Albert Camus

[machintruc]

Albert Camus - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Goodread quotes
Wikiquote

quotes:

It is the failing of a certain literature to believe that life is tragic because it is wretched. Life can be magnificent and overwhelming — that is its whole tragedy. Without beauty, love, or danger it would be almost easy to live.

A novel is never anything but a philosophy put into images. And in a good novel, the whole of the philosophy has passed into the images. But if once the philosophy overflows the characters and action, and therefore looks like a label stuck on the work, the plot loses its authenticity and the novel its life. Nevertheless, a work that is to last cannot dispense with profound ideas. And this secret fusion between experiences and ideas, between life and reflection on the meaning of life, is what makes the great novelist.

We have exiled beauty; the Greeks took up arms for her.

With rebellion, awareness is born.

Accepting the absurdity of everything around us is one step, a necessary experience: it should not become a dead end. It arouses a revolt that can become fruitful.

With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be history of its successive regrets and impotences.

Gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. For the first time in a long time I thought about Maman. I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a 'fiancé,' why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her. And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if the blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself — so like a brother, really — I felt I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect. If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument.

I may not have been sure about what really did interest me, but I was absolutely sure about what didn't.

There can be no question of holding forth on ethics. I have seen people behave badly with great morality and I note every day that integrity has no need of rules. There is but one moral code that the absurd man can accept, the one that is not separated from God: the one that is dictated. But it so happens that he lives outside that God. As for the others (I mean also immoralism), the absurd man sees nothing in them but justifications and he has nothing to justify. I start out here from the principle of his innocence.

Nothing is harder to understand than a symbolic work. A symbol always transcends the one who makes use of it and makes him say in reality more than he is aware of expressing.

Great feelings take with them their own universe, splendid or abject. They light up with their passion an exclusive world in which they recognize their climate. There is a universe of jealousy, of ambition, of selfishness or generosity. A universe — in other words a metaphysic and an attitude of mind.

[strrrng]

Ok, let's get this straight: HE IS NOT Si. Everybody loovvveesss to call him ISTp because of his matter-of-fact style and focus on his bodily sensations in the stranger. However, a solid understanding of the existentialist philosophy demonstrates that this is nothing more than a high focus on self-preservation. I know this because I have studied him more than most other philosophers.

My current belief is that he is my type, Ni-INFp 4w5 sp/sx. But I could see arguments for other types.

[JuJu]

yep, INFp... I really enjoyed Sisyphus--several of his books, actually,

[Phaedrus]

I know something about Camus, but I haven't studied him in depth. I'm not sure of his type, but INFp might be a possible type for him. And he is not an INTj.

[Expat]

I've read L’Étranger and some other things by him; INFp sounds right.

ETA: I also watched one of his plays, Caligula. It's weird and it seems to be about loneliness, the reality of arbitrary power, the futility of life, how people with absolute power would use it to live out their inner visions, and even some references to how people should trust logic over feelings.

[strrrng]

the reality of arbitrary power...how people with absolute power would use it to live out their inner visions

isn't this common for 6's?

[UDP]

Camus - INFp? I can see that, fairly easily.

[Amber]

EII-Ne E5w4

[wacey]

Haha, yeah so I got authors mixed up. Whatever it happens, you don't know me. I do what I want!

About John Steinbeck NOT Albert Camus:

(There is this existentialist emptiness that I found I related to very much while reading his books in high school. My personal favorite was East Of Eden. I could see myself reflected in many of the title characters. Very lonely reads.

I do not believe his books are helpful for teenagers though. Young minds need support and hope and dreams. Not emptiness, dissilusionment, despair, disenfranchisement and the meaningless of it all - common themes in many of Camus's novels - for example, Of Mice and Men, and Cannery Row)

[ashlesha]

@wacey psssst. those are all steinbeck novels.

[strrrng]

camus is my fav... <3

[Amber]

There is this existentialist emptiness that I found I related to very much while reading his books in high school. My personal favorite was East Of Eden. I could see myself reflected in many of the title characters. Very lonely reads.

I do not believe his books are helpful for teenagers though. Young minds need support and hope and dreams. Not emptiness, dissilusionment, despair, disenfranchisement and the meaningless of it all - common themes in many of Camus's novels - for example, Of Mice and Men, and Cannery Row

I take it he was joking ...wacey style.

