[ اللغة الانجليزية ] : l|][Ξ¯▪ Last Year 1st Semester ▪¯Ξ][|

[dready days]

ms.2012
والله تعليقك بالصميم ......صدقتي خصوصا باول سطر هههههههههههههههههههههههههههه

[ThE lEgEnD]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة clever girl

http://www.gradesaver.com/waiting-fo...uide/section3/
بنات هذا رابط جميل ل waiting for goddot
حسيته يشبه شرح دكتورة مها

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot


انا قاعده اطلع من هنا

[dready days]

2. Traditional Literary Criticism

Academic literary criticism prior to the rise of “New Criticism” in the United States tended to practice traditional literary history: tracking influence, establishing the canon of major writers in the literary periods, and clarifying historical context and allusions within the text. Literary biography was and still is an important interpretive method in and out of the academy; versions of moral criticism, not unlike the Leavis School in Britain, and aesthetic (e.g. genre studies) criticism were also generally influential literary practices. Perhaps the key unifying feature of traditional literary criticism was the consensus within the academy as to the both the literary canon (that is, the books all educated persons should read) and the aims and purposes of literature. What literature was, and why we read literature, and what we read, were questions that subsequent movements in literary theory were to raise.
3. Formalism and New Criticism

“Formalism” is, as the name implies, an interpretive approach that emphasizes literary form and the study of literary devices within the text. The work of the Formalists had a general impact on later developments in “Structuralism” and other theories of narrative. “Formalism,” like “Structuralism,” sought to place the study of literature on a scientific basis through objective analysis of the motifs, devices, techniques, and other “functions” that comprise the literary work. The Formalists placed great importance on the literariness of texts, those qualities that distinguished the literary from other kinds of writing. Neither author nor context was essential for the Formalists; it was the narrative that spoke, the “hero-function,” for example, that had meaning. Form was the content. A plot device or narrative strategy was examined for how it functioned and compared to how it had functioned in other literary works. Of the Russian Formalist critics, Roman Jakobson and Viktor Shklovsky are probably the most well known.
The Formalist adage that the purpose of literature was “to make the stones stonier” nicely expresses their notion of literariness. “Formalism” is perhaps best known is Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization.” The routine of ordinary experience, Shklovsky contended, rendered invisible the uniqueness and particularity of the objects of existence. Literary language, partly by calling attention to itself as language, estranged the reader from the familiar and made fresh the experience of daily life.
The “New Criticism,” so designated as to indicate a break with traditional methods, was a product of the American university in the 1930s and 40s. “New Criticism” stressed close reading of the text itself, much like the French pedagogical precept “explication du texte.” As a strategy of reading, “New Criticism” viewed the work of literature as an aesthetic object independent of historical context and as a unified whole that reflected the unified sensibility of the artist. T.S. Eliot, though not explicitly associated with the movement, expressed a similar critical-aesthetic philosophy in his essays on John Donne and the metaphysical poets, writers who Eliot believed experienced a complete integration of thought and feeling. New Critics like Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren and W.K. Wimsatt placed a similar focus on the metaphysical poets and poetry in general, a genre well suited to New Critical practice. “New Criticism” aimed at bringing a greater intellectual rigor to literary studies, confining itself to careful scrutiny of the text alone and the formal structures of paradox, ambiguity, irony, and metaphor, among others. “New Criticism” was fired by the conviction that their readings of poetry would yield a humanizing influence on readers and thus counter the alienating tendencies of modern, industrial life. “New Criticism” in this regard bears an affinity to the Southern Agrarian movement whose manifesto, I’ll Take My Stand, contained essays by two New Critics, Ransom and Warren. Perhaps the enduring legacy of “New Criticism” can be found in the college classroom, in which the verbal texture of the poem on the page remains a primary object of literary study.

