Hello and welcome to the Discourse. The Chicago School of Critics (also known as the Neo-Aristotelians or Chicago Aristotelians) was an influential group of literary scholars at the University of Chicago in the mid-20th century who revived and refined Aristotelian literary criticism. Unlike the New Critics, who focused on close reading and textual autonomy, the Chicago School emphasized a pluralistic approach, integrating formal analysis with historical, rhetorical, and ethical considerations. The Key Figures of the Chicago School of Literary Criticism included Ronald S. Crane who was the leader of the group and emphasized multiple critical methods, Elder Olson, who applied Aristotelian principles to poetry and drama, Wayne C. Booth, who expanded into rhetoric and narrative theory (The Rhetoric of Fiction), and Richard McKeon, the philosopher who influenced the methodological pluralism of the Chicago school.
The Chicago school of critics rejected the rigid formalism (like the New Criticism) and advocated for multiple interpretive frameworks. They emphasized that different literary works demand different critical approaches.
The Chicago School revived Aristotle’s Poetics, focusing on plot (mythos), character (ethos), and emotional effect (catharsis), and analyzed texts based on their internal structure rather than authorial intent or reader response alone. The school explored how narrative techniques shape reader judgment. Wayne Booth’s concept of the implied author and unreliable narrator emerged from this school.
The Chicago School of Critics is known for raising the Genre Theory against the universalist approach. They suggested that the different genres (tragedy, comedy, epic) have distinct formal principles and critiqued universalist approaches (e.g., Northrop Frye’s archetypal theory) for ignoring genre-specific rules.
The major works of the Chicago School of Critics include Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern (1952, ed. R.S. Crane). It is often regarded as the Manifesto of the Chicago School. Other important works are The Rhetoric of Fiction (1961) by Wayne Booth, in which he examines narrative techniques and ethics, and Theory of Comedy (1968) by Elder Olson, in which he offers Aristotelian analysis of comic forms. The Chicago school bridged formalism and historical context and heavily influenced the narrative theory.
Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern (1952)
Edited by Ronald S. Crane, Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern is a foundational text of the Chicago School of Criticism (Neo-Aristotelians). The book is a collection of essays that defend and reinterpret Aristotelian literary theory while critiquing dominant mid-20th-century approaches, particularly the New Criticism. The Chicago School opposed the New Critics (e.g., Cleanth Brooks, W.K. Wimsatt) for their exclusive focus on close reading and textual autonomy. It argued that New Criticism ignored Historical context, Genre conventions, Authorial and rhetorical strategies, and the emotional and ethical effects of literature on readers.
The Chicago critics advocated for multiple critical approaches rather than a single rigid method. They believed different texts require different analytical tools (e.g., rhetorical, historical, formal). Unlike the New Critics, they did not dismiss authorial intention or reader response entirely.
In his two essays titled "Introduction" & "The Concept of Plot", R. S. Crane defends plot-centered analysis over New Critical "verbal icon" approaches. He distinguishes between action-based plots (Aristotle) and theme-based structures (modern novels). Elder Olson wrote "An Outline of Poetic Theory," in which he systematizes Aristotle’s Poetics for modern literature and argues that genre determines form, not universal rules. Richard McKeon, in his essay "The Philosophic Bases of Art and Criticism," connects Aristotelian criticism to broader philosophical traditions.
The New Critics often regarded novels as inferior to poetry/drama. The Chicago School offered one of the first formalist defenses of the novel as an art form. In R.S. Crane’s influential essay "The Concept of Plot and the Plot of Tom Jones," Crane analyzes Tom Jones as a masterpiece of comic plot construction, applying Aristotle’s Poetics to the novel (despite Aristotle focusing on tragedy). He argues that Tom Jones succeeds because of its unified, causally linked plot, not just its humor or themes. He stresses that Tom’s good-hearted impulsiveness (hamartia-like flaw) drives the plot forward and opposes New Criticism’s focus on irony or moral ambiguity in Tom’s character. Crane suggested that while New Critics might focus on verbal wit, the novel offers structural satisfaction.
The New Critics stressed close reading to seek Irony, paradox, and moral ambiguity in the language of Tom Jones. They often stressed sexual innuendo or narratorial irony while overemphasizing language. R. S Crane, in his essay, reclaims Tom Jones from mere "entertainment" to a structurally sophisticated comedy. One of the famous quotes from R.S Crane’s essay is --
"The plot of Tom Jones is an action of a certain magnitude, complete and whole in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end […] all incidents being connected by necessity or probability."
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of Literary criticism and literary theories. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment