Critical Essays

More
Cleanth Brooks Essay - Critical Essays
Brooks, Cleanth (Vol. 110)
Introduction
print Print
document PDF
list Cite
link Link
Cleanth Brooks 1906199
American critic and nonfiction writer.
The following entry presents an oeriew of !rooks"s career. For further information
on his life and works# see CLC# $olumes %& and '(.
Considered one of the most influential critics of the twentieth century# !rooks# along
with )ohn Crowe *ansom# Allen Tate# and *o+ert Penn ,arren# was a principal
proponent of the -.ew Criticism#- a critical method that stressed analysis of a work
+ased solely on the work itself# without consideration of the author"s circumstances or
preious writings. The su+/ect of a +ook +y *ansom 0The New Criticism# 12&13# this
method was a radical departure from contemporary schools of criticism# which held
that a work could only +e properly interpreted in the conte4t of the writer"s life and
times.
Bio!ra"hical In#or$ation
!rooks was +orn 5cto+er 1(# 126(# in Murray# 7entucky. The son of a Methodist
minister# he attended McTyeire 8chool# a small Methodist preparatory school in
Mc7en9ie# Tennessee. !rooks continued his education at $ander+ilt :niersity and
Tulane :niersity# and attended 54ford :niersity as a *hodes 8cholar. ;n 12<&# he
married Edith Amy !lanchard. !rooks +egan his career as an educator in 12<% at
Louisiana 8tate :niersity= he moed to >ale :niersity in 12&?# from which he
retired in 12?@. ,hile at Louisiana 8tate# !rooks edited the Louisiana Review with
,arren from 12<@ to 12&1. From 12(& to 12((# !rooks sered as the cultural attachA
at the :nited 8tates Em+assy in London. Be was also a )efferson Lecturer at the
Li+rary of Congress and a mem+er of the Li+rary"s council of scholars. !rooks also
taught at the :niersity of Te4as# the :niersity of Michigan# and the :niersity of
California at Los Angeles 0:CLA3. !rooks was widowed in 12'( and died on May
16# 122(# at his home in .ew Baen# Connecticut.
%a&or 'orks
Many of !rooks"s writings were e4tensions of the critical philosophy he presented to
his students. Bis first +ook of criticism# a college te4t coCedited with ,arren and titled
Understanding Poetry 012<'3# is considered part of the foundation of the .ew
Criticism. Bis ne4t +ook# Modern Poetry and the Tradition 012<23# e4plained his
philosophy of ealuating poetry in the conte4t of its place in the larger literary
tradition. Be e4panded on the idea in The Well Wrought Urn 012&?3 and A haping
!oy 012?13# e4plaining and demonstrating a poem"s -internal unity-Dhow well it
succeeds in a unification of its forms and content as well as how it fits into the larger
literary tradition. A controersial aspect of !rooks"s critical theory# e4pounded in The
Bidden Eod 012(<3# was the idea that the critic also had the responsi+ility of
ealuating the moral aspect of a poem# taking a stand on the spiritual alidity of a
writer"s work. Although !rooks deeloped his theory of criticism to further the
understanding of poetry# he was also a+le to apply it to prose# principally in the study
of ,illiam Faulkner. !rooks"s William "aulkner# The $oknapatawpha Country
012(<3# William "aulkner# Toward $oknapatawpha and %eyond 012?'3# William
"aulkner# "irst &ncounters 012'<3# and 'n the Pre(udices) Predilections) and "irm
%elie*s o* William "aulkner 012'?3 are listed among the most thorough and insightful
critiFues of Faulkner"s work. !ecause !rooks stressed that a close reading and
e4amination of the internal structure of a poem was the +est eidence of the author"s
intent# and that criticism did not reFuire an inestigation of the poet"s life# he was
freFuently accused of +eing o+liious to the historical significance of eents which
affected the poet. Partly in reply to this charge# !rooks wrote +istorical &vidence and
the Reading o* eventeenth,Century Poetry 012213. ;n this work# !rooks shows how
the historical conte4t of a poem can +e used to uncoer meanings which might +e
hidden +y changes in the usage of words oer time.
Critical (ece"tion
The critical theory identified as the -.ew Criticism- was not initially wellCreceied +y
the academic world. The indiiduals most closely associated with the -moement-D
!rooks# *ansom# Tate# and ,arren# did not see themseles as sharing a common
theory of criticism. ,hat they did share# according to *oger 7im+all# -was a concern
with the integrity of the literary o+/ect as such.- The .ew Critics# as Allen Tate put it#
were against -using social theories to proe something a+out poetry G trying to make
an art respecta+le +y showing that after all it is something else. )ust this won them the
undying hostility of the academic esta+lishment.- 7im+all added# -,hat unites them
is an insistence on the irreduci+ility of the aesthetic o+/ectH an insistence that
literature# for e4ample# is literature# not a coert species of politics.- 5ther critics#
howeer# saw the e4clusion of the analysis of historical and social aspects of the
writer"s life as reactionary. They argued that keeping the focus within the poem itself#
and ignoring the writer e4ternal to the work was a su+tle means of preenting the
e4amination of the effects of race# class# and gender on the arts. They also suggested
that !rooks"s focus on how a poem fits into the traditionDinto the larger historical
+ody of literatureDemphasi9es white male Europeans to the e4clusion of newer# more
dierse oices. Critics such as )ohn .. Duall said that !rooks"s e4amination of the
-inclusieness- of a poem# the degree to which it participates in the literary and
spiritual tradition# is in fact e4clusie. -;n his effort to discoer the hidden unity of
works and the tradition# !rooks"s literary history omitted te4ts that were tainted with
the seculari9ation of politics. Thus )oyce and Faulkner are pri9ed +ut not Dos PassosH
Eliot and >eats# +ut not Iukofsky 0to say nothing of the proletarian poets from the
12<6s3. .ew Criticism was too ready to e4cuse the e4cesses either in a te4t"s rhetoric
or in the social system that a te4t represented# if one could read that te4t in a way that
discoered unity or that cele+rated community.- 5ther critics acknowledged the
spiritual component of !rooks"s criticism# +ut did not see it as constraining. ,illiam
!edford Clark# comparing !rooks and Eliot# wrote# -Like Eliot# !rooks knows that
literature ineita+ly reflects the alues and +eliefs# howeer implicit# of the author.
>et# once again in full accord with Eliot# !rooks would not make the reader"s
adherence to the author"s alues and +eliefs a +asis for e4periencing or ealuating the
work itself.- ;n one area +oth champions and detractors of the .ew Criticism
concurredH ;t is considered a foundation for all current forms of criticism. Anthony
Tassin wrote# -Although a ariety of new philosophies of literary criticism hae come
forward since the midCcentury# the .ew Criticism is alie and well. For all purposes it
has +ecome a standard approach to teaching literature and is currently accepted +y
professors and students alike. ,hen they speak of criticism# it is su+stantially the
.ew Criticism to which they refer.-