Tradition and Individual Talent T.S.

.Eliot The essay Tradition and Individual Talent is an attack on certain critical views in Romanticism particularly up on the idea that a poem is primarily an expression of the personality of the poet. Eliot argues that a great poem always asserts and that the poet must develop a sense of the pastness of the past. There is great importance of tradition in the present poem. Tradition should not be inherited but should be obtained by great labor. Past should be altered by present as much as the present is directed by past. In fact tradition acquires a wider significance in Eliots writing. It involves a historical sense that is really essential for any work of art. This historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of past but also its presentness. This sense compels a poet to write not only being near to his generation, but to the whole of literary tradition starting from Homer. Thus to write poetry is to write with a consciousness of the timeless and temporal and of the interrelation between the two. In any work the past should be altered by the present just as the preset is directed by the past. In this way, present affects the past as past effects the present because present poet adopts the tradition of past with hard labor. A good writer or poet identifies his position in present with the comparison to past writers. Therefore, the combination of temporal and timeless is, as whole tradition. The meaning of the poem is not possible in isolation. Not poet, no any artist has his complete meaning unless we link him/ her to a chain of all poets. Impotence and value of any poet cant be judged in isolation. So there must be the tradition to compare are with another. To create a good poem, one should surrender the self. This self sacrifice of personality gives birth to a good poem. One should negate his mind. In doing so one loses his individuality and his personality. All the personal emotions, feelings and experience should be sacrificed. There should not be the personal image of poet in his poetry. Poetry should be impersonal. But it does not mean that the poet should not write his personal feelings, but there personal feelings should be converted in to arts feelings. Therefore, we as a critic should not look for personality of poet in his poem because the text is objective. The theory that the poet should surrender his personality is depersonalization. The poets personal feelings and emotions should be depersonalized. He must be an impersonal and objective like a scientist. The progress of the artist is a continual self-sacrifice a continual extinction of personality is the individual talent. To make the concept of depersonalization clear, Eliot brings analogy of creating sulphuroic acid. Sulpher dioxide (Feeling) + oxygen (Emotion) + platinum (Mind of Poet) = Sulphurous Acid (Poem) (No trace of Poets Personality) As the platinum itself remains unaffected, the mind of the poet remains unaffected also. Poet's personality is just an agent or medium to active the relation between emotion and feelings. So, the poet is never a creator, but like catalyst.

Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion but an escape from emotion. Eliot point is more like what Keats uses his term negative capability. Eliot stands against Romantic poets who think that poetry is spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings and personal emotions. Romantic writer says poetry is expression of personality and inspiration. But Eliot says poetry is not so but an escape from personality. Poetry is organization rather than inspiration. So, the critic should be objective while treating the poems. The belief that there is a poet speaking in a poem should be checked. Hamlet and His problem Objective Correlative In the essay Hamlet and his problem" Eliot argues that the play Hamlet and the Character Hamlet both are problematic. He says that Hamlet is an artistic failure, because it has not any objective correlative. Here in this play, Shakespeare could not balance between fact and feelings. External situation is needed to express the feelings of character. But in Hamlet, there is no relation between external situation and the feeling of Hamlet. The madness of Hamlet has not proper relation with his mother's guilt. There are no clear events that are matching with expressed emotion. Matching of events with expressed emotion is what Eliot calls objective correlative. But, in Hamlet, Hamlet goes mad due to his mothers elopement. This elopement is very minor issue to go mad. So here is not objective correlative. Hamlet lacks objective correlative. Objective refers to situation, events, condition and objective correlative means the proper relationship between situation and expression of feelings. Thus Hamlet is an artistic failure.

