IGNOU FREE MEG-005 Literary Criticism and Theory Solved Guess Paper 2025
Q1. What is Literary Criticism ?
This too is one of those awkward questions about which I have already told you. When someone asks you whether you like a particular book, a novel, a short story, and you say “yes” or “no” you are on the threshold of literary criticism. When she asks you why, and then you attempt an answer trying to rationalize your perception, you are “doing” literary criticism, albeit at a rudimentary level. Similarly, you do film or art criticism. Understanding and interpreting literary experience, even when not articulated can be literary criticism. Now, this can be an amateurish response.
Alternatively, it could also be a highly sophisticated, professional one of the kind we generally read in review columns or journals. English poets and critics whose works you read have battled over the question of the relative superiority or otherwise of criticism over creation: Wordsworth and Arnold, for example. Some enduring criticism has also come into being by way of “Defense of Poetry”. You already know of some ofthese, such as Sidney’s (1554-1586) and Shelley’s (1792-1822) Essays.
The classical criticism ofthe Greeks and Romans grew around attacks on and defense of the position of poets in a civil society. “Aesthetics” and “Poetics” were terms that were earlier used before the vogue of “Criticism” set in. You can find brief histories of such common words ii Raymond Williams’s book entitled keywords. And then, more recently, “theory” was introduced into our departments. Very generally speaking, A THEORY (any theory) provides a system by which experience can be organized and made sense of, or at least into something which will be comprehensible.
All theories are constructed against the threat of chaos, which is the absence of system or organizing principles, to make sense of what comes to us, however, provisional and imperfect that sense may have to be. That is the basis of all dokma, religious and political alike. What applies to life also applies to our experience of works of art. How does a work of art mean what it means? How do we make sense of the work, whether it be a literary, or nonliterary text?
Q2.what is Contradistinction ?
By definition then, you can see the difference between what is generally referred to as theory, and what we have always known as literary criticism. Theory, in the context of literature, is the set of broad assumptions about literature, and the function of criticism. When you say, for example, that economic condition of a society, its modes of production, and class system, in any given time determine the literature of that society in that given period of its history, you are making a theoretical pronouncement. However, when you start analyzing any work of art, a poem or a novel of that society and period fkom that theoretical perspective, you are doing literary criticism.
This kind of “reading” of literature is, of course, known as Marxist criticism, that is literary criticism where you have applied the Marxist “theory” of literature, And, you may have done it yourself, without knowing it! “Reading” in this sense is purposive reading, with theory in mind. Literary criticism, you may say, thus, is applied theory. Literature, Criticism and Theory Secondly, or to put the same thing in a different way, whereas the object of literary aiticism is any given, particular, literary (oral or written) work, that of classical psetics or contemporary theory is usually generalization about literature.
Invariably, it is the second which leads to the practice of the firstFor some reason, the term theory, as opposed to literary criticism, came into vogue when structuralism and post-structuralism opposed new criticism. In this sense, theory is used to describe a wide range of approaches from the Marxist to the deconstructionist school. But, as early as 1957, Wimsatt and Broqks used the term theory in referring to any broad assumptions about literature, even in the case of the works of classical writers such as Horace (65-8 BC) or medieval writers, such as Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74).
They refer to Horace as a “literarytheorist”. They also talk about how “Literary theory and criticism received a new emphasis in Italy during that phase of the geneml Renaissance which was speeded by the western movement. ” What Horace says about certain literary works, their relative merit or demerit, is criticism. But surely, he says all these with certain broad assumptions in mind, or even expressed ones. As Wimasatt and Brooks say, “The main thing assumed in the criticism of Horace is the normative value of the literary ‘species’ (P 80). But when we talk of theory here, or even for that matter, whenever we talk about theory, what we have in mind is the more recent phenomenon of “doing” theory.
That is to say, the structuralist and poststructuralist turning in literary criticism: from Mandsm to Deconstruction, from Foucault to the speech-act theory, is a academic phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century. In addition, theory has broken the disciplinary boundaries between various academic disciplines.
Q3.What Is Background To The Contemporary Situation In Theory ?
Section 1 try to give historical reasons for the rise of theory in the latter half of the 20& century. Naturally, this history will be mv version of what happened, which will be coloured by whatever history I have read and heard from others. You should not–must not–take for granted indiscriminately all that I say by way of generalization and simplification. Ironically enough, this kind of scepticism, questioning that 1 recommend is also the result of developments in theory. In subsequent blocks you will be told about “subject positions”, “interpellation” and so on. Also, questions of historiography have contributed to this kind of scepticism.
