THE NEW CRITICISM: REMEMBERING the THEORY THAT SHAPED the STUDY of LITERATURE for GENERATIONS

Yıl 2017, , 697 - 718, 31.07.2017

Beyazıt Akman , Filiz Barın Akman

https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.297186

Öz

Starting in the 20’s, elaborated in the 30’s and 40’s and living its
heydays in the middle decades of the twentieth century, New Criticism radically
changed the study of literature both in the United States and abroad. While we
are about to enter the centennial of the start of the New Critics, in the midst
of ever-growing theoretical critical reading practices, it is important to
remember the discussions the New Critics brought to the arena of literary
theory and to assess their true contributions now that we are at a safe
distance. What caused the New Criticism to be out of favor for the literary
scholars and critics? What was wrong with seemingly liberal, objective and
humane arguments of the theory? What was wrong with blind reading of a text
without taking into account any “outside” factors such as history of the work
in which it was produced? Is it really out of practice in 21^st
century’s universities, or does today’s academia just elaborate on the New
Criticism? How far away are postmodern and post-structuralist theories from the
New Criticism? This paper will attempt to answer to these questions taking the
famous debate over criticism vs. history between Cleanth Brooks and Douglas
Bush as its starting point, to be able to provide a concrete analysis rather
than overgeneralizations. Then, we will move on to two other essays by Daniel
Green and Douglas Mayo shortly, published in contemporary academic journals,
half a century later than Brook’s and Bush’s debate, to see the point where the
discussion has come.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Criticism, literary theory and criticism, Eliot, pedagogy, canon

Yeni Eleştiri: Nesiller Boyunca Edebiyat Çalışmalarını Şekillendiren Teoriyi Hatırlamak

Öz

20’li yıllarda başlayıp 30’larda ve 40’larda gelişen, yirminci
yüzyılın ortalarında atlın çağını yaşayan Yeni Eleştiri hem Amerika’da hem de
dünyada edebiyat çalışmalarını radikal bir şekilde etkilemiştir. Yeni
Eleştiri’nin ilk doğuşunun yüzüncü yılına gireceğimiz ve kritik teorilerin her
geçen gün arttığı günümüzde Yeni Eleştirmenlerin edebiyat eleştiri arenasına
katkılarını bugünün güvenli uzaklığından irdelemek ve değerlendirmek önem arz
etmektedir. Yeni Eleştiri’nin edebiyat akademisyenlerinin gözünden düşmesinin
sebepleri nelerdi? Görünürde gayet nesnel, insani ve liberal bir açılım gibi
görünen Yeni Eleştiri pratiklerinin ardında ne gibi sıkıntılar vardı? Bir metni
incelerken tarihi arkayapı ve yazarın kimliği gibi unsuları görmezden gelmenin
sakıncaları nelerdi? Günümüzün yapısalcı-sonrası ve postmodern teorileri Yeni
Eleştiri’den ne kadar uzak? İşte bu çalışma, genel geçer tespitlerin dışında
somut bir analiz ortaya koyabilmek adına, Cleanth Brooks ve Douglas Bush
arasındaki meşhur tartışmayı merkezine alarak bu sorulara cevap aramaktadır.
Sonrasında günümüz akademik dergilerinde yayınlanan, Daniel Green ve Douglas
Mao’nun çalışmalarına değinilerek tartışmanın günümüzde geldiği konum
irdelenecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Eleştiri, edebi eleştiri, Eliot, edebiyat öğretimi, kanon

Kaynakça

• Adams, Stephen J. (2014). Review of The Birth of New Criticism: Conflict and Conciliation in the Early Work of William Empson, I.A. Richards, Laura Riding, and Robert Graves. By Donald J. Childs. ESC. 40. 4: 127-144.
• Brooks, Cleanth (1947). “Criticism and Literary History: Marvell’s Horation Ode” The Sewanee Review, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun.): 199-222.
• Brooks, Cleanth (1953a). “A Note on the Limits of ‘History’ and the Limits of ‘Criticism”. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Winter): 129-135.
• Brooks, Cleanth (1953b). Modern Poetry and the Tradition. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1939.
• Brooks, Cleanth (1968). “The Language of Paradox Brooks.” The Well Wrought Urn. By Cleanth Brooks. London: Methuen & Co Ltd: 1-16.
• Bush, Douglas (1952). “Marvell’s ‘Horation Ode’ The Sewanee Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep): 363-376.
• Bush, Douglas (1966) . Engaged and Disengaged. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
• Clausen, Christopher (1997). “Reading Closely Again.” Commentary; New York, N. Y.103.2 (Feb 1): 54.
• Graff, Gerald (1987). “History vs. Criticism.” Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: U of Chicago P. 183-194.
• Green, Daniel (2003). “Literature Itself: The New Criticism and Aesthetic Experience”. Philosophy and Literature. 27. 1: 62-79.
• Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, John R. Willingham (1999). A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: OUP.
• Kadızade, Esma Dumanlı (2011). “Hüseyin Cöntürk ve Yeni Eleştiri.” TÜBAR. 39: 189-199.
• Lentricchia, Frank (1983). After the New Criticism. London: Methuen.
• Logan, William (2008). “Forward into the Past: Reading the New Critics.” The Virginia Quarterly Review. Spring: 252-9.
• Mao, Douglas (1996). “The New Critics and the Text-Object”. ELH. 63. 1 (1996): 227-54.
• Pickering, Edward D. (2008) “The Roots of New Criticism.” Southern Literary Journal. 41. 1: 93-108.
• Strickland, Ronald (1994a). “Curriculum Mortis: A Manifesto for Structural Change.” College Literature. 21. 1. Web. 6 Oct 2016.
• Strickland, Ronald (1994b). “The Autonomous Individual and the Anonymous Referee.” College Literature. 21. 3. Web. 7 Mar 2016.
• Strickland, Ronald (1997). “Pedagogy and Public Accountability.” Class Issues: Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and the Public Sphere. Ed. Amitava Kumar. New York: NYP: 163-179.
• Yezzi, David (2008). “Grammars of a Possible World.” The New Criterion. April. (2008): 27-31.
• Willingham, John R. (1989) “The New Criticism: Then and Now”. Contemporary Literary Theory. Ed. G. Douglas Atkins and Laura Morrow. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P.: 24-42.
• Wimsatt, William K. jr. and Cleanth Brooks (1967). Literary Criticism: A Short History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.