The Heresy of paraphrase -

Cleanth Brooks

Cleanth Brooks in this essay the Heresy of Paraphrase tries to put forward is that any reductionist attempt to transform poetic meaning to a prose statement such as descriptive or thematic interpretative is to do injustice to a poem. It is one's failure to recognize the poem as a poem. Brooks distinguishes scientific statement from poetic one and claim that the scientific statement cannot be paraphrasable. In a poem, form and content are inseparable, that is why, poem cannot be reduced to a prose. However, Brooks is not completely against the fact that we need some discursive paraphraseable statements to understand in classroom about the meaning or theme of the poem. Brooks thinks that a poem is not a scientific proposition. It is a structure of gesture and attitude, it is wrapped in emotions, and it has its own poetic universe constituting its romantic structure. Therefore, poems meaning is revealed just like dramatic effect, not like logical abstraction. Meaning as dramatic effect is produced by setting its tensions in motion. It is not through logical formula, discourse propositions, and abstraction symbol but through irony, ambiguity and paradox a poem comprises its meaning. Irony is created by the gap between what one says and what he/she intend to say. Brooks says that irony is the chief organizing principle that creates structure of a poem. Context produces ironic effect upon us. Brooks further says, "Even the meaning of any particular item is modified by the context". Brooks classifies two types of irony: verbal and dramatic. Verbal irony appears in words. If we say "your skin is white" for black people it creates verbal irony. Dramatic irony is produced through a person who involves in action but does not know what is going on him but the audiences know. For example, the case of king Oedipus in Sophocles Oedipus Rex.

The Intentional and Affective Fallacy -

Whimsatt and Beardsley

Wimsatt and Breadsley have made best-known accusations of fallacy found in literary criticism based on writers intention and reader's response. International fallacy is a kind of mistake of deriving meaning of the text in terms of authors intention, feeling, emotion, attitude, biography and situation. It is the error of interpreting a literary work by reference to evidence according to the intention of the author. International fallacy means the confusion between the poem and its origin. It is the fallacy because an author is not the part of the text; instead, text is public but not private. If a critic interprets text in terms of authors biography, this interpretation is called subjective interpretation or criticism. But for Wimsatt and Beardsley criticism should be objective and textual, critic should not go beyond the text. Author can't control the text as soon as he writes. It becomes public. The critic should not interpret the allusion in terms of authors intention. They claim that author's intended meaning is irrelevant to the literary critic. The meaning, structure, value of text is inherent with in the work of art itself; it is an object with certain autonomy. Affective fallacy means the confusion between the poem and its result. It is a way of deriving meaning of the text interims of affect of product up on the reader. Affective fallacy is the error of evaluating a text by its effect. As a result of this fallacy, criticism ends in impressionism and relativism and objective criticism becomes almost impossible. Theories of catharsis, therapy, didacticism etc, fall under the affective fallacy because they judge the poem in terms of its effect on the reader. Wimsatt and Breadsley view that text constitutes language. The meaning of test is public, not personal. The effect of the text varies from person to person and from reading to reading. Thus if the critic depends on the meaning produced by a single reader it will be a kind of mistake. As a text is an autonomous entity, the best way of deriving meaning is to analyze linguistics elements such as syntax, semantics etc, since the work of art has its own anthological status, and it should not be judged through the parameter outside the text. Wimsatt and Brendsley criticize the tradition of expressive criticism as intentional fallacy and pragmatic criticism as affective fallacy. They believe that a work of literature or text has ontology of its own. It is not only an autonomous object but also complete in itself. So it has no need to take support of writer's intention and reader's affective response to assert its being. It can have its meaning with in itself, by its own structure. So its own being should be the subject of critical study.

Political Criticism - The Four Kinds of Meaning

I.A. Richards

Richards shows an interest in the effect of poems on the reader. He tends to locate poem in reders response. The being of the poem seems to exist only in the readers. Poetry is a form of words that organizes our attitudes. Poetry is composed of pseudo statements, therefore it is effective. He talks about the close analysis of a text. Like a new critics, he values irony. He praises the irony and says that it is characteristics of poetry of higher order. In The Forth Kinds of Meaning, he talks about functio ns of language. Basically he points out four types of functions or meaning that the language has to perform.