[M.A.S]

بنات ممكن ايميل الدرما والباس وورد؟

[ms.2012]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.A.S

بنات ممكن ايميل الدرما والباس وورد؟

drama7-8@hotmail.com هذا الايميل

هذا الباسورد
drama@course

[أخت أخوها]

يابوونيات هدأو

أنتن داخلات على اختبارات
استقبلوها بصدر رحب <<< بيكتلوها

مثل ماقالت جوجو

كلنا هنآ نعين ونعآون
اللي يحب يساعد هلا ومرحبا به
واللي مايحب حريه شخصيه وجهده مشكور

بنت احتاجت مني شيء بكره أحتاجها والعكس صحيح
وانتوا ماشاء الله كلكن راعيات فزعه

بعيداًعن هالخلافات ذاكروا
لاتنسوا نحن سنة رابع نفر كلوه ضغط


بالتوفيق عزيزاتي

[dready days]

ذاكرو

New Criticism/Formalism

• Examples of New Critical Approach
  • On Jarrell's "Death of the Ball-Turret Gunner"
  • ENG 220WE Student Interpretations using this approach
• Historical Background
  • New Criticism arose in opposition to biographical or vaguely impressionistic approaches
  • It sought to establish literary studies as an objective discipline
  • Its desire to reveal organic unity in complex texts may be historically determined, reflective of early 20th century critics seeking a lost order or in conflict with an increasingly fragmented society
• Assumptions
  • Texts possess meaning in and of themselves; therefore, analyses should emphasize intrinsic meaning over extrinsic meaning (verbal sense over significance in E.D. Hirsch's view)
  • The best readers are those who look most closely at the text and are familiar with literary conventions and have an ample command of the language
  • Meaning within the text is context-bound. This means that readers must be ready to show how the parts of the text relate to form a whole.
  • The test of excellence in literature: the extent to which the work manifests organic unity
  • The best interpretations are those which seek out ambiguities in the text and then resolve these ambiguities as a part of demonstrating the organic unity of the text
• Methods
  • Close reading of texts
  • This includes paying attention to semantic tensions that complicate meaning. At the end, though, these ambiguities must be resolved.
  • Learn and apply the appropriate literary conventions that apply in any discourse (e.g. imagery, motifs, metaphor, symbols, irony, paradox, structural patterns, choice of narrative perspective, oppositions, prosody, etc.)
• Criticisms of this approach:
  • Some critics of this approach have argued that a New Critic's commitment to revealing organic unity of a work blinds him or her to elements in the text that do not contribute to this unity.
  • Others have argued that in dismissing the importance of history, or the response of readers as irrelevant to an understanding of the work, New Critics have contradicted their own claims that meaning is context bound.
• What we can gain from applying a New Critical approach
  • Close reading skills, leading to . . .
  • A deeper appreciation of the multiple uses of language that a text uses

Traditional Historicism

• Historical Background
  • Dates from the 19th century, the abuse of this approach in part led to New Criticism. Historical context used to explain and understand the literary text.
• Assumptions
  • To know a text, one needs to understand its insertion in a particular moment in time, as an expression of a writer influenced by his/her times.
  • History consists in part of consistent world views that are reflected in art
• Methods
  • Research an author's biographical data, as well as historical works from the time in order to show how the text reflects its time: ideology, social, political, economic beliefs and trends, etc.
• Criticisms of this approach:
  • Sometimes brings with it simplistic view of history. History is more complicated, involving a swirl of conflicting attititudes. No history is objective. We always understand history from a set of beliefs, values, etc., rooted in our time.
  • In the worst cases it can lead us away from close reading of the text, subordinating the text to a preconception of history. New Critics believed we should first and foremast read the text closely, on its own terms.
• What we can gain from applying this approach
  • When done by excellent historicists, a deeper understanding of the historical determinants of meaning in a text. Knowing the implied context that permeates a text helps us understand it more fully.
  New Historicism
  