Let me then proceed with my version of what happened in the earlier decades to English Studies. Until the first quarter of the 19″ century higher education in England was a monopoly of the Church of England, and confined to Oxford and Cambridge. These two ancient universities were like all-men-monasteries in the form of colleges. The teachers were unmarried church men and like them students were all housed in the’colleges. Ancient Greek and Latin literature , Divinity and Mathematics were the subjects of study. In 1826 a university college was for the first time founded in London opening up facilities to men and women of all religions. From 1828 English was offered as a subject for study and the first English professor was appointed in 1829. However it .
was English language rather than literature which received the main thrust. The inclusion of literature come about in 1840 when F. D. Morris was appointed professor at King’s College. He said what Arnold was to take up programmatically,later : The study of English literature, he said, would serve ‘Yo emancipate us.. . from the notions and habits which are peculiar to our own age”. He also stressed on “fixed and endearing” values that literature highlighted.
This can be taken as the central tenet of liberg1 humanism with an appeal to high moralism supposedly beneficent to human kind. The apparent absence of political motive or ideology cannot stand a moment’s scrutiny; because, both what Morris (1834-1896) said and what Matthew Arnold made a life long crusade were indicative of the threat that the rising working class forces posed for the traditional ruling class. English was to be a substitute for religion, now that faith had given way to doubt, and religion had all but lost credibility. With its ideological baggage depleted, religion had to be replaced by a new ideological.baggage.
Hence, Arnold’s prophecy that poetry (criticism) would replace religion. We will soon see how Eliot’s and the new critics’ conservatism and Leavis’s appeal to literary values will make last ditch attempts at saving liberal humanism from growing attacks from rival camps mostly from the political left, which had already dubbed religion as the opium of the people. If you want to know more about this you must read such books as The Sociul Mission Of English Studies 1848-1 932 by Chris Baldick, Re-reading English edited by Peter Widdowson, and The Rise of English Studies by D. J. Palmer, as well .
Q4.What Is Immediate Contexts ?
The main impulse towards literary theory as it now comes to us, rose in the wake of the modernist movement. As Aijaz Ahmad says, even the “more advanced sectors of English studies during the period between the two World Wars were dominated by four main.. . tendencies: the practical criticism of I.
- Richards; the conservative, monarchist, quasi-Catholic criticism of T.S. Eliot; some elements of avant-gardist modernism which nevertheless remained much less theorized in the English-speaking countries than in continental Europe; and the then newly emergent ‘New Criticism’ of Ransom, Tate and others in the United States” (p.46).
The resistance to such exclusivist and technicist (that is emphasising technique), criticism developed in England first, where there was an older tradition of socially conscious literary study. (You must not be perturbed by such jargon and neologisms as “exclusionist” and “technicist” as they are coined from the simple words you use: “exclusive” and “technical”. F.R Leavis instituted and led the Scrutiny group by assimilating some of the pedagogical strategies of practical criticism; just as this latter, developed and sponsored by 1.A Richards, had made special attempts to make a science of literary criticism, and a strong plea for eliminating subjective appreciation of literaturelpoetry. Leavis’s close reading also made an attempt to define objective criteria for literary analysis to displace the aristocratic notions of literary “taste”, while trying to locate the new texts of English literature in the larger story of English social life.
Ironically enough, the whole Scrutiny enterprise has been seen in more recent times as itself being part of a conservative bourgeois undertaking. As 1 recount later, this is an episode in the history of the rise and 1 mission of English. This history has been encouraged at least in part by the cultural studies of Raymond Williams who was influenced by the Marxist intellectual movement of his times. Frank Lentricchia who has tried to trace the histoj. of “theory” in his book A8er the New Criticism says, how “By about 1957 the moribund condition of the New Criticism and the literary needs it left unfblfilled placed us in a critical void. Even in the 1940s, however, those triumphant times of the New Criticism, a theoretical opposition was quietly gathering strength” (p.4).
Whereas the New Critics concentrated on the text as an autonomous entity, the new opposition tried to absorb the isolated text into large mythic structures. Northrop Frye in his Anatomy of Criticism (195 7) made the decisive break with the New Critical past absorbing scattered dissidence. While carrying out his critical-theoretical mission, Frye made a series of antiNew-Critical remarks, and called the New Criticism “the aestheticist view”. The New Critics, he said, behaved as ifthey were in possession of special techniques, which enabled them to engage in vaguely sacramental activity. He describedthe activity as made up of cryptic comment and ritual gesture which were too occult for comprehension. Frye’s purpose was, as Geoffrey Hartman was to say, to democratize criticism, and demystify the muse.
