378:” in philosophical studies; 21). Wimsatt and Beardsley consider this strategy a fallacy partly because it is impossible to determine the intention of the author — indeed, authors themselves are often unable to determine the “intention” of a poem — and partly because a poem, as an act that takes place between a poet and an audience, has an existence outside of both and thus its meaning can not be evaluated simply based on the intentions of or the effect on either the writer or the audience (see the section of this article entitled “The Affective Fallacy" for a discussion of the latter; 5). For Wimsatt and Beardsley, intentional criticism becomes subjective criticism, and so ceases to be criticism at all. For them, critical inquiries are resolved through evidence in and of the text — not “by consulting the oracle” (18).
323:
Indeed, Wimsatt is concerned with ensuring a level of legitimacy in
English studies and he sets about doing so by favouring a scientific approach to criticism—even, for example, decrying affective theory as “less a scientific view of literature than a prerogative -- that of the soul adventuring among
560:
is intended as “a history of ideas about verbal art and about its elucidation and criticism” (Wimsatt and Brooks ix). The authors attempt to contribute to the “intelligibility in the history of literary argument” as well as “contributes to a distinct point of view,” which, they argue, is a necessary
537:
in 1965 as a way to “distinguish what consider an inevitable and proper literary interest in the contraries” (Hateful
Contraries xviii). Through studies of works by T. S. Eliot as well as discussions of topics such as “The Augustan Mode in English Poetry” and “The Criticism of Comedy” (xi), Wimsatt
436:
different from other forms of communication, concluding that “what distinguishes poetry from scientific or logical discourse is a degree of concreteness which does not contribute anything to the argument but is somehow enjoyable or valuable for its own sake.” For
Wimsatt, poetry is “the vehicle of a
411:
argue that the effect of poetic language alone is an unreliable way to analyze poetry because, they contend, words have no effect in and of themselves, independent of their meaning. It is impossible, then, for a poem to be “pure emotion” (38), which means that a poem’s meaning is not “equivalent to
468:
Verbal expression, however, does not function this way — as
Wimsatt points out, there is no such thing as a “beautiful” or “ugly” word (or, at least, there is no general consensus as to how to apply such concepts in such a context; 228). There is no correlation between words and their subject, at
290:
Wimsatt does allow for a certain degree of variation in the analysis of poetry and does not necessarily contend that there is only one possible reading for any given poem. He allows, for example, for what he calls the “literary sense” of meaning, saying that “no two different words or different
427:
In “The
Concrete Universal,” Wimsatt attempts to determine how specific or general (i.e., concrete or universal) a verbal representation must be in order to achieve a particular effect. What is the difference, for example, between referring to a “purple cow” and a “tan cow with a broken horn”
316:. “The only reservation the theorist need have about such critical impressionism or expressionism,” says Wimsatt, “is that, after all, it does not carry on very far in our cogitation about the nature and value of literature…it is not a very mature form of cognitive discourse” (
465:. For one, visual modes such as sculpture or painting are undertaken using materials that directly correlate with the object they represent — at least in terms of their “beauty.” A beautiful painting of an apple, for example, is done with beautiful paint.
267:, and myself, called 'The Intentional Fallacy.' I would like to pay Father Ong the compliment of saying that I think that his essay 'The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn' is the only sensible response that has ever been written to that essay of ours."
287:”) an “objective criticism” in which the critic essentially disregards the intentions of the poet and the effect of the poem on the audience as the sole (or even the major) factors in analyzing and evaluating a poem (Davis and Schleifer 43).
132:
In 1939, Wimsatt joined the
English department at Yale, where he taught until his death in 1975. During his lifetime, Wimsatt became known for his studies of eighteenth-century literature (Leitch et al. 1372). He wrote many works of
274:
critic, Wimsatt believed in the authority of the poem: any analysis of a poem must centre on the text itself (Leitch et al. 1371-1372). He outlines and advocates (particularly in his two influential essays written with
582:
Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. "The
Intentional Fallacy." Sewanee Review, vol. 54 (1946): 468-488. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry, U of Kentucky P, 1954:
373:
21) – essentially, it occurs when a critic puts too much emphasis on personal, biographical, or what he calls “external” information when analyzing a work (they note that this is essentially the same as the
252:
in 1963.) Hough asked
Professor Wimsatt a question that still resonates today: "Is literature taught in complete isolation from its author, Mr. Wimsatt -- don't you consider the person who wrote it?"