• Historical Background
  • Developed in late 1970's in response to perceived excesses of New Criticism, which tended to ignore importance of historical context of work of art
• Assumptions
  • As with traditional historicism, new historicists argue that we cannot know texts separate from their historical context
  • Unlike traditional historicists, new historicists insist that all interpretation is subjectively filtered through one's own set of historically conditioned viewpoints. There is no "objective" history.
  • From Foucault, history is an intersection of discourses that establish an episteme, a dominant ideology.
  • Texts sometimes reveal a resistance to the episteme, rather than reflect it.
  • The real center of inquiry is not the text, but history.
  • Each text is only one example of many types of discourses that reveal history
  • To best understand a text, one should look at all sorts of other texts of the time, including social practice (as a kind of text)
• Methods
  • Similar to traditional historicism, except that it looks to a greater variety of "discourses": social, political, religious, artistic to help explain the text
  • New Historicists investigate
    • the life of the author
    • social rules found within the text
    • the manner in which the text reveals an historical situation
    • the ways in which other historical texts can help us understand the texts
• Criticisms of this approach:
  • Since the true center of analysis is history, New Historical critics sometimes don't pay close attention to the actual text.
  • Some historians (as opposed to English professors, for example) criticize the limited sampling of texts used to explain/elucidate the text. Some New Historicists, for example, can be accused of hasty generalizations.
• What we can gain from applying this approach
  • See comments under traditional historicism
  • In addition to the above, we gain a better understanding of how historical viewpoints are complicated and how they are filtered through our own epistemes.

Reader Response Criticism

• Historical Background
  • Classical Roots
    • Both Plato and Aristotle were aware of the effects of works of literature. Plato, in fact, worried that poets would stir up the emotions of the audience. He also believed that art, as a copy of a copy, was at a furthest remove from "truth" and therefore misled people. In his Republiche excludes poets from his ideal society.
    • Aristotle, the first formalist (and first "Structuralist" in literary criticism, was also conscious of the significance of specific rhetorical effects of works of art. In his discussion of tragic form (found in the Poetics), he tells us that tragic plays elicit from spectators the feelings of pity and fear. Furthermore, another portion of his descriptive analysis of tragic form refers to "proper magnitude" in plays. This probably meant that dramatists must not overload the audience with complicated plots or excess information.
    • As Bressler tells us, both of these ancient writers assumed that the audience is passive: the text works on the mind as if the mind were acted upon, much like a wax tablet or a mirror.
  • Reader-Response Criticism in the 20th Century:
    • As we have learned, New Criticismexerted a powerful influence upon the way critics read literature and teachers taught literature well into the 1960's. Especially in America and Britain, you were not taken seriously as a reader or critic if you did not espouse the tenets of New Criticism.
    • In the midst of this hegemony of New Criticism, Louis Rosenblatt proposed a different model for literary analysis. In Literature as Exploration (1937) she proposed her transactional theory, in which she saw reading as a transaction between reader and text. Meaning is as dependent upon the reader as it is dependent upon the text. There is no universal, absolute interpretation of a poem; rather, there can be several probable interpretations, depending in part upon what the reader brings to the text. For Rosenblatt, the reader is not passive.
    • Rosenblatt, by the way, agreed with New Critics' emphasis upon close reading. Reading is a transaction in which readers, while bringing their world of experience to activate the text, respect the text on its own terms. She acknowledged that some interpretations were better than others.
• Types of Reader-Response Critics
  • Rhetorical criticism
    • Analyzes texts in terms of rhetorical strategies embedded to influence readers. These critics, for example, might see plot as an arrangement of certain effects: moving us to first question events, giving us partial, teasing answers, deliberately delaying discovery of information, surprising us with new information or reversal of expectations, and so on. This approach assumes that the text exerts more control over the interpretive process than the reader.
  • Structuralist approaches to reader-response
    • Describes the codes readers acquire and use to ascertain meaning. Since codes change across time, interpretations vary.
  • Phenomenologists
    • Studies how the mind processes texts. Hans Robert Jauss, a reception theorist, studies how horizons of expectation change with time, thereby changing the way audiences interpret texts. Wolfgang Iser (pronounced "ee-zer") analyzes the text's effect on both the implied reader and the actual reader. Iser's implied reader is the reader implied by the text--the hypothetical reader predisposed to appreciate the effects of the text. In other words, what sort of reader does this text seem to address: how informed about the nuances of words, history, conventions, strategies of irony, etc. In experimental "modernist" texts (like Joyce's Ulyssesor Woolf's To the Lighthouse , we might ask, "What kind of reader does this challenging text attempt to create?" (A question a rhetorical critic might ask as well, by the way)
    • Iser also discusses ways in which texts are concretized in the mind. He will discuss ways in which texts call upon and alter the reader's own horizons of expectations. How, in other words, does a novel set us up to expect something only to deliver something else. Iser also discusses gaps in the text: places in which the text expects us to fill in information or otherwise use our imagination.
    • From all of this it is clear that we have come a long way from Aristotle's view of the audience as passive. For Iser, readers create the text, filling in gaps, anticipating what is to come, all along using their own for-understanding (their world of beliefs/values) to process the work. Sometimes the text subverts that pre-understanding, creating disturbing effects; sometimes it confirms it.
  • Subjective Reader Response Criticism
    • Here the text is subordinated to the individual reader. The subject becomes the individual reader as he reveals himself in the act of reading. For example, imagine a reader outraged by a story in which a father ignores his child. The intensity of the reader's reaction may lie in his or her conflicted relationship with his or her father.
    • This kind of criticism has been attacked as too relativistic and of limited usefulness in the classroom. Defenders of this approach point out that literature must work on a personal, emotional level to move us powerfully. Steven Mailloux, urges that students be allowed their personal, powerful reaction, but then expect to make his responses relevant to an interpretive community.
• Assumptions
  • Meaning = text + reader
• Methodology
  • Varies with each of the types listed above. In general, the reader-response critic looks to ways in which a literary text affects the reader intellectually and affectively. Close reading is still an important activity; in this case the critic looks carefully at how the text stimulates the work of the reader.

