Talk:New Criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality flag
I don't know a lot about this, but this reads as biased against this style from w hat I see. Please correcT(and remove flag) if I am wrong.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.82.57 (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- actually, the article is quite sound. removed flag. --Janneman 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support statement, please
From the introductory paragraph:
- At their best, New Critical readings were brilliant, articulately argued, and broad in scope, but sometimes they were idiosyncratic and moralistic.
The article never really returns to this point. Could we have something to back this assertion up?
Anville 16:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
True, I think it is an important point and should be explicated.
[edit] Criticism of New Criticism Link
The page from the link "Criticism of New Criticism" is, I think, really not up to the standards of a reputable source. Essentially, it seems to be just some random guys opinion. There are scores upon scores of criticisms of New Criticism better than this, and I would very much suggest replacing the link with something, anything, else. Corbmobile 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. The Johns Hopkins link gives a pretty balanced view of the topic, but if we want a second, more contrary link, there are probably better ones than this. Thomas1617 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thomas1617
-
- agreed & removed. --Janneman 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Works chronology might be changed
To me it seems the Ransom article should be moved to the top of the Works list, to orient the reader chronologically. I know Eliot and Richards really kicked the 'movement' off, but from what I understand it was Ransom's essay that gave the nomer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moses sheperd (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Also, dates should be given for all these works (?)