I will never understand how one only discusses literature while seeing oneself reflected in it / identifying with it.

It may be some special kind of Fi or just an Enneagram fetish ...but as someone who specializes in such stuff, I'm totally taken aback. E5 is a bitch though, it's true.

Existentialism as a movement is probably E5w4. Kafka would be my choice for Ni base (ILI) vs. Fi (Camus). But strangely enough Andre Gide is my favorite author.

[ashlesha]

I will never understand how one only discusses literature while seeing oneself reflected in it / identifying with it.

this is why i won't write book reviews on goodreads or where any sort of distance might be expected. i can't separate myself enough.

as for camus, i dunno, ive only read the stranger, it was good. i remember it ended a streak where i couldnt finish any books at all.

[wacey]

I take it he was joking ...wacey style.

I will never understand how one only discusses literature while seeing oneself reflected in it / identifying with it.

It may be some special kind of Fi or just an Enneagram fetish ...but as someone who specializes in such stuff, I'm totally taken aback. E5 is a bitch though, it's true.

Existentialism as a movement is probably E5w4. Kafka would be my choice for Ni base (ILI) vs. Fi (Camus). But strangely enough Andre Gide is my favorite author.

EDIT:........wait. I think I have my authors mixed up. I might be thinking of JOHN STEINBECK. Haha, forget everything I wrote, I was talking about John Steinbeck, not Albert Camus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll just leave it up anyway...... man I'm blonde sometimes.....


I'm not an english lit student I couldn't give fuck about remaining objective while reading especially as an impressionable teenager, which I most certainly was. Personalizing the works means that something in Steinbeck's novels resonated with my experiences of life at the time. I was deeply intuitive at that age. I could read a novel and understand it on a gut level far above the level of my peers. I'm not bragging, nor exaggerating. When I read I see the characters and their struggles as my own. As a former foster child I can relate to the disillusionment and emptiness that Steinbeck's characters struggle with.

Literature is meant to affect the reader and a conversation about the subjective experience is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. : p

John Steinbeck did not consider himself an existentialist, yet he works are riddled with the philosophy. Besides, I don't view his works as part of a philosophy movement, they are simply stories that reveal deeper human truths often by presenting two juxtaposed ideas. Light and dark, good and evil, happiness and sadness. John emphasized the fact that happiness is fleeting. For example, George in Of Mice and Men can never quite find the money for the farm he wants to create, life always gets in his way; Lennie is happy but he is retarded. The human condition is one of mortality. Happiness is fleeting for this reason it should be appreciated not for its meaning, but for its meaninglessness. We value our lives in spite of our mortality and the universes silence (existentialism) . This was often the main epiphany John's characters blindly stumble upon after much trial and error. Steinbeck implores the reader to lucidly see reality without the psychological comfort of "meaning", panacea he viewed as a type of suicide.

Other concepts such as solidarity, cooperation and joint effort appear time and again his novels. Not surprising themes given that the time his novels were written was after the second world war when America was rabidly industrializing and the "self made man", could with help form others lift themselves up from the crippling poverty. Social classes appeared time and again as obstacles for Steinbeck characters. In East of Eden, two brother separated by wealth and social class was the main plot struggles the protagonists faced.

Hmmmm, I wonder what sociotype employs trial and error and rebellion to find appreciation for an empty universe?

[Amber]

What are you talking about?

I'm not an english lit student I couldn't give fuck about remaining objective while reading. When I read I see the characters and their struggles as my own. As a former foster child I can relate to the disillusionment and emptiness that Camus's characters struggle with.

I'm sorry, but literature is meant to affect the reader. BUT, if you want to typologize me whatever its your prerogative. : P

hey, I didn't mean any insult ...I think it's a warming and very human approach. I'm just used to extreme objectification techniques and it wasn't the first time I heard you talk about how you experienced something described in a literary work yourself (Sylvia Plath ...).

[golden]

Eh, I sometimes see the opposite problem. it's actually not that easy for some students to figure out how to actually connect literature to their lives and feelings and preoccupations. I think good teachers / professors find a way to open up the analytic avenues that help people understand a work in a lot of ways, historically, critically, aesthetically ... and that knowledge can deepen the reader's relationship to the text.

