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

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

1. 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.
2. Brooks, Cleanth (1947). “Criticism and Literary History: Marvell’s Horation Ode” The Sewanee Review, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun.): 199-222.
3. 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.
4. Brooks, Cleanth (1953b). Modern Poetry and the Tradition. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1939.
5. Brooks, Cleanth (1968). “The Language of Paradox Brooks.” The Well Wrought Urn. By Cleanth Brooks. London: Methuen & Co Ltd: 1-16.
6. Bush, Douglas (1952). “Marvell’s ‘Horation Ode’ The Sewanee Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep): 363-376.
7. Bush, Douglas (1966) . Engaged and Disengaged. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
8. Clausen, Christopher (1997). “Reading Closely Again.” Commentary; New York, N. Y.103.2 (Feb 1): 54.

9. Graff, Gerald (1987). “History vs. Criticism.” Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: U of Chicago P. 183-194.
10. Green, Daniel (2003). “Literature Itself: The New Criticism and Aesthetic Experience”. Philosophy and Literature. 27. 1: 62-79.
11. Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, John R. Willingham (1999). A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: OUP.
12. Kadızade, Esma Dumanlı (2011). “Hüseyin Cöntürk ve Yeni Eleştiri.” TÜBAR. 39: 189-199.
13. Lentricchia, Frank (1983). After the New Criticism. London: Methuen.
14. Logan, William (2008). “Forward into the Past: Reading the New Critics.” The Virginia Quarterly Review. Spring: 252-9.
15. Mao, Douglas (1996). “The New Critics and the Text-Object”. ELH. 63. 1 (1996): 227-54.
16. Pickering, Edward D. (2008) “The Roots of New Criticism.” Southern Literary Journal. 41. 1: 93-108.
17. Strickland, Ronald (1994a). “Curriculum Mortis: A Manifesto for Structural Change.” College Literature. 21. 1. Web. 6 Oct 2016.
18. Strickland, Ronald (1994b). “The Autonomous Individual and the Anonymous Referee.” College Literature. 21. 3. Web. 7 Mar 2016.
19. Strickland, Ronald (1997). “Pedagogy and Public Accountability.” Class Issues: Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and the Public Sphere. Ed. Amitava Kumar. New York: NYP: 163-179.
20. Yezzi, David (2008). “Grammars of a Possible World.” The New Criterion. April. (2008): 27-31.
21. 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.
22. Wimsatt, William K. jr. and Cleanth Brooks (1967). Literary Criticism: A Short History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.