, lyric, dirge, ballad, sonnet e.t.c. There is also the development of the novel into individual heroes e.g. Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart, Henchand in The Mayor of Casterbridge and Ihuoma in The Concubine. Modernists’ novels succeeded the novel of individualism. Unlike the earlier novels where there is a solid, well-ordered reality, everything follows the stream of consciousness here. The notion of plot and characterization breaks down.
The second level is the level of practical criticism, which deals with the language of the text. Here, one is engaged with such things as figures of sounds e.g. alliteration, assonance and figures of meaning e.g. metaphor, simile e.t.c. These are figures peculiar to literature itself. Intrinsic criticism is also known as formalistic approach because there, the emphasis is on the form (style) rather than the content of the said work of art.
EXTRINSIC CRITICISM
In extrinsic criticism, literature is seen as a feature of life- a reflection of life concerned with the Socio/Cultural/Economic life of a group of people. Because the writer is a member of a society, several factors which include sociology, history, and philosophy e.t.c. affect his writings. In order words, writers draw from philosophy, sociology, history among others. An extrinsic attempt from the viewpoint of history will see it, for instance, as a fictional recreation of history and will proceed to show the aspects of history that were recreated. An extrinsic approach will ask such questions as “what is the relationship between literature and society? What is the writer’s vision of man, human?”
OTHER APPROACHES OF CRITICISM
SEMANTIC CRITICISM AND ANALYSIS
This is one type of critical analysis that must accompany every interpretative writing. In its simplest sense, semantic criticism means understanding and knowledge of each and every word so as to avoid ambiguity in the writing. Whether the work is poetry, prose or drama, the reviewer must know the meaning and relationships of every word contained within the piece. Occasionally, good critics let a word slide by without full knowledge of it, and that mistake can make a great difference in the evaluation. The dictionary is therefore important to semantic criticism but sometimes such criticism must extend beyond the dictionary and examine words in different contexts. Although, semantic criticism or analysis seems obvious and fairly easy, it is not always so. It must, however, always be the first step in the analysis of a literature and the foundation of the critical process
HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND ANALYSIS
This is one of the most overly used and often least helpful forms of criticism. It makes use of historical and biological data that is, searching into the author’s life or historical period for clues to the work itself. A search into the life of the author can finish some valuable information, but remember the critic is evaluating the poem, story, book, film, etc, not the author’s life. If information about the author aids in the understanding of the printed material, of course it should be utilized. A Knowledge of Shakespeare’s life and times (era) may be interesting and even add color for one studying his works, but Merchant of Venice for instance is a great play with or without Shakespeare’s biography. Consequently, the rule of thumb must be that at least a superficial investigation of the author’s life should be undertaken when possible. If there to be some reasons to investigate the life more thoroughly, then do so, and always remember that in the find analysis the interpretation must arise from what appears on the printed pages and must be in consonant with the work in order to be valid. Biography may be interesting and informative, but it is not criticism, analysis, or interpretation of the work itself.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CRITCISM AND ANALYSIS
By it very name, psychological criticism implies a study of the workings of the human mind. In order to suggest a human mind at work, the literature must depict strong characterization and personalities that readers and listeners can easily accept as real people. Psychological criticism examines the way in which those characters within the story develop. Because drama tells its story through actual characters on stage, psychological criticism is of importance to the analysis of theoretical works. Of course the more serious with the drama and the more intense the characterization, the more value will be attained by psychological examination. This type of criticism is also essentially valuable in the analysis of modern prose fiction, a form in which the characters have time to develop fully. In psychological criticism the analyst delves into the mind of the characters to find out what makes them function as they do and to determine whether their actions are constant with their personalities. By understanding why a character speaks or acts in particular way or manner, the interpreter is able to suggest a person with more nuances, subtleties, and motivation, and thus can establish the character in a work. The critic’s inability to do an in depth psychological studies should not be used as an excuse to neglect psychological criticism. The critic who analyzes Things Fall Apart and fails to question and ascertain the reason(s) why Okonkwo killed Ikemefuna-a boy who calls him father and a boy he admits secretly that he admires-then that critic is not worth his salt.
