Well, the short version of the rant goes like this. Matthew Arnold started the notion of elitism in literature with "the best that's been thought and said" notion of literature--which meant only dead white guys for him. And also he started the notion of high and low art--that only philistines enjoyed the popular crap and it took taste and discernment that few have to be able to truly understand and appreciate real art.
He's the first father of New Criticism (aka formalism).
Then here comes T.S. Eliot. And he said that art should be difficult, complicated and that it must be understood based only on the words on the page (no going to look up stuff or thinking about authors or what have you). True art stands the test of time because it is deeply complex and yet everything is there to understand, but only if you have the skills to read it.
He created the notion that ordinary people couldn't understand or appreciate art without the mediation of oh, let's just call them 'priests' of literature, shall we? Only people credentialed through a process (like academia) were authorized to be critics or understand art. Which of course means that it wasn't for ordinary people. And hell, ordinary people don't like it because it was purposely complicated and difficult and often baroque and boring.
Anyhow, all of this led to New Criticism, which is was formed the basis for most teachers of literature for a long long time and stil does. So when teachers ask students what they think something means, and the student answers, the teacher disagrees and says no. Because according to Eliot, there's only one right meaning to a work and only priests are able to find it. Students/ordinary people aren't qualified.
That method, to my mind, teaches students not to engage in the literature cause their WRONG. And if they enjoy it, it can't be good because good literature is the stuff they don't understand and that they are WRONG about. And it's boring because they don't understand it and they can't formulate thoughts about it because those thoughts are WRONG.
It's funny. I was teaching a lit theory class a few years back and we'd just finished going over New Criticism and reading a lot of Arnold and Eliot and my students came in, many from this early brit lit class. They were complaining aobut the prof, about how he would ask questions and when they didn't give him the answer he wanted, he'd tell them they were wrong and keep asking the question, but they all shut up because they didn't want to risk being wrong. They kept going on and on and I just was grinning at them. Finally I asked them if they recognized anything in that teaching style. and then Bingo! A light! They realized he was totally a new critic and once they got that, the class was better for them because they realized it was a theoretical approach.
Anyhow, not exactly a coherent rant because I'm proofing a manuscript I have to send in, but there you go.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yati
no subject
Date: 2009-02-06 06:00 pm (UTC)He's the first father of New Criticism (aka formalism).
Then here comes T.S. Eliot. And he said that art should be difficult, complicated and that it must be understood based only on the words on the page (no going to look up stuff or thinking about authors or what have you). True art stands the test of time because it is deeply complex and yet everything is there to understand, but only if you have the skills to read it.
He created the notion that ordinary people couldn't understand or appreciate art without the mediation of oh, let's just call them 'priests' of literature, shall we? Only people credentialed through a process (like academia) were authorized to be critics or understand art. Which of course means that it wasn't for ordinary people. And hell, ordinary people don't like it because it was purposely complicated and difficult and often baroque and boring.
Anyhow, all of this led to New Criticism, which is was formed the basis for most teachers of literature for a long long time and stil does. So when teachers ask students what they think something means, and the student answers, the teacher disagrees and says no. Because according to Eliot, there's only one right meaning to a work and only priests are able to find it. Students/ordinary people aren't qualified.
That method, to my mind, teaches students not to engage in the literature cause their WRONG. And if they enjoy it, it can't be good because good literature is the stuff they don't understand and that they are WRONG about. And it's boring because they don't understand it and they can't formulate thoughts about it because those thoughts are WRONG.
It's funny. I was teaching a lit theory class a few years back and we'd just finished going over New Criticism and reading a lot of Arnold and Eliot and my students came in, many from this early brit lit class. They were complaining aobut the prof, about how he would ask questions and when they didn't give him the answer he wanted, he'd tell them they were wrong and keep asking the question, but they all shut up because they didn't want to risk being wrong. They kept going on and on and I just was grinning at them. Finally I asked them if they recognized anything in that teaching style. and then Bingo! A light! They realized he was totally a new critic and once they got that, the class was better for them because they realized it was a theoretical approach.
Anyhow, not exactly a coherent rant because I'm proofing a manuscript I have to send in, but there you go.