Sense What speaker or author speaks is sense. The thing that the writer literally conveys is sense. Here, the speaker speaks to arouse the readers thought. The language is very straightforward which is descriptive. This language is not poetic. Words are used to direct the hearer's attraction up on some state of affairs or to excite them. Sense is whatness of language use. Feeling Feeling is writers emotional attitude towards the subject. It means writers attachment or detachment to the subject is feeling. It is an expression. The speaker or writer uses language to express his views. This very language is emotive, poetic and literary also. Here only, rhyme and meter cannot make poetry to be a good, emotion is equally important. Especially in lyric poem, emotion plays vital role. Tone Tone refers to attitude of speaker towards his listener. There is a kind of relation between speaker and listener. Since speaker is aware of his relationship with language and with the listener, he changes the level of words as the level of audience changes. It means tone varies from listener to listener. Intention Intention is the purpose of speaker. Speaker has certain aim to speak either it is consciously or unctuously. Listener has to understand the speaker's purpose to understand his meaning. If the audience can't understand his purpose the speaker becomes unsuccessful. The intention of author can be found in dramatic and semidramatic literature. There four types of meaning in totality constitute the total meaning of any text. Therefore all utterances can be looked at from four points of view, revealing four kinds of meaning are not easily separated. But they are in dispensable terms for explaining. Basically, the four meaning are interconnected in poetry. Doctrine in Poetry Here Richarads talks about the proper way of analyzing the text and what critic and reader should be like. He tends to locate the poem in readers response to it. It means readers analyze the text and respond any poetry from similar judgmental aspects. It

shows every reader produces same meaning from same text as the text is organic whole obstacles and barriers the variation of meaning occurs. His ideas are oriented toward distinguishing the belief of readers from that of the poets. If there occurs contradiction between the belief of readers and the belief of poets, the readers do not get sole meaning from the text. Because of readers temperament and personal experience, they don't get same meaning from the text The obstacle that brings variation in meaning is doctrinal belief of readers. Richards finds two kinds of belief and disbelief i) Intellectual belief ii) Emotional belief In an intellectual belief we weigh an idea based on doctrinal preoccupation, where as an emotional belief is related to the state of mind. He thinks that the good kind of being comes from the blending of the both. Until and unless we are free from beliefs and disbeliefs there comes variation in meaning. But to free our mind from all impurities is not possible. Therefore the reader should be sincere to get single meaning escaping from such obstacles. This sincerity is the way to success. The sincere reader has perfect and genuine mind. To be genuine mind, one should be free from impurities. In this sense the reader should be free from obstruction these obstacles is not possible.

Poetry: A note on Ontology -

John Crowe Ransom

Ransom main idea hare in the essay poetry: A Note on Ontology is to assert the ontological status of poetry. Ransom divides poetry in to two broad groups. One groups that talk about things. Another group that talks about idea. And the third group comes out of blending of these two qualities. Physical poetry, Platonic poetry and Metaphysical are the names for these groups respectively. Physical poetry: The physical poetry uses physical things/ objects. The poets are concerned with material and surface appearance but not an idea. It is concrete form of poetry. Language is plain literal and scientific. It is the poetry of things. They present not the ideas but the things. But the things are represented in language. Physical poetry is pure poetry because it has visual context. It is too realistic, and it does not maintain interest. Platonic poetry: Platonic poetry deals with ideas not with objects. So Platonic poetry does not concern with real poetry. Ransom says that the Romantic and Victorian poems are Platonic. Platonic poetry's main aim is to express ideas, Philosophy truth and morality. Ode on a Grecian Urn by Keats is an example of Platonic poetry. It destroys images. So it is abstract. It is too idealistic. But Ransom is against both Platonic and Physical poetry. Out of the blending of these two poetic qualities, the third form of poetry comes, which he calls Metaphysical poetry. Metaphysical Poetry: Ransom favors Metaphysical poetry. In Metaphysical poetry there is fusion of reason and feeling, heats and mind, emotion and intellect. Ransom found the intelligence in using conceits in Metaphysical poetry. Conceit is a type of indirect metaphor which uses far fetched images. In the 17 the century the poets like John Donne and Cowley used conceit to expose both the physical and platonic aspect. Criticism as Pure Speculation Ransom views that criticism is pure speculation or assumption. Firstly he talks about two types of criticism, physiological and moral criticism. Psychological criticism pretends to be scientific but it fails. Moral criticism tends to prescribe rules and ideology. Both of these forms of criticism go beyond the text. They disregard the text as self sufficient and unified whole. Ransom as a new critic denounces biographical, psychological and moral criticism. He says that to make criticism, text is self sufficient. There is no need to point out the historical background and personal impression, since the text is autonomous. For Ransom, ontological criticism is the best kind of criticism, which tells the essence to find the being of the text/ poem. By ontological criticism, we mean criticism based up on the ontology of text. It is believed that text has its own ontology, that is, its own existence. In any poem there is interaction between structure and texture. Therefore, structure and texture are two main elements for critic since structure is a central logic in a text. There is a paraphrasable core in a text that is structure. By paraphrasable core, we