SOCIOLOGICAL CRITICISM AND ANALYSIS
Criticism is closely related to historical criticism and in some respects inseparable from it. The primary difference is that historical criticism deals with the events and people who shape the history of an era, while sociological criticism delves into the milieu of a particular place. Sometimes analyzing a literary work of socially oriented and socially inspired work must do well to become familiar with the work and the cause upon which it expounds.
AESTHETIC CRITISM AND ANALYSIS
Every literary critic is an artist and engages to some degree in a form of aesthetics. A literary work has an aesthetic quality and appeals to us and to an audience. In all probability, however, we have not yet made a formal aesthetic enquiry into the work but are responding impressionistically. This impressionistic criticism is probably the most common form of criticism. We all indulge in it every time we try to establish the relative beauty or appeal of an object, be it a member of the opposite sex, a sunset, a TV show, a work of literary art.
Impressionistic judgment is entirely not open to contradictions. True aesthetic criticism establishes criteria as universal standards. The most famous set of criteria for judging literature are those proposed by Aristotle in his “Poetics” in the fourth century BC. For centuries, people involved in literature criticized and created according to the “rules” set down by Aristotle. Aristotle’s works has inspired most aesthetic philosophy over the subsequent centuries either by expanding upon the contradictions
Many modern philosophers have tried to establish an aesthetic for the arts, so far none has been completely successfully or satisfactory. The wide varieties of art and the approaches to the arts complicate and compound the problem facing the aesthetician. For instance, what works for classical painting may not work Romantic literature or contemporary music? Using a specific set of criteria, however, can help the reviewer choose and interpret literary works, because the interpreter will find that a systematic approach to evaluating the beauty of literature enhances his or her understanding for a particular work and of the field in general.
MORAL CRITICISMS AND ANALYSIS
Closely allied with sociological and aesthetic criticism is the attempt to criticize a work morally. A common type of moral criticism seen in modern times is the rating established by motion picture industry. An ‘R’ or ‘X’ rating proclaims that certain scenes may be morally offensive to some people. The most difficult problem with moral criticism, of course, rests with the phrase “to some people.” What is morally offensive to one person may not be to another. Establishing and promulgating moral criteria can lead to censorship and control of literature.
Moral criticism analysis literature in terms of values and truth. Moral criticism adheres to the basic tenets that the purpose of literature is to teach morality, whether or not religiously oriented. The interpreter may wish to provide a specific audience with specific moral or philosophical point of view. The interpreter may also find some values in examining the relative worth of a selection to himself, as well as an audience. The critic/interpreter should beware, however, of moralizing or forcing captive audience to listen to views they should ordinarily not wish to hear. One pitfall in moral criticism lies in the ephemeral quality of some of our moral standards. A casual glance at the popular art of motion, TV and magazines illustrate the major differences in public attitude towards morality that developed during the 1960s.
ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM
The theory of archetypical is derived from the school of comparative anthropology at Cambridge University. This is the use of myth and ritual, which recur in the legend, and ceremony of most diverse culture. They are expressed in myth-tortoise; Moremi in Yoruba land; and Queen Amina; religion, dreams, and private fantasies, as well as in the works of literature. Negritude for instance is analysed in terms of the large scale of collective experience of the people. i.e. as basic to the reaction of the modern literature of the black man. This attitude of celebration of values, authentic to a group comes under this type of criticism.
Carltung insists that “true poet” select their characters, images, patterns, (archetypes) from a deep unconscious realm, a primordial world, where racial experience of our ancestors are stored, i.e. a store where the trials, triumphs, failures and aspirations of these are preserved. The true artist selects from this primordial world and when they do this, their works and voices stir in us a feeling that is at once familiar because these experiences belonged to our root; strange, because these goes deep into a distant “primordial world in primordial times” of our lives. This feeling, he explains, is our response to “great art”
No comments:
Post a Comment