Talk:Literary criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Literary criticism is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] comment

--LiteratPJ 05:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

why does this page go to the .com site? isnt' the site fully migrated? dennis

This shouldn't really redirect to Literary theory, since theory is usually described as the philosophical study of the methods of literary criticism -- the redirect was conflating the theory with its object. I've tried to explain this in the article, but it could probably be clearer. More contributions would be welcome. (Famous critics? Kinds of criticism/different aesthetics in more detail?) But this is a start, at least.

Rbellin 07:19, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Which-hunting

You may wish to note H.W. Fowler (most notably the last paragraph) and Sir Ernest Gowers.

[edit] Proposal for Book Reviews by Wikipedians

Might it not be an intellectually profitable idea to have on this page a link pointing to a page where Wikipedia users might post links to book reviews they write? They might name the pages the same as the books' titles, and then list/post links to those pages on a page named Book Reviews by Wikipedians. Please consider this idea for the future.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as book reviews, but this would be a good idea for a project on the sister site WikiSource. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, book reviews are a good idea but a distinctly seperate idea then literary criticism. A review is POV by nature, but criticism seems to be akin to a 'disection' of the book's fundamentals (character, plot, setting, metaphor, style, syntax etc.).
??? Huh? A book review IS literary criticism. How can you really "separate" the two? Literary criticism can include POV, it could be one line, or be the length of a novel (and in some cases, ARE books). Colonel Marksman 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

Isn't this article (and I feel it's a very nice summary) a stub? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JECompton (talk • contribs) 20 Sept 2005.

It certainly needs expansion, but it's more than what we usually call a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a stub. This article, though quite informative and interesting, is not adequate. For example, it mentions Plato and states that Plato thought that poiesis was 'secondary', but it doesn't explain. Strictly speaking, Plato thought of poetry as 'twice removed' from the Ideal Forms, an imitation of an imitation. Furthermore, I think it is insufficient to say that 'much more could be said on pre-19th century literary criticism'. Then it needs to be said! :-) I think overall this article is indeed somewhat of a stub and needs tidied up and expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WKelly (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005.

Why in nine hells does "Liberal Humanism" redirects to this article?!

It doesn't. Indeed, there has never been an article Liberal Humanism. And someone seems now to have fixed the odd redirect from Liberal humanism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this really is a stub, if only because it has nothing to say about non-western literary criticism--as if this were a subject strictly limited to Europe and the US. I linked a work from Chinese lit crit here, but it will prove to be altogether useless unless this eventually includes something less "Eurocentric." Nostalgiphile 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So write it. But not every incomplete article is a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western scholarly tradition

Related to which, now we have "Literary criticism is deeply ingrained within, among other cultural institutions, the Western scholarly tradition." I suppose. I really can't make sense of what "among other cultural institutions" is supposed to mean here. - Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for removing that sentence, as it appears completely meaningless. In fact, I will do so now. The user who inserted it appears to be testing the boundaries of what is considered vandalism, having started with "Literary criticism is gay" and stepped slowly down from there. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So.... what do they do?

I think I've never read a "literary critic". How's it? What does it talk about? (it'd be nice to comment it in the article, anyway) --euyyn 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meaning of "criticism"

your average very lay reader might be confused by the word "criticism" in "literary criticism" because it's common meaning is to diss something. Maybe the first paragraph should explain it doesn't just mean dissing literature. --86.148.56.121 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. --86.148.56.121 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to add a link in the lead section to the article critic, that seems reasonable. But this is a perfectly ordinary word in a reasonably common use, not by any stretch a specialized piece of technical jargon that needs to be defined before being used (which is what the policy you linked addresses). Readers who don't know that might be better served by the Simple English Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bakhtin sentence removed

I have removed a sentence (obviously appended) from the end of the New Criticism section. It introduced Mikhail Bakhtin and named a few of his critical ideas without any elaboration. It did not belong under New Criticism (not even in connection with Russian Formalism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.125.46 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)