476:
More importantly, language does not function merely on the level of its effects on the senses, as (for example) visual modes do. A poem does not just derive its meaning from its
255:
Wimsatt replied: "I do, of course. Your question, I think, was prompted by that very fine essay of Father Ong's, 'The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn,' which you read in his book
340:(of which some of the ideas are discussed below). His ideas generally centre around the same questions tackled by many critics: what is poetry and how does one evaluate it?
710:
362:. Each of these texts “codifies a crucial tenet of New Critical formalist orthodoxy,” making them both very important to twentieth-century criticism (Leitch et al. 1371).
415:
As with the
Intentional fallacy, engaging in affective criticism is too subjective an exercise to really warrant the label “criticism” at all — thus, for Wimsatt and
626:
Leitch, Vincent B., William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, and
Jeffrey J. Williams. “William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley.”
100:(November 17, 1907 – December 17, 1975) was an American professor of English, literary theorist, and critic. Wimsatt is often associated with the concept of the
519:). Paul de Man offers a significant critique of Wimsatt's text, taken as an example of the understanding of the notion of 'autonomy' in New Criticism, in
177:
263:
at Oxford some years ago , and was in part, I believe, an answer to an essay written many years ago, about twenty at least, by a friend of mine,
354:
Perhaps Wimsatt’s most influential theories come from the essays “The Intentional Fallacy” and “The Affective Fallacy” (both are published in
715:
404:; italics in original). It refers to the error of placing too much emphasis on the effect that a poem has on its audience when analyzing it.
511:
was finally published as a cohesive work (after Wimsatt revised some of the original versions) in 1954. Probably his most influential work,
205:
690:
705:
700:
473:— “the example of the dunghill (or equivalent object) beautifully described is one of the oldest in literary discussion” (228).
445:
In “The Domain of Criticism,” Wimsatt “ the domain of poetry and poetics from the encircling (if friendly) arm of the general
515:
contains two of Wimsatt's most important essays, “The Intentional Fallacy” and “The Affective Fallacy” (co-authored with
192:, with whom he wrote some of his most important pieces. Wimsatt also drew on the work of both ancient critics, such as
533:
Apparently concerned with the (admittedly lessened) influence of what he calls “Amateur Criticism,” Wimsatt published
217:
437:
metaphor which one boards heedless of where it runs, whether cross-town or downtown — just for the ride” (76).
208:, to formulate his theories, often by highlighting key ideas in those authors' works in order to refute them.
695:
271:
249:
245:
173:
193:
121:
685:
680:
336:
Wimsatt contributed several theories to the critical landscape, particularly through his major work,
225:
366:
349:
280:
101:
539:
108:
in order to question the importance of an author's intentions for the creation of a work of art.
392:
The Affective fallacy (identified in the essay of the same name, which Wimsatt co-authored with
592:
327th edition of the radio talk-show Yale Reports, broadcast on May 24, 1964, by WTIC-Hartford.
665:
457:
terms. Wimsatt questions the ability of a poem to function aesthetically in the same way as a
387:
284:
516:
416:
408:
393:
359:
276:
264:
189:
105:
375:
134:
125:
117:
553:
307:
165:
148:
306:, Wimsatt refers to a “New Amateurism,” an “anti-criticism” emerging in works such as
248:, by Sheila Hough in 1964. (Professor Wimsatt had received an honorary doctorate from
674:
432:
74)? In addressing such questions, Wimsatt attempts to resolve what it is that makes
312:
295:
241:
169:
147:
Philosophic Words: A Study of Style and Meaning in the "Rambler" and "Dictionary" of
17:
412:
its effects, especially its emotional impact, on the reader” (Leitch et al. 1371).