If you are uninitiated in contemporary theorists, and have been reading them now trying to understand their work, you might think “how silly” it was on their part to think that way. But, many students in those decades were in awe of their teachers who taught the New Critical way. They thought of their teachers as people who possessed special knowledge of hidden meanings of texts to which they, the students, themselves had no clue. You may now be inclined to say the same thing about the theorists, especially if you are among the uninitiated. But the actual democratization has taken place in the shape of the large number of critical-theoretical practices you now can choose from.
Q5.What Is Further Considerations Of Plato ?
In his Ion (dated first decade of the fourth century), Plato ascribes dialogues pertaining to literary theories to Socrates and Ion, the rhapsode. [A rhapsode can be described as a cross between the modem-day university or college lecturer and ador]. Since Plato was Socrates’s disciple the dramatization of literary criticism can be considered as historical’rather than fictional.
In fact some of the passages there have been quoted both as’evidence of opposed views about poetry. One of the interesting points that you will find emerging from Ion is that to have a rhapsodic attitude towards poetry or criticism is like being a critic without any break up of theory, who often would make such statements about any work as?’How touching!” “or” Beautiful, beautiful!. . . ” Plato’s own views about art emerge more clearly from his Republic.
Most of these views he expressed in the context of his objection to poetry. In Phaedrus he strongly objects to the nuisance value of the poet because of the latter’s dependence on divine madness in his Republic. Plato expresses his distrust in very simple terms. Poetry, he says, “fkeds and waters the passions,” creating divisions and unsteadiness in the heart, or frivolous laughter. These are against positive civic values.
What are the main reasons for this? For one thing, if poetry produces immoral results, it is because of the nature of poetry itself, thinks Plato. Poetry deals with a variety of motives &d feelings not all of which are desirable. The feelings could be both good and bad producing pleasure and pain both. Also, poetry deals with fictitious incidents and characters.
He gives the example of Homer and Hesiod and the Greek dramatic poets who do not always represent God as wholly good but these Gods are manlike: quarrelsome, deceitful and fallible. Their heroes are emotional or unheroic. In this context, Plato mentions his concept of imitation or Mimesis. Plato develops this idea at different places in the Republic. More recently Plato’s dialogues on love have been seen as the earliest impulse on a love between men, which some modernists called “Greek Love”.
Q6.WHAT IS Aristotle ?
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of Plato, and, although his theories differed in many significant ways from Plato’s, often overturning them in Oedipal reaction, they were also very dependent on them. Metaphysically, he was also an idealist, although he believed that ideas were implicit in things, rather than existing outside of things. As for the ultimate reality, he believed that the empirical world resulted from “Thought thinking Itself.” How does that work? Well, it is complicated, and even if I explain it thoroughly, it still will not necessarily make sense. Besides, we can explain Aristotle’s views about Art without ever having to know how the universe came about.
So I will not touch upon that particular issue. I will not talk about them here, but I do encourage you to find out about them on your own. Aristotle, like Plato, sees Art as imitative, but, unlike Plato, sees it as imitating essence, rather than accidence. Therefore, Art is actually higher on the chain than the empirical world, and elevates rather than lowers us. Of course, Art, like everything else, has a formal cause to which it must adhere, and the best art, like the best desk, is the one which most closely imitates, or participates in, its particular form. Aristotle wrote Poetics to describe the various forms of the various arts. We know he wrote so much that would now run to several volumes, but his description of Tragedy is the only in-depth exploration that is extant. Aristotle set a long tradition by applying the techniques of natural science to Art and establishing a taxonomy of artistic forms.
He describes tragedy in terms of its four causes. Its material cause is, in the grossest sense, words and gestures, though these can be broken down into plot, character, thought, diction, spectacle and song (Aristotle explains each of these at length). The formal cause is, naturally, Tragedy, which Aristotle defines as the presentation of action (as opposed to narration of action, whi’ch belongs to both epic and history), in which, the efficient cause is the playwright, and the final cause (this is important) is the evocation of fear and pity for the purposes of purgation.
In other words, Tragedy makes us feel bad; so that we can get those feelings out of our system. When the audience is watching a performance of Oedipus Rex, each member of it feels repelled by the hero’s relationship with his mother, horrified when he blinds himself, pity for his helpless plight. Each of these feelings is an unhealthy part of the viewer’s emotional state. But in undergoing the emotional experience, she gets rid of the unhealthy emotions, however temporarily– thus ensuring and restoring emotional balance and health. The metaphor that Aristotle uses is that of a purgative.
