Chicago school (literary criticism)
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 08:58, 29 May 2014 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | '''Wayne Clayson Booth''' ([[February 22]], [[1921]] – [[October 10]], [[2005]]) was an [[USA|American]] [[literary critic]]. His work followed largely from the [[Chicago school (literary criticism)|Chicago school]] of literary criticism. His best known work is ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]''. | + | The '''Chicago School''' of [[literary criticism]] was a form of criticism of English literature begun at the [[University of Chicago]] in the 1930s, which lasted until the 1950s. It was also called [[Neo-Aristotelianism]], due to its strong emphasis on [[Aristotle]]’s concepts of plot, character and genre. It was partly a reaction to [[New Criticism]], a then highly popular form of literary criticism, which the Chicago critics accused of being too subjective and placing too much importance on irony and figurative language. They aimed instead for total objectivity, and a strong classical basis of evidence for criticism. The New Critics regarded the language and poetic diction as most important, but the Chicago School considered such things merely the building material of poetry. Like [[Aristotle]], they valued the structure or form of a literary work as a whole, rather than the complexities of the language. Despite this, the Chicago school is considered by some to be a part of the New Criticism movement. |
| - | == Biography == | + | [[Ronald Salmon Crane]] (1886-1967) is considered the founder of the Chicago Aristotelians. He began teaching at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1924, was made a professor in 1925, and chaired the English department there from 1935-1947. In 1935, he wrote “History versus Criticism in the Study of Literature” (published in ''English Journal'' 24 [1935]:645-67), in which he defined literary criticism as “simply the disciplined consideration, at once analytical and evaluative, of literary works as works of art.” Crane was greatly influenced by [[Richard McKeon]], a professor of philosophy at the University, who stressed [[Aristotle]]’s idea of ‘pluralism,’ which says that many systems of criticism are necessary to completely understand literature, specifically poetry, or in the case of philosophy, the world. Crane said that “the only rational ground for adhering to one [form of criticism] rather than to any of the others is its superior capacity to give us the special kind of understanding and evaluation of literature we want to get, at least for the time being.” |
| - | He was born in American Fork, [[Utah]] and educated at [[Brigham Young University]] and the University of Chicago. He taught English at [[Haverford College]] and [[Earlham College]] before moving back to the [[University of Chicago]]. | + | The question for the Chicago School (as it was for Aristotle) was always what the purpose of the theory of criticism was, what hypotheses were brought to bear by the theory about the nature of literature (for instance, whether it consisted of the words alone, or whether it was to be thought of as part of a larger context such as an era or an artist's life), and the definitions of words (such as the definition of tragedy or comedy). |
| - | == Works == | + | The Chicago School claimed not to preclude other theories of criticism, but did criticize some of those theories because those using those theories were not clear or consistent about the initial hypotheses and definitions behind their theories. It thus appeared to many of the proponents of those theories that the Chicago School was claiming that theirs was the only good and effective approach to literature. For this reason, they were considered by some to be hypocritical, although they would vehemently deny this. |
| - | His best known work is ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]''. | + | Many of the ideas of the Chicago School are thought to have come out of the reorganization of undergraduate education at the [[University of Chicago]] by [[Robert Maynard Hutchins]], then President there. He placed great importance on primary sources and interdisciplinary studies for all students. Crane and his colleagues were forced to defend English as a valid topic of study, and the Chicago School might have developed partly from this pressure to put the study of English on a sound classical basis. |
| - | A later work is ''[[Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent]]'', in which he addresses the question of what circumstances should cause one to change one's mind, discussing what happens in situations where two diametrically opposed systems of belief are in argument. His central example is an incident at the University of Chicago. In it, students and administration were engaged in fierce debate that eventually degenerated into each side simply reprinting the other side's arguments without comment, believing that the opposing side was so self-evidently absurd that to state its propositions was to refute them. | + | Other key figures in the Chicago School were W.R. Keast, [[Norman Maclean]], [[Elder Olson]], and Bernard Weinberg. After this first generation, the most important critics to carry on the theory were [[Wayne C. Booth]] (who taught at the University of Chicago from 1947-1950 and again from 1962 until his death in 2005), and his contemporaries, Richard L. Levin, Sheldon Sacks, Robert Marsh, Arthur Heiserman, and Ralph W. Rader. Booth loosened the rigid categories of genre originally set forth by the Chicago School, and moved the concentration away from poetry towards rhetoric. The Chicago School has demonstrated continuing importance, and continuing flexibility, in the work of the third-generation Chicago critics, including Michael Boardman, Barbara Foley, [[Walter A. Davis]], Dorothy Hale, Elizabeth Langland, [[James Phelan (literary scholar)|James Phelan]], [[Peter J. Rabinowitz]], David H. Richter, and Harry Shaw, among others. |
| - | Another book of note is 1974's ''[[The Rhetoric of Irony]]'', in which Booth examines the long tradition of irony and its use in literature. It is probably his second most popular work after ''[[The Rhetoric of Fiction]]''. A later work is ''The Company we Keep: An Ethics of Fiction,'' in which he returns to the topic of rhetorical effects in fiction, and "argues for the relocation of ethics to the center of our engagement with literature" (cover note, ''The Company we Keep''). | + | Great works in the Chicago School include ''Critics and Criticism'' (Crane, ed. Chicago, 1952), ''The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry'' (Crane, Toronto, 1953), and ''The Rhetoric of Fiction'' (Booth. Chicago, 1983).<br /> |