[Amber]

Eh, I sometimes see the opposite problem. it's actually not that easy for some students to figure out how to actually connect literature to their lives and feelings and preoccupations. I think good teachers / professors find a way to open up the analytic avenues that help people understand a work in a lot of ways, historically, critically, aesthetically ... and that knowledge can deepen the reader's relationship to the text.

oh really? Go teach African American literature to white Western Europeans while trying to urge them to personally connect with the text (in terms of feelings and preoccupations). A text/ work of art has an objective existence of its own ...which however shouldn't be extracted out of its socio-cultural context if real understanding is the goal.

[ashlesha]

I'm just used to extreme objectification techniques

you mean literal techniques? can you say more or direct me to sources?

i think the word "objective" is often misleading bcuz its impossible to clear your mind of all subjective influence and i'm bothered by the fact that a lot of people seem to bullshit themselves into thinking they are objective and it can be really harmful. but its clear that some people are more subjective than others. which is weird, like biting your own teeth.

[Amber]

you mean literal techniques? can you say more or direct me to sources?

i think the word "objective" is often misleading bcuz its impossible to clear your mind of all subjective influence and i'm bothered by the fact that a lot of people seem to bullshit themselves into thinking they are objective and it can be really harmful. but its clear that some people are more subjective than others. which is weird, like biting your own teeth.

I meant we're supposed to detach ourselves from the object of our investigation/ analysis in order to grasp its real nature. I'm not sure about what you want to say here ... ofc everyone has a degree of subjectivity, but we were having a talk about interpretation of literature here and your comments just seem superfluous. No offense.

[ashlesha]

I meant we're supposed to detach ourselves from the object of our investigation/ analysis in order to grasp its real nature. I'm not sure what you want to say here ... ofc everyone has a degree of subjectivity, but we were having a talk about interpretation of literature here and your comments just seem superfluous. No offense.

i'm saying its impossible to detach. if there are actual techniques people use to do so, i'd like to know about them.

[ashlesha]

unless it means talking as though you are detached. not sure that's honest.

[wacey]

oh really? Go teach African American literature to white Western Europeans while trying to urge them to personally connect with the text (in terms of feelings and preoccupations). A text/ work of art has an objective existence of its own ...which however shouldn't be extracted out of its socio-cultural context if real understanding is the goal.

I'm thinking the only thing that separates us from the animals is our imaginations. It is so evolved at this point, from a hundred hundred hundred generations that we don't even need to "be there" to experience it. We can imagine and our imaginations make it so.

Truth is universal is it not? At least human truth. If the readers are not personally connecting with the literature then perhaps it was the authors fault. This is probably why an author's work can stand the test of time: because it can be removed from the socio-cultural context in which it was written. Human truths are true no matter what generation reads them. The context is important sure, probably for the higher level study of the literature mechanisms, I would say instead of real understanding, you might better say intellectual understanding. REAL understanding, at least for me, is holistic.

[golden]

oh really? Go teach African American literature to white Western Europeans while trying to urge them to personally connect with the text (in terms of feelings and preoccupations). A text/ work of art has an objective existence of its own ...which however shouldn't be extracted out of its socio-cultural context if real understanding is the goal.

You're creating a conflict where none exists. I said a good teacher gives students tools and inroads that allow them to connect with a literary work. Who walks into a class and directly urges anyone to personally connect with something? No one. Except an idiot.

I meant we're supposed to detach ourselves from the object of our investigation/ analysis in order to grasp its real nature. I'm not sure about what you want to say here ... ofc everyone has a degree of subjectivity, but we were having a talk about interpretation of literature here and your comments just seem superfluous. No offense.

"We're" not supposed to do that. I guess you are. That's what literary critics are supposed to do, I suppose. Noncritics will bring more subjectivity to the read, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Literary works are not just text churned out for exegesis in service of academic careers. I work with books, but in my field they are authorial creations, and objects (physical and virtual) produced and distributed through a complicated collaborative process.

It doesn't greatly further my relationship with an author to engage in concentrated textual analysis. I may consider what tropes, images, narrative strategies and the like would be of interest to what kind of critic, and why, but for me, (often) for the author, and (usually) for readers, self-conscious epistemology is the superfluity.

In short: Most people want a story.

unless it means talking as though you are detached. not sure that's honest.

No one is completely detached. Treating the work as an autonomous entity is a fundamental notion in critical approaches to literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism). But one that is obviously complex and involves a certain level of dishonesty, in a sense.