mean the core element of any work of art, which is subject to paraphrase. What remains, when texture of a work of art is deleted is paraphrasable core. Texture is local details, which refers to meter, assonance, rhyme, metaphor and other linguistic devices. Ransoms ontological criticism accepts that a text has its own essence which is sufficient in itself for interpretation. This model of criticism does not allow the critic to go beyond the text. Ransom also talks about two types of discourses, poetic and scientific. Poetic discourse is democratic but not authoritative. Here, authors voice is dominant. Free interpretation is possible in poetic discourse. As a result there is no single meaning. Since there is irony and ambiguities in poetry each reader interprets them differently and multiple meaning come. But, scientific discourse is authoritative, where there is absolute meaning. As a pure new critic he does not believe in single meaning. Ransom disregards the way of critics to criticize the text based on already existing mode. He says if some conventions are repeated, there would be no progress in literature, and so good critic should possess innovation, experiment and new techniques. Summing up Ransom believes that poetry has both texture and paraphrasable core but separation between them is impossible. There should be merge of texture and structure (paraphrasable core) that makes poetry as ontological being.

A Critic's Jobs of Work -

R.P. Blackmur

As a New Critic R.P Blackmur thinks that, a text is autonomous whole. Any attempt to go outside the text to find meaning is what Blackmur denies. He wants to assign, a critics job in this essay on this very ground. He says that a work of art should be judged objectively independent of any attention of author and reader. A true critic objectively judges the text. He explore the internal properties of the text such as image symbol, irony, paradox, ambiguity, structure etc. and finds out the meaning . Blackmur distinguishes amature critic from professional. Amature critics are not expert. They work not for money but for their interest to pass criticism. Such critics are independent of any kind of influence. Contrarily, professional critics are expert they work for certain institutions and are confined by the propagation of their schools of the thought. Such critics attach themselves to the particular doctrine and murder their insight. Blackmur concentrates his ideas on the self consciousness" with which critics examine what they do. Critic's job for Blackmur, is inevitable with development in the analysis of language, psychology and the resurgence of interest in the relation of poem to reader. He considered how to make aesthetic judgment in a work of art as Kant and many other theorists of his time. For them perfect reader is a good critic but for Blackmur literary work is distinct from poet, reader and world. He assumes the work is an object with a degree of autonomy and approach but never violate the thing in itself from its own point of view" Thus for Blackmur, criticism is for the present time only, pragmatic and finally ironic. In all reading there must be the "physical distance" or a distinction between experience of the beautiful and of agreeable. Here, he is very implicit in the most celebrated idea, that text is self- sufficient whole and it doesn't have any relation with the other. Finally it seems essential to assert Blackmur's view on art and criticism in terms of psychic force of critic. According to him, critic must reduce his/ her intense purpose. If critical purpose is narrowed down during the period of criticism, criticism tends to be amateurish. To reduce teleological purpose of criticism, critic should be intuitive. If critic walks on the path of intuition he/ she adventurously travels in the realm of preconscious. Once criticism starts from the realm of preconscious that mode of criticism becomes apt and appropriate because art is a looking glass of preconscious. Blackmur recognizes that there are limits to what the critic can accomplish in analysis: After all, it is only the fact about a poem, a play, and a novel that can be reduced to tractable form, talked about, and examined. However, the limits on the rest can only be known but not talked about. He favors Brooks' attack on the "Heresy of Paraphrase".