Q7.WHAT IS Acquinas, Longinus and Dante ?
Despite the fact that Boethius’ (c.475-525) disdain for poetry was firmly grounded in medieval theology and philosophy, not all medieval scholars agreed with it. Thomas Aquinas’s (c. 1225-34), for example, was an extremely talented critic, and he turned his interpretive talents to scripture. Dante Alighieri took Aquinas’ ideas and showed how they might be applied to secular texts, such as his own Divine Comedy. Overview of Western Critica Thought Longinus seems to write largely to refute Plato’s disdain of poetry. His work On the Sz~ilblime deals first and foremost with the idea of transcendence. In other words, what makes a work great is that it sort of takes over our heads and makes us see things that are not there. This is the hermeneutic spell that Plato thought was so dangerous.
Longinus attacks this. So, his On the ,St~blime is all about how to maximize transport or elevation since, according to Longinus, that is the one true characteristic of great Art. The first two characteristics of the sublime are, for the most part, innate. These are the ability to think great thoughts and the ability to feel powerfbl emotions. The poet, then, must have both a great mind and a great soul. The rest of the sublime depends on the ability to communicate that greatness. Longinus believes these abilities can be taught. The poet must be properly able to “form figures.” This seems to be more than simple characterization, since he refers to figures of thought and of expression.
The poet must be able to put together characters and phrases. Next on his list is “noble diction,” which includes the proper word choice and use of metaphors. Finally, Longinus calls for “dignified and elevated composition.” The specifics of what Longinus has to say are much less important than the generalities. He was the first to articulate the idea that great art comes from a “great soul.” He believed that a mystical transport action was the ultimate aim of art, and he believed that properly elevated language was the way to achieve that. However, it is important to remember that, although we might disagree with his ideas about elevated language, he allows for that.
“When, therefore, a thing is heard repeatedly by a man of intelligence, who is well-versed in literature, and its effect is not to dispose the soul to highthoughts, and it does not leave in the mind more food for reflection than the words seem to convey, but fills, if examined carefully through and through, into , disesteem, it cannot rank as true sublimity because it does not survive a first hearing.” . Therefore, the reaction of an intelligent and sensitive audience is always the foremost determinant of a work’s worth, rather than the value it has been given by tradition.
Q8.WHAT IS THE ENGLISH TRADITION ?
As is common knowledge, the Renaissance saw the importation of many of the ancient classical texts and, therefore, poetics into England. Plato and Aristotle were particularly appropriated. But not all theory was imported, much was homegrown too. Some Englishmen formulated their own theories. Chaucer (c.1348-1400) was one of them. Of course, he did not write literary criticism and theory separately. But many of the characters in his narrative poems talk “Theory”, such as the Wife of Bath.
My frie~id and colleague, Professor Nalini Jain has shown in an unpublished lecture how Chaucer had anticipated by nearly six centuries some of the theories. Before Chaucer, in a 13″‘ century vernacular poem can be found the earliest literary criticism in English. I refer to the allegorical conJlictus entitled The Owl and the Nightingale, where the case for didactic aims in poetry can be found. Even . Shakespeare, as you know, theorizes about drama, performance, poetry and the poet. Some time in the 15’~ century classical thought got disseminated after the fill of Constantinople.
From now on you can clearly discern the influence of Greek and Roman classical thought in English writing. 2.2.1 Sidney I Sir Philip Sidney (1554-86) was truly the typical Renaissance man, in that he seems to have read and understood just about everything there was to read and understand. In his Apology for Poetry, he draws heavily upon classical authors, including Cicero (106-43BC) and Quintillian (ADC. 35-c. 100) in addition to all the usual ones (Plato, et al.). He applies their criteria to Renaissance art, which is a. little different, since earlier critics had a tendency to neglect their contemporaries in favor of works that had already been established as classics. As you might expect of a fan of Cicero, Sidney writes in the form of the eight-part classical oration.
Just to leave you something to do. I will n.ot map out the whole Apology, but I will give you the names of the parts-(exhordium–the attention getter, narratio–the history of the question, propositio–the answer to the question, partitio– the breakdown of the answer, conjirmation-proves the answer on its own merits, reprehensio or refitatio–refutes counter arguments, digressio–talks about implications and related topics, and peroratio-concludes the argument and stirs the blood). Sidney begins with some general statements about human culture. First of all, all human cultures are a blend of art and utility. Second, poetry is of prime importance in all cultures and in all times. Sidney’s big step comes when he turns classical and medieval attitudes about culture on their head.