What preceded modern critical approaches were ideas such as honoring the author's intent, and pedagogy that involved finding "the" intended, single correct way to understand a literary work, and historical approaches to reading.

Getting free of that = a good thing. But the New Critics themselves were totally steeped in knowledge of authors' lives and interests and aims, were well aware of the long-upheld "standard" interpretations of canonical works, and knew historical contexts well.

And anyhow, New Criticism isn't new anymore.

Today, most U.S. students barely know anything about authors' motivations, about history, about the history of a book's reception.

In fact most people here rarely bother to read a work of literature, so from my p.o.v., if anyone cares enough to read books, from the most refined literary productions to something as lowbrow and ridiculous as a sci-fi romance about outer-space dragon people who fuck in midair, I'm delighted.

And btw, I'm not saying literary criticism is a problem, just that most people don't give a shit about it.

[wacey]

wow you are a good writer golden.

[Amber]

You're creating a conflict where none exists. I said a good teacher gives students tools and inroads that allow them to connect with a literary work. Who walks into a class and directly urges anyone to personally connect with something? No one. Except an idiot.



"We're" not supposed to do that. I guess you are. That's what literary critics are supposed to do, I suppose. Noncritics will bring more subjectivity to the read, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Literary works are not just text churned out for exegesis in service of academic careers. I work with books, but in my field they are authorial creations, and objects (physical and virtual) produced and distributed through a complicated collaborative process.

It doesn't greatly further my relationship with an author to engage in concentrated textual analysis. I may consider what tropes, images, narrative strategies and the like would be of interest to what kind of critic, and why, but for me, (often) for the author, and (usually) for readers, self-conscious epistemology is the superfluity.

In short: Most people want a story.



No one is completely detached. Treating the work as an autonomous entity is a fundamental notion in critical approaches to literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism). But one that is obviously complex and involves a certain level of dishonesty, in a sense.

What preceded modern critical approaches were ideas such as honoring the author's intent, and pedagogy that involved finding "the" intended, single correct way to understand a literary work, and historical approaches to reading.

Getting free of that = a good thing. But the New Critics themselves were totally steeped in knowledge of authors' lives and interests and aims, were well aware of the long-upheld "standard" interpretations of canonical works, and knew historical contexts well.

And anyhow, New Criticism isn't new anymore.

Today, most U.S. students barely know anything about authors' motivations, about history, about the history of a book's reception.

In fact most people here rarely bother to read a work of literature, so from my p.o.v., if anyone cares enough to read books, from the most refined literary productions to something as lowbrow and ridiculous as a sci-fi romance about outer-space dragon people who fuck in midair, I'm delighted.

And btw, I'm not saying literary criticism is a problem, just that most people don't give a shit about it.

Hey, Golden, you have your own FeNi so/sp take on this and you can keep it. It suits you to the core. I can't even force myself to go through everything you say, because it sounds terribly fake (constructed) and empty. An outsider's opinion .. but hell, yes, I wanna make it heard, because "it matters".


What we do in our classes is our problem and you are not entitled to judge it. You simply don't have the position for that. I'm not interested in your wikipedia links and artificial arguments ..because I know better than you.

What are you posting a wikipedia link on formalism for ...? That's way old-fashioned, you know.

[ashlesha]

No one is completely detached. Treating the work as an autonomous entity is a fundamental notion in critical approaches to literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism). But one that is obviously complex and involves a certain level of dishonesty, in a sense.

What preceded modern critical approaches were ideas such as honoring the author's intent, and pedagogy that involved finding "the" intended, single correct way to understand a literary work, and historical approaches to reading.

my thoughts were becoming a jumble of cognitive dissonance and this helped a lot, thank you.

[Amber]

<<< I declare this thread derailed. >>>


Camus has taken over.

Carnival of fools.

[Amber]

my thoughts were becoming a jumble of cognitive dissonance and this helped a lot, thank you.

I highly doubt you are capable of cognitive dissonance.

[Amber]

Going back to Camus ...


EII ...?

or a different opinion ...anyone?

[ashlesha]

I highly doubt you are capable of cognitive dissonance.

i think your energy is being misdirected here. are you arguing that it IS possible to be completely detached? if so, i disagree. i generally respect your posts and i was hoping for clarification, but you're not really giving me anything to work with. if you'd rather i know you think i'm stupid than understand exactly what your position is, then you're taking the right approach.

