To evaluate my assignment please click Here
Name: Kailash
P. Baraiya
Study: M.A, Sem:- 02 Roll No: 10
Batch:-2016-2018
Paper No: 07
Enrolment No: 2069108420170001
Subject:-Literary Theory and Criticism
Topic: I.A. Richards’s Views on the Language of Poetry
Submitted To: Pro. Dr.
Dilip Barad, Department Of
English, M.K. Bhavnagar University
Introduction
of I.A. Richards:
I.A. Richards, born in 1893, is one
of the great critics of the modern age, and has influenced a number of critics
on both sides of the Atlantic, He and T.S. Eliot, are pioneers in the field of
new criticism, though they differ from each other in certain important
respects. He is the first- rate critic, since Coleridge, who has formulated a
systematic and complete theory of poetry, and his views are highly original and
illumination. In his “principles of literary criticism” chapter 34, he
discusses the most neglacted subject, i.e.
thetheory of language and the two uses of language. To understand much
the theory of poetry and what is said about poetry, a clear comprehension of
the differences between the uses of language is indispensable. David Daiches
says, “Richards conducts this investigation in order to come to some clear
conclusions about what imaginative literature is, how it employs language, how its
use of language and what is its special function and value”.
Richards’s reputation as the
forerunner of new criticism derives from two of his earliest books. Principles
of literary criticism, published in 1924, was his atttempt to establish a criticism based upon
scientific method, of particular interest to Richards was the relatively new
discipline of psychology, which be hoped would eventually justify his theory of
value that the best art satisfies the greatest number of ,appetencies'. In
practical criticism, published in 1929,
Richards applied his theories to the study of literature. The method he
introduced, asking student to comment on poems without benefit of background
information, was for a time a widely accepted exercise in evaluating
literature. Richards was especially concerned with the reader’s reaction to the
poem, he believed that only close analysis would reveal the complexity of great
art and he warned against sentimentity and stock responses.
According to I.A. Richards,
language can be used in two ways, I.e. the scientific use in the emotive one.
It’s only in recent years that serious attention is given to the language as a
science. In the scientific use of language, we are usually matters of fact. All
the activities covered by this use require undistorted references and absence
of fiction. I.A. Richards was an orthodox advocate of a close textual and
verbal study and analysis of a work of art, according to Richards there are
three objectives to writ 'The Practical criticism'.
We may use a statement, true
or false, in a scientific use of language, but it may also be used to create
emotions and attitudes. This is the emotive use of language. We use words
scientifically or for emotion attitudes when words are used to evoke attitudes
without recourse to references like musical phrases. References are conditions
for developing attitudes and hence the attitudes are more important, without
carrying for the true or false references. Their sole purpose is to support the
attitudes Aristotle wisely said, 'better a plausible impossibility than an
improbable possibility'.
In the scientific use of the
language, the difference in reference is fatal but in the emotive language it
is not so. In the scientific use of language, the references should be correct
and the relation of references should be logical. In the emotive use of
language, any truth or logical arrengement is not necessary –it may work as an obstacle. The
attitudes due to references should have their emotional interconnection and
this has often no connection with logical relations of the facts refereed to.
Richards goes on to examine
deferent uses of the word 'truth'. in the scientific use, the the references
are true and logical there is very little involvement of arts. Richards says
that the term ‘true' should be reserved for this type of uses- the scientific
use. But the emotive power of the word is far too great for this. The
temptation are there for a speaker who wants to evoke certain attitudes. So,
Richards goes on to consider the
connotation of the word 'truth' in criticism. In literary criticism, the common
use is 'acceptability' or 'probability'.
Importance of
Rhythm and Meter:
Rhythm and meter and integral
and important parts of any poem because they determine the meaning of the words
used by the poets. Rhythm, Meter and meaning can cot be separated, they form
together a single system.
Richards finds two kinds of be life
and disbelief;
Ø Intellectual belief
Ø Emotional belief
The nature of
poetic truth:
Poetic truth is different from
scientific truth. It is a matter of emotional belief rather than intellectual
belief. It is not a matter of verification, but of attitude and emotional
reaction. In the principles of literary criticism he writes, “it is evident
that the bulk of poetry consists of statements which only can the very to
verify. They are not the kind of things which can be verified. if we recall
what was said earlier as to the natural generality of vagueness of reference,
we shall see another see another reason why references as they occur in poetry
are rarely susceptible to scientific truth or falsity only reference which are
brought in to correspond to the ways in which things actually hang together,
can he wither true or false, and most references in poetry are not knit
together in this way. But even when they are on, on examination, frankly false,
this is no defect. unless forces the obviousness of falsity forces the reader
to reactions which are incongruent or disturbing the poetic truth and equally a
point more often misunderstood, their truth, when they are true, is no merit.