He says that Poetry is more important than mere philosophy, as the latter cannot stir men towards virtuous action in the same way as poetry can. He also says that philosophy is so concerned with universals that it is never down to earth. History, on the other hand, must concem itself with the particulars of human existence, which does not help us live our lives. Poetry, blends the universal and the particular along with the capacity to inspire us to noble action, ‘ all of which makes it the most powerful of the arts. In the refirtatio, Sidney deals with all the standard attacks. Poetry cannot be a waste of time if you accept his definition of poetry as that which can inspire us to noble action.
He takes Boccaccio’s (1 3 13-75) stand that art is neither true nor fiilse, hence poetry cannot be a lie, and he further points out that we cannot devalue all poetry just because there has been a lot of bad poetry. This leads him to a convenient misreading of Plato, namely that Plato was himself a poet, and that he was only attacking the misuses of poetry, not poetry itself. Arguably Sidney’s most influential idea appears in the digressio, when he takes the time to point out that English is, in fact, a legitimate language for poetry (as opposed to Latin or Italian)
Q9.WHAT IS RELIGIOUS FOCTNDATIONS ?
Religious and philosophic thought is quite significant as a factor in the social conted bf art m any moment of history. If you list the dominant religions of Oriental antiquity, you will realize how varied the inspiration of these religions were to artists. This is especially the case, you will agree, with the Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic fhiths. All these religion-based cultures were producers of art. The development of the religions was accompanied by a corresponding growth in vivid imagery.
Thus, , much Indian art and criticism had a religious form and content. Thus it is that these aesthetics had a spiritual base or context. This is evident from the link that one can make between the rasa-lila of Krishna and the Gopis and the rasa theory. Also, the altistc, ~.ders, and spectators-audience show a willingness to accept fantastic representatiocs of the supernatural. You might have noticed how emphasis is placed on mystic symbolism in the arts, in dance and theatre in particular.
A more or less theoretical discussion fbllowed, rather than preceded, these performances. You may recall how Aristotle’s Poetics was similarly based on certain epics and tragedies and other art fbrms which had already been performed. Most Indian art can be given a religious interpretation by persons of a strongly theistic inclination. This was not necessarily the intention of the artists or of his first audiences. You can, if you so like, apply religious interpretations to the most humble, utilitarian products as also to the most magnificent structures. Of course, there have been many Indian works and their interpretations which include ideal representations of gods and spirits, which are theistic.
Q10.WHAT IS RESISTANCE TO THEORY ?
In 1982, Steven Knapp and Walter Bern Michael published an essay entitled, “Against Theory” in the Critical Inquiry. Seven responses to that essay as well as a rejoinder from Knapp and Michael appeared in the June 1983 issue of the journal.
These latter, along with two new essays by &chard Rorty (by now a wellknown pragmatist philosopher) and Stanley Fish (you may be hmiliar with his Milton and reader-response criticism), and a final reply fiom the two original authors was published in book form. However, ibr the time being, it is easy to see at some stage at least the falsity of the opposition After all, as per the broad definition given above, and as we have seen in the very first unit, theory has always existed. But because it has done so in the form of unspoken, undefined assumptarn, what now comes to us An Inlrodrrdion in a more programmatic and systematic form appears as theory. In hct, I have used the term theory in the sense of contemporary theory.
Before the invasion of “Theory” of the latter kind what reigned supreme in academic literary criticism were the Scrutiny school of Leavis and ‘The New Criticism”. These two schools influenced most of your teachers and their pedagogic methods. And the schools themselves were influenced by the works of T. S. Eliot. Frank Raymond Leavis was averse to the idea of ‘%theorizing” his critical practice. He did talk about ‘Yhe words on the page” and “close reading” of the texts, and about the predominance of cultural values in specific works which make them belong to “The Great Tradition”.
And thus his brand of literary criticism too had theoretical underpinnings whether or not Leavis admitted to that. Similarly, though the New Critics talked about the autatelic nature of art, and concentrated on the verbal aspects of literary artihcts, which had no teleological status, none of them developed a systematic theory. It was only in the 1960s that historians of literary criticism such as Murray Kreiger saw a common theoretical framework running through the so-called New Critics. Thus there is no point in grumbling about the preponderance of theory now.
The second thing to be noted is that even when these “pre-theory” schools held sway, other forms of criticism were being practiced simultaneously: such as Russian formalism, and psychoanalysis.
Buy IGNOU Solved Guess Paper With Important Questions :-
CONTACT/WHATSAPP – 88822 85078
Follow For Updates: senrigbookhouse
Read Also :