[Amber]

i think your energy is being misdirected here. are you arguing that it IS possible to be completely detached? if so, i disagree and i won't be persuaded. i generally respect your posts and i was hoping for clarification, but you're not really giving me anything to work with. if you'd rather i know you think i'm stupid than understand exactly what your position is, then you're taking the right approach.

I'd rather talk about what type Camus was instead of having EIEs on the forum insert their random unauthorized opinions on "what literary criticism nowadays is" and what academics should do etc.

If you wanted to have broader conversations with me in particular ...you probably missed your chance, but I'm not here to tell you why or how.

[strrrng]

I don't really see EII. he held certain ethical beliefs and definitely had a code, but it was more philosophically anchored than strictly personally and internally driven/sectioned off. Resistance, Rebellion and Death is a good example, he develops certain ideological and moral themes, but his assessment deals more with the ideational import of said things and the broader implications of various societal attitudes than any actual guidelines or ethical principles. in general his critiques have a kind of neutral distance I find to be common with Ni-IPs, there's a personal investment, but it's subserved to a broader perspective. The Stranger is a good example of how a more personally resonant philosophy could be turned into something abstract, and in general is more of a background Fe critique on Ti-understood absurdity than a dostoevsky-esque moral evaluation. read The Rebel or The Myth of Sisyphus and you'll see more glimmers of Ti, whether in the way he sort of starts from the top down with his explication on suicide, alluding to commonly understood principles of experience and ideological points of interest to develop a more singular theme, or discourses on the theoretical nuances of marx's attitude towards rebellion as it pertains to certain socio-cultural undercurrents. I just don't see Fi anywhere in his critiques, really; this is especially clear in light of how sensitive the subject matter he was dealing with was... I think him being referred to as the 'conscience of a century' has more to do with his implicit attunement to Fe nuance and the global perspective he was able to impart than him actually being a moral appraiser... Fi types are just less accessible, I guess. also, he tended to espouse views that could easily be taken to extremes without ever fully getting carried away, despite embedding his passion heavily yet tastefully in his writings, which to me is indicative of an even-keeled beta. a delta revolutionary's role would be more specific and self-contained, they don't emotionally 'come out' and really let you know where they are in the way that Fe types do... camus just has a certain distance that shades and accentuates his implicit, philosophical relatability rather than puts him in a separate realm. so yeah, Ni-IEI, 4w5, probably sp-primary.

[golden]

Hey, Golden, you have your own FeNi so/sp take on this and you can keep it. It suits you to the core. I can't even force myself to go through everything you say, because it sounds terribly fake (constructed) and empty. An outsider's opinion .. but hell, yes, I wanna make it heard, because "it matters".


What we do in our classes is our problem and you are not entitled to judge it. You simply don't have the position for that. I'm not interested in your wikipedia links and artificial arguments ..because I know better than you.

What are you posting a wikipedia link on formalism for ...? That's way old-fashioned, you know.

If you don't want an old-fashioned link, don't espouse an outdated point of view.

You quoted me out of having you on ignore today. Tricky, tricky!

[Amber]

If you don't want an old-fashioned link, don't espouse an outdated point of view.

You quoted me out of having you on ignore today. Tricky, tricky!

Oh lol I'm sorry for your idiotic misunderstandings (aka Fe-oriented illegitimate agendas). Check out poststructuralism, postcolonialism, gender&ethnic studies, and critical race theory for some more enlightenment.

[Lotus]

[Contra]

Seems Ni dom at the very least. Not willing to go much further than that.

[Lotus]

IEI

[golden]

wow you are a good writer golden.

Thanks.

my thoughts were becoming a jumble of cognitive dissonance and this helped a lot, thank you.

Glad it helped. Although I have her back on ignore, Agni did raise a point I only nodded at, which is that New Criticism isn't current. Many other movements have taken place in literary theory in the last century, some with staying power, some not so much. I talked about New Criticism because it was a turning point in how literature is read and taught. It's where the notion of analyzing the thing-in-itself solidified. And essential to later developments.

And if our threads are going to involve assertions coming from literary theory, it only makes sense to me to make it more obvious wtf is being talked about.