The enthusiasm for science is an
apartment in principles of literary is never carried out in a rigorous
programmer of research. In 1992, practical criticism followed: arguably a kind
of reality statement after the illusions of principles. Practical criticism was
no doubt a pedagogic necessity, the consequence of Richards’s work as a lecture
in English literature. With the influx of student just back from the war,
Richards had to direct his lectures to an audience with quite different
expectations from those of pre- war student. The legacy of this pedagogical
practice is the central and persistent place in angle American criticism which
is accorded to interpretation and to close reading, Whether the objects are
poems, Hollywood films, or historical documents, this is despite the fact that
Richards himself practiced little contended close reading. Significantly, when
Basil Wiley credits Richards with founding the modern school of new –criticism,
‘analysis’ begins with chapter ‘The four kinds of meaning', which pronounces
that: the original difficulty of all reading, the problem of making out the
meaning, is our obvious starting-point the answers to those apparently simple
questions: what is a meaning, ‘what are we doing when we endeavor to make it
out? What is it we are making out? Are the master- keys to all the problems of
criticism? If we can make use of then the locked chambers and corridors of the
theory of poetry open to us, and new and impressive order is discovered even in
the most erratic discovered even in the most erratic twists of the most erratic
twists of the protocols.
Is it the return of the
repressed in the form of Moore’s what do you mean by that? Is this behind
Richard’s which to eliminate or bed poetry? And to invite answers only to the
question, what does it mean? At the outset of practical criticism? Commentators
have pointed to the underplaying of meaning
in the divisions between symbolic and evocative language for scientific
and poetic use respectively.
Source of
Misunderstanding in Poetry:
According to I.A. Richards there are
four sources of misunderstanding of poetry. It is difficult to diagnose with
accuracy and definiteness, the source of some particular mistake or
misunderstanding of the sense of poetry. It arise from inattention, or poetry,
or sheer carelessness. I.A. Richards warns readers- in most poetry the sense is
as important as anything else; it is quite as a subtle and as dependents on the
syntax as in prose. It is the post’s chief instrument to other aims when it is
not itself his aim. His control of thoughts is ordinarily his chief means to
the control of our feeling and in the immense majority of instances we miss
nearly everything of value if we misdeal his sense.
An over literal- reading is as
great a source of misunderstanding in poetry as careless, ‘ intuitive' reading
and prosaic “over-literal” reading are the simple- grades, the justing rocks.
Defective scholarship is a third source of misunderstanding in poetry. The
reader may fail to understand the sense of the poet, because he is ignorant of
poet’s sense. A far more serious cause of misunderstanding is the failure to
realize that the poetic use of words is defferent from their use in prose.
Complaints may rest upon an assumption about language that can be fatal to
poetry. Literary is one serious obstacle in the way of a right understanding of
the poetic words. According to Richards poetry is different attitude from proud
needs a different attitude for right understanding.
Comparative
Criticism:
Richards warns his readers
against the dangers of over simple from of comparative criticism. The third
comment quoted above, the critic has compared the present poet with Shelly in
the Ode to West Wind,and has pointed out that the present poet has not has not
succeeded in doing what Shelley has done, and that Shelley is much more clear in his conceptions. But
before making such comparisons, we. should try to determine the ends also bound
to differst heir means are also bound to differs. As two readers are already
parallel in their intents, divergence in their methods does not prove one poem
better than the other. Such over- simple comparisons are fallacious and
misleading. Comparative criticism has its value, but we must know what it is we
are comparing and under what conditions and circumstances.A close consideration
of the poem brings out that the poet was right in giving to his cloud a vague
and shifting personality, and a ‘ clear conception ‘ of its personality would
have been out of place and inappropriate. It would have over- burdened the
poem. the has clearly avoided this danger ‘ when after five verses of 'antics'
chiefly concerned with the cloud-shadow , he turns to the cloud itself in its
afternoon dissolution he cuts the personification down, mixing his metaphors to
reflect its incoherence, and finally, 'O frail steel issue of the sun',
Depersonifying it altogether in mockery of its total loss of character. This
recognition that the personification was originally an extravagance makes the
poem definitely one of fancy rather than imagination –to use the Wordsworth in
division – but it rather increases than diminishes the descriptive effect
gained by the device. And its peculiar felicity in exactly expression a certain
shade of feeling towards the cloud deserves to be remarked.
Conclusion:
Briefly, a proper understanding
of figurative language needs closer study. Its literal meaning must be traced.
Its literal meaning cannot be found in any imaginative appreciation of it.
There should be a judicious balance between literalism and imaginative freedom.
One should comprehend the meaning of poetry properly and then come to the
judgment whether it has any fault or not.
Source: Net and Text
No comments:
Post a Comment