| - | In common with most [[Chicago school (literary criticism)|Chicago school]] critics, Booth has been attacked for making overly broad claims about the nature of [[human race|humanity]] and for marginalizing cultures in the process.<sup>[''citation needed'']</sup> | ||
| - | |||
| - | The University of Chicago Wayne C. Booth Graduate Student Prize for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching was established in 1991 in honor of Booth. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==Sources Cited== | ||
| - | |||
| - | ''The Rhetoric of Fiction.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ''The Company we Keep: An Ethics of Fiction.'' Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1988. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==Works== | ||
| - | |||
| - | *Rhetoric of Fiction (1961) | ||
| - | *Boring from Within: The Art of the Freshman Essay (c. 1963) pamphlet | ||
| - | *Now Don't Try to Reason with Me : Essays and Ironies for a Credulous Age (1970) | ||
| - | *Autobiography of Relva Booth Ross (1971) | ||
| - | *Booth Family History (1971) | ||
| - | *A Rhetoric of Irony (1974) | ||
| - | *Knowledge Most Worth Having (1974) editor | ||
| - | *Modern Dogma & the Rhetoric of Assent (1974) Ward-Phillips Lectures in English Language and Literature | ||
| - | *Critical Understanding : The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (1979) | ||
| - | *The Harper and Row Rhetoric: Writing As Thinking, Thinking As Writing (1987) with [[Marshall W. Gregory]] | ||
| - | *The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (1988) | ||
| - | *The Harper & Row Reader : Liberal Education Through Reading & Writing (1988) with Marshall W.Gregory | ||
| - | *The Vocation of a Teacher : Rhetorical Occasions, 1967-1988 (1988) | ||
| - | *The Art of Deliberalizing: A Handbook for True Professionals (1990) | ||
| - | *The Art of Growing Older: Writers on Living and Aging (1992) editor | ||
| - | *[[The Craft of Research]] (1995, 2003) with [[Gregory G. Colomb]] and [[Joseph M. Williams]] | ||
| - | *Literature as Exploration (1996) with [[Louise M. Rosenblatt]] | ||
| - | *For the Love of It : Amateuring & Its Rivals (1999) | ||
| - | *Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication (2004) Blackwell Manifesto | ||
| - | *My Many Selves: The Quest for a Plausible Harmony (2006) | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The Chicago School of literary criticism was a form of criticism of English literature begun at the University of Chicago in the 1930s, which lasted until the 1950s. It was also called Neo-Aristotelianism, due to its strong emphasis on Aristotle’s concepts of plot, character and genre. It was partly a reaction to New Criticism, a then highly popular form of literary criticism, which the Chicago critics accused of being too subjective and placing too much importance on irony and figurative language. They aimed instead for total objectivity, and a strong classical basis of evidence for criticism. The New Critics regarded the language and poetic diction as most important, but the Chicago School considered such things merely the building material of poetry. Like Aristotle, they valued the structure or form of a literary work as a whole, rather than the complexities of the language. Despite this, the Chicago school is considered by some to be a part of the New Criticism movement.
Ronald Salmon Crane (1886-1967) is considered the founder of the Chicago Aristotelians. He began teaching at the University of Chicago in 1924, was made a professor in 1925, and chaired the English department there from 1935-1947. In 1935, he wrote “History versus Criticism in the Study of Literature” (published in English Journal 24 [1935]:645-67), in which he defined literary criticism as “simply the disciplined consideration, at once analytical and evaluative, of literary works as works of art.” Crane was greatly influenced by Richard McKeon, a professor of philosophy at the University, who stressed Aristotle’s idea of ‘pluralism,’ which says that many systems of criticism are necessary to completely understand literature, specifically poetry, or in the case of philosophy, the world. Crane said that “the only rational ground for adhering to one [form of criticism] rather than to any of the others is its superior capacity to give us the special kind of understanding and evaluation of literature we want to get, at least for the time being.”
The question for the Chicago School (as it was for Aristotle) was always what the purpose of the theory of criticism was, what hypotheses were brought to bear by the theory about the nature of literature (for instance, whether it consisted of the words alone, or whether it was to be thought of as part of a larger context such as an era or an artist's life), and the definitions of words (such as the definition of tragedy or comedy).
The Chicago School claimed not to preclude other theories of criticism, but did criticize some of those theories because those using those theories were not clear or consistent about the initial hypotheses and definitions behind their theories. It thus appeared to many of the proponents of those theories that the Chicago School was claiming that theirs was the only good and effective approach to literature. For this reason, they were considered by some to be hypocritical, although they would vehemently deny this.
Many of the ideas of the Chicago School are thought to have come out of the reorganization of undergraduate education at the University of Chicago by Robert Maynard Hutchins, then President there. He placed great importance on primary sources and interdisciplinary studies for all students. Crane and his colleagues were forced to defend English as a valid topic of study, and the Chicago School might have developed partly from this pressure to put the study of English on a sound classical basis.
Other key figures in the Chicago School were W.R. Keast, Norman Maclean, Elder Olson, and Bernard Weinberg. After this first generation, the most important critics to carry on the theory were Wayne C. Booth (who taught at the University of Chicago from 1947-1950 and again from 1962 until his death in 2005), and his contemporaries, Richard L. Levin, Sheldon Sacks, Robert Marsh, Arthur Heiserman, and Ralph W. Rader. Booth loosened the rigid categories of genre originally set forth by the Chicago School, and moved the concentration away from poetry towards rhetoric. The Chicago School has demonstrated continuing importance, and continuing flexibility, in the work of the third-generation Chicago critics, including Michael Boardman, Barbara Foley, Walter A. Davis, Dorothy Hale, Elizabeth Langland, James Phelan, Peter J. Rabinowitz, David H. Richter, and Harry Shaw, among others.
Great works in the Chicago School include Critics and Criticism (Crane, ed. Chicago, 1952), The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry (Crane, Toronto, 1953), and The Rhetoric of Fiction (Booth. Chicago, 1983).