 

2. Traditional Literary Criticism

Academic literary criticism prior to the rise of "New Criticism" in the United States tended to practice traditional literary history: tracking influence, establishing the canon of major writers in the literary periods, and clarifying historical context and allusions within the text. Literary biography was and still is an important interpretive method in and out of the academy; versions of moral criticism, not unlike the Leavis School in Britain, and aesthetic (e.g. genre studies) criticism were also generally influential literary practices. Perhaps the key unifying feature of traditional literary criticism was the consensus within the academy as to the both the literary canon (that is, the books all educated persons should read) and the aims and purposes of literature. What literature was, and why we read literature, and what we read, were questions that subsequent movements in literary theory were to raise.

3. Formalism and New Criticism

"Formalism" is, as the name implies, an interpretive approach that emphasizes literary form and the study of literary devices within the text. The work of the Formalists had a general impact on later developments in "Structuralism" and other theories of narrative. "Formalism," like "Structuralism," sought to place the study of literature on a scientific basis through objective analysis of the motifs, devices, techniques, and other "functions" that comprise the literary work. The Formalists placed great importance on the literariness of texts, those qualities that distinguished the literary from other kinds of writing. Neither author nor context was essential for the Formalists; it was the narrative that spoke, the "hero-function," for example, that had meaning. Form was the content. A plot device or narrative strategy was examined for how it functioned and compared to how it had functioned in other literary works. Of the Russian Formalist critics, Roman Jakobson and Viktor Shklovsky are probably the most well known.

The Formalist adage that the purpose of literature was "to make the stones stonier" nicely expresses their notion of literariness. "Formalism" is perhaps best known is Shklovsky's concept of "defamiliarization." The routine of ordinary experience, Shklovsky contended, rendered invisible the uniqueness and particularity of the objects of existence. Literary language, partly by calling attention to itself as language, estranged the reader from the familiar and made fresh the experience of daily life.

The "New Criticism," so designated as to indicate a break with traditional methods, was a product of the American university in the 1930s and 40s. "New Criticism" stressed close reading of the text itself, much like the French pedagogical precept "explication du texte." As a strategy of reading, "New Criticism" viewed the work of literature as an aesthetic object independent of historical context and as a unified whole that reflected the unified sensibility of the artist. T.S. Eliot, though not explicitly associated with the movement, expressed a similar critical-aesthetic philosophy in his essays on John Donne and the metaphysical poets, writers who Eliot believed experienced a complete integration of thought and feeling. New Critics like Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren and W.K. Wimsatt placed a similar focus on the metaphysical poets and poetry in general, a genre well suited to New Critical practice. "New Criticism" aimed at bringing a greater intellectual rigor to literary studies, confining itself to careful scrutiny of the text alone and the formal structures of paradox, ambiguity, irony, and metaphor, among others. "New Criticism" was fired by the conviction that their readings of poetry would yield a humanizing influence on readers and thus counter the alienating tendencies of modern, industrial life. "New Criticism" in this regard bears an affinity to the Southern Agrarian movement whose manifesto, I'll Take My Stand, contained essays by two New Critics, Ransom and Warren. Perhaps the enduring legacy of "New Criticism" can be found in the college classroom, in which the verbal texture of the poem on the page remains a primary object of literary study.

[Amber]

Thanks.



Glad it helped. Although I have her back on ignore, Agni did raise a point I only nodded at, which is that New Criticism isn't current. Many other movements have taken place in literary theory in the last century, some with staying power, some not so much. I talked about New Criticism because it was a turning point in how literature is read and taught. It's where the notion of analyzing the thing-in-itself solidified. And essential to later developments.

And if our threads are going to involve assertions coming from literary theory, it only makes sense to me to make it more obvious wtf is being talked about.

 

2. Traditional Literary Criticism

Academic literary criticism prior to the rise of "New Criticism" in the United States tended to practice traditional literary history: tracking influence, establishing the canon of major writers in the literary periods, and clarifying historical context and allusions within the text. Literary biography was and still is an important interpretive method in and out of the academy; versions of moral criticism, not unlike the Leavis School in Britain, and aesthetic (e.g. genre studies) criticism were also generally influential literary practices. Perhaps the key unifying feature of traditional literary criticism was the consensus within the academy as to the both the literary canon (that is, the books all educated persons should read) and the aims and purposes of literature. What literature was, and why we read literature, and what we read, were questions that subsequent movements in literary theory were to raise.

