Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:10:54 -0500
From: Jill Erin Boyers
micro-essay #2


Since the beginning of this class, we have explored different definitions and theories about what literature is and should be. The New Criticism theory best fits my belief in literature. My problem with New Criticism is that it states that everyone who is human should like the same works. This defies both the Structuralistic theory, which I tend to also put a lot of value on, and Descartes statement "I think therefore I am."

The idea that we are all paper cut out dolls when it comes to life experience and taste is insulting. If New Criticism was applied to how we choose mates, then the same few men and women would have value as mates, and we would all have to fight over them. This thinking can be taken to another level by saying that if one person doesn't like Mexican food, then they are not human. If we apply this aspect of New Criticism to other areas of our lives like this, my point becomes evident. Personal preference plays a large role in what we say, do, and appreciate.

The New Critics has many good points about reading literature scientifically and considering it's aesthetic value, but missed the boat with the belief that everyone must enjoy a work in order for it to be literature. Possibly, if we could take the bits and pieces of each of the theories that we agree with, we will come up with the guidelines for our theory.