Principles of literary criticismRichards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
Philosophy
Principles of literary criticism
Richards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
Criticism
To define the poem as the artist’s experience is a better solution.
But it will not do as it stands since nobody but the artist has
that experience. We must be more ingenious. We cannot take any
single experience as the poem; we must have a class of more or
less similar experiences instead. Let us mean by _Westminster
Bridge_ not the actual experience which led Wordsworth on
a certain morning about a century ago to write what he did, but
the class composed of all actual experiences, occasioned by the
words, which do not differ within certain limits from that experience.
Then anyone who has had one of the experiences comprised in the
class can be said to have read the poem. The permissible ranges
of variation in the class need (of course) very careful scrutiny.
To work them out fully and draw up a neat formal definition of
a poem would be an amusing and useful occupation for any literary
logician with a knowledge of psychology. The experiences must
evidently include the reading of the words with fairly close
correspondence in rhythm and tune. Pitch difference would not
matter, provided that pitch relations were preserved. Imagery
might be allowed to vary indefinitely in its sensory aspect but
would be narrowly restricted otherwise. If the reader will run
over the diagram of a poetic experience given in Chapter XVI
and consider in what respects his and his friends’ experiences
must agree if they are to be able to refer to them indifferently
as though they were one and the same without confusion or misunderstanding,
he will see what kind of thing a detailed definition of a poem
would be.
This, although it may seem odd and complicated, is by far the
most convenient, in fact it is the only workable way of defining
a poem; namely, as a class of experiences which do not differ
in any character more than a certain amount, varying for each
character, from a standard experience. We may take as this standard
experience the relevant experience of the poet when contemplating
the completed composition[75].
Anyone whose experience approximates in this degree to the standard
experience will be able to judge the poem and his remarks about
it will be about some experience which is included in the class.
Thus we have what we want, a sense, namely, in which a critic
can be said to have not read the poem or to have misread it.
In this sense unrecognised failures are extremely common.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account