3. Formalism and New Criticism

"Formalism" is, as the name implies, an interpretive approach that emphasizes literary form and the study of literary devices within the text. The work of the Formalists had a general impact on later developments in "Structuralism" and other theories of narrative. "Formalism," like "Structuralism," sought to place the study of literature on a scientific basis through objective analysis of the motifs, devices, techniques, and other "functions" that comprise the literary work. The Formalists placed great importance on the literariness of texts, those qualities that distinguished the literary from other kinds of writing. Neither author nor context was essential for the Formalists; it was the narrative that spoke, the "hero-function," for example, that had meaning. Form was the content. A plot device or narrative strategy was examined for how it functioned and compared to how it had functioned in other literary works. Of the Russian Formalist critics, Roman Jakobson and Viktor Shklovsky are probably the most well known.

The Formalist adage that the purpose of literature was "to make the stones stonier" nicely expresses their notion of literariness. "Formalism" is perhaps best known is Shklovsky's concept of "defamiliarization." The routine of ordinary experience, Shklovsky contended, rendered invisible the uniqueness and particularity of the objects of existence. Literary language, partly by calling attention to itself as language, estranged the reader from the familiar and made fresh the experience of daily life.

The "New Criticism," so designated as to indicate a break with traditional methods, was a product of the American university in the 1930s and 40s. "New Criticism" stressed close reading of the text itself, much like the French pedagogical precept "explication du texte." As a strategy of reading, "New Criticism" viewed the work of literature as an aesthetic object independent of historical context and as a unified whole that reflected the unified sensibility of the artist. T.S. Eliot, though not explicitly associated with the movement, expressed a similar critical-aesthetic philosophy in his essays on John Donne and the metaphysical poets, writers who Eliot believed experienced a complete integration of thought and feeling. New Critics like Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren and W.K. Wimsatt placed a similar focus on the metaphysical poets and poetry in general, a genre well suited to New Critical practice. "New Criticism" aimed at bringing a greater intellectual rigor to literary studies, confining itself to careful scrutiny of the text alone and the formal structures of paradox, ambiguity, irony, and metaphor, among others. "New Criticism" was fired by the conviction that their readings of poetry would yield a humanizing influence on readers and thus counter the alienating tendencies of modern, industrial life. "New Criticism" in this regard bears an affinity to the Southern Agrarian movement whose manifesto, I'll Take My Stand, contained essays by two New Critics, Ransom and Warren. Perhaps the enduring legacy of "New Criticism" can be found in the college classroom, in which the verbal texture of the poem on the page remains a primary object of literary study.

oh I'm so flattered you're mentioning me without trying to elaborate on my critical position on my behalf.
The newer approaches don't focus on the work-in-itself-ossified (as a dead and fixed space of meanings and figures/tropes); instead they emphasize the cultural contexts, the systems of knowledge, and networks of power relations that produced it. The text is not a neutral closed entity, but it often has more or less implicit political and ideological messages. Still it's *not the reader's* perspectives and subjectivity that is in the foreground now - that's where the whole divagating discussion in this thread started. The socio-cultural origin and implications of the work are prioritized. It's not too relevant if the reader/student can personally identify with something in the text and meaning is not extremely fluid in this aspect ...at least it doesn't depend too much on the reader's own identity in terms of projected messages, feelings, or interpretations as it was in the 60-70s when the "death of the author" was up-to-date.

[willekeurig]

I don't really see EII. he held certain ethical beliefs...

Most people do, regardless of type..

..and definitely had a code, but it was more philosophically anchored than strictly personally and internally driven/sectioned off. Resistance, Rebellion and Death is a good example, he develops certain ideological and moral themes, but his assessment deals more with the ideational import of said things and the broader implications of various societal attitudes than any actual guidelines or ethical principles

I'm EII and it'd be more than just misleading to say I follow some ethical code/guideline/principle(s). Belief-wise I'm a moral non-cognitivist, and in practice rather... flexible? Like it's not too important to follow my own advice if not following makes life more fun. Peole that preach about morals or have strict guidelines tend to piss me off and I generally like upsetting them (often even if I think they have a point).

Not that I disagree with your typing for Camus, it's seems rather agreeable. Peoples EII descriptions just often make me go wtf.