After reading Wimsatt & Beardsley's articles, I found that I agree with many of their ideas concerning New Criticism. I see nothing wrong with focusing on the work objectively by paying attention to dramatic form and theme and I admire how the theory is audience-centered. It claims that it's important to separate the writing process from the reading process. And along the same line, lies Ransom's argument. His premise insists that there should be "a structural understanding of poetry...[where it] is not to be confused with a poet's bibliography or intentions, the audience's response to the poem,

or the uses to which it may be put"(451, Ranson). I agree and disagree with his interpretations.

I think Ransom's first point of excluding a poet's bibliography and inten

tions is very interesting. New Criticism says that as a reader, one must look directly at the piece for true understanding. I find that I agree and disagree with that perspective. On the opposing side, knowing the upbringing of the author and the historical context can add great depth to the meaning of a piece as a whole. On the other hand, by separating the work from the author, the reader has a greater probability of achieving a purer, less bias interpretation. Approaching it from each of these methods would definitely yield quite dissimilar results because preconceptions, whether we like to admit it or not, have a heavy influence on what a reader takes from a work.

The second point Ransom made was that an audience's response had to be disregarded to really understand the poem. I agree and disagree with th

Some common words found in the essay are:
Wimsatt Beardsley's, Affective Fallacy, agree disagree, Ransom's Theory, criticism reader, meaning feeling, dramatic form theme, poet's bibliography intentions, bibliography intentions, structural understanding, dramatic form, form theme, poet's bibliography, audience's response,
Approximate Word count = 553
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)