369:, according to Wimsatt, derives from “confusion between the poem and its origins” (
299:
229:
221:
661:
201:
630:. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. 1371-1374.
623:. Ed. Daphne Patai and Will Corral. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
489:
481:
470:
446:
462:
454:
197:
138:
453:
221) – that is, he discusses the problems with discussing poetry in purely
294:
Much of his theory, however, appears to stem from an ambivalence towards "
458:
492:, then, is insufficient if one is to adequately explore its meaning.
485:
433:
220:, and his influence has been noted in the works of writers such as
612:
De Man, Paul. 'Form and Intent in the American New Criticism', in
477:
507:
Written as a series of independent essays between 1941 and 1952,
607:
Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies
129:
396:, as above) refers to “confusion between the poem and its
302:, and relativism” (Leitch et al. 1373) in criticism. In
642:
Hateful Contraries: Studies in Literature and Criticism
528:
Hateful Contraries: Studies in Literature and Criticism
538:
attempts to add to the efforts to justify and improve
291:
phrases ever mean fully the same” (Verbal Icon xii).
152:(1948; Leitch et al. 1372). His major works include
83:
78:
58:
39:
32:
635:The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry
502:The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry
216:Wimsatt's ideas have affected the development of
154:The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry
644:. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1965.
637:. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1954.
561:part of any historical literary studies (vii).
232:’s “Against Theory” (Leitch et al. 1373-1374).
200:, and some of his own contemporaries, such as
619:Dowling, William C. "The Gender Fallacy", in
8:
647:Wimsatt, William K. Jr. and Cleanth Brooks.
628:The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism
29:
711:20th-century American non-fiction writers
605:Davis, Robert Con, and Ronald Schleifer.
176:Criticism; 1372). He was a member of the
621:Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent
480:and meter, but these are the domains of
178:Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
575:
168:). Wimsatt was considered crucial to
7:
240:Wimsatt was interviewed, along with
649:Literary Criticism: A Short History
558:Literary Criticism: A Short History
547:Literary Criticism: A Short History
162:Literary Criticism: A Short History
651:. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957.
616:. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1983.
609:. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1989.
310:’s “Credo,” which appeared in the
25:
143:The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson
27:American professor of literature
419:, it is a fallacy of analysis.
1:
716:American philosophers of art
69:New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.
662:Works by William K. Wimsatt
732:
385:
347:
188:Wimsatt was influenced by
104:, which he developed with
691:American literary critics
218:reader-response criticism
98:William Kurtz Wimsatt Jr.
91:
74:
34:William Kurtz Wimsatt Jr.
706:Yale Sterling Professors
128:, where he received his
701:Yale University faculty
441:The Domain of Criticism
281:The Intentional Fallacy
259:. It first appeared in
224:, and in works such as
204:and the writers of the
358:) which he wrote with
250:Saint Louis University
246:Saint Louis University
53:Washington, D.C., U.S.
614:Blindness and Insight
521:Blindness and Insight
285:The Affective Fallacy
122:Georgetown University
18:William Kurtz Wimsatt
488:on the basis of its
257:The Barbarian Within
226:Walter Benn Michaels
116:Wimsatt was born in
633:Wimsatt, W. K. Jr.
484:(231) — to analyse
367:Intentional Fallacy
350:Intentional fallacy
344:Intentional fallacy
261:Essays in Criticism
102:intentional fallacy
540:literary criticism
535:Hateful Contraries
469:least in terms of
423:Concrete Universal
318:Hateful Contraries
304:Hateful Contraries
172:(particularly New
158:Hateful Contraries
666:Project Gutenberg
388:Affective fallacy
382:Affective fallacy
95:
94:
62:December 17, 1975
50:November 17, 1907
16:(Redirected from
723:
593:
590:
584:
580:
517:Monroe Beardsley
394:Monroe Beardsley
360:Monroe Beardsley
277:Monroe Beardsley
265:Monroe Beardsley
190:Monroe Beardsley
106:Monroe Beardsley
65:
49:
47:
30:
21:
731:
730:
726:
725:
724:
722:
721:
720:
671:
670:
658:
597:
596:
591:
587:
581:
577:
567:
550:
531:
513:The Verbal Icon
509:The Verbal Icon
505:
498:
443:
425:
390:
384:
376:Genetic fallacy
352:
346:
338:The Verbal Icon
334:
324:masterpieces” (
238:
214:
186:
135:literary theory
126:Yale University
118:Washington D.C.