[dready days]

الجزئيه اللي بين نيو كريتيسيزم و ريدر رسبونس مو معانا<<تقولكم ترا اعرف

[dready days]

Synopsis of New Critical thought

Although the New Critics are often thought of as a school, it is important to note that, due to key ideological differences among some of its most prominent members, New Criticism never coalesced into a unified "science of literature." The major critics who are often grouped together as being the seminal figures of New Criticism are: T.S. Eliot, F.R. Leavis, William Empson, Robert Penn Warren, John Crowe Ransom, and Cleanth Brooks. It is worthwhile to note that the New Criticism was rather unique because a sizable number of practicing New Critics were also active as poets, novelists, and short-story writers, while almost all literary critics today are exclusively scholars and academics.
Although difficult to summarize, it is sufficient to say that New Criticism resembled the Formalism of I.A. Richards, in that it focused on a meticulous analysis of the literary text to the exclusion of outside details. In particular, the notion of the ambiguity of literary language is an important concept within New Criticism; several prominent New Critics have been particularly fascinated with the way that a text can display multiple simultaneous meanings. In the 1930s, I.A. Richards borrowed Sigmund Freud's term "overdetermination" to refer to the multiple meanings which he believed were always simultaneously present in language. To Richards, claiming that a work has "One And Only One True Meaning" was an act of superstition (The Philosophy of Rhetoric, 39).
In 1954, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published an essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy" that would become a watershed text in the development of New Criticism. The essay argued strongly against any discussion of an author's intention, or "intended meaning." For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; the reader has no privileged access into the author's mind to determine what the author "intended" to say. The importation of meanings from outside the text was quite irrelevant, and potentially distracting. This became a central tenet of New Criticism.
Because New Critics admit no information other than that contained in the text, no proper New Critical investigation should include biographical information on the author. Furthermore, studying a passage of prose or poetry in New Critical style requires careful, exacting scrutiny of the passage itself—a rigid attitude for which the New Critics have often been reproached in later times. Nevertheless, close reading is now a fundamental tool of literary criticism. Such a reading places great emphasis on the particular over the general, paying close attention to individual words, syntax, even punctuation, and the order in which sentences and images unfold as they are read. In later times, the excruciatingly exact style of reading advocated by New Criticism has been jokingly referred to as "analyzing the daylights out of a poem before thirty stupified undergraduates."