114:
112:Life and career
87:Yale University
70:
67:
63:
54:
51:
45:
43:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
729:
727:
719:
718:
713:
708:
703:
698:
693:
688:
683:
673:
672:
669:
668:
657:
656:External links
654:
653:
652:
645:
638:
631:
624:
617:
610:
602:
601:
595:
594:
585:
574:
573:
572:
571:
566:
563:
554:Cleanth Brooks
549:
544:
530:
525:
504:
499:
497:
494:
442:
439:
424:
421:
402:Verbal Icon 21
386:Main article:
383:
380:
348:Main article:
345:
342:
333:
330:
308:Leslie Fiedler
237:
234:
213:
210:
206:Chicago School
185:
182:
166:Cleanth Brooks
149:Samuel Johnson
113:
110:
93:
92:
89:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
75:
72:
71:
68:
66:(aged 68)
60:
56:
55:
52:
41:
37:
36:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
728:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
696:New Criticism
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
679:
678:
676:
667:
663:
660:
659:
655:
650:
646:
643:
639:
636:
632:
629:
625:
622:
618:
615:
611:
608:
604:
603:
599:
598:
589:
586:
579:
576:
569:
568:
564:
562:
559:
555:
552:Written with
548:
545:
543:
541:
536:
529:
526:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
503:
500:
495:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
472:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
440:
438:
435:
431:
422:
420:
418:
413:
410:
405:
403:
399:
395:
389:
381:
379:
377:
372:
368:
363:
361:
357:
351:
343:
341:
339:
331:
329:
327:
321:
319:
315:
314:
313:Kenyon Review
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:impressionism
292:
288:
286:
282:
278:
273:
270:As a staunch
268:
266:
262:
258:
253:
251:
247:
243:
242:Walter J. Ong
235:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
211:
209:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
183:
181:
179:
175:
171:
170:New Criticism
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
150:
144:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
111:
109:
107:
103:
99:
90:
86:
82:
79:Academic work
77:
73:
61:
57:
42:
38:
31:
19:
648:
641:
634:
627:
620:
613:
606:
588:
578:
557:
551:
546:
534:
532:
527:
520:
512:
508:
506:
501:
475:
467:
450:
447:aesthetician
444:
429:
426:
414:
407:Wimsatt and
406:
401:
397:
391:
370:
364:
355:
353:
337:
335:
325:
322:
317:
311:
303:
300:subjectivism
293:
289:
269:
260:
256:
254:
239:
230:Steven Knapp
222:Stanley Fish
215:
187:
164:(1957, with
161:
157:
153:
146:
142:
124:and, later,
115:
97:
96:
84:Institutions
64:(1975-12-17)
686:1975 deaths
681:1907 births
496:Major works
451:Verbal Icon
430:Verbal Icon
371:Verbal Icon
356:Verbal Icon
326:Verbal Icon
202:T. S. Eliot
160:(1965) and
145:(1941) and
120:, attended
675:Categories
565:References
490:aesthetics
482:aesthetics
471:aesthetics
184:Influences
46:1907-11-17
556:in 1957,
463:sculpture
455:aesthetic
417:Beardsley
409:Beardsley
272:formalist
212:Influence
198:Aristotle
174:Formalist
139:criticism
459:painting
332:Theories
236:Approach
194:Longinus
156:(1954);
141:such as
600:Sources
542:(xix).
398:results
283:” and “
486:poetry
434:poetry
320:xvi).
228:' and
640:---.
583:3-18.
570:Notes
478:rhyme
328:29).
365:The
196:and
137:and
59:Died
40:Born
664:at
461:or
449:" (
400:” (
279:, “
244:of
130:PhD
677::
523:.
298:,
180:.
428:(
374:“
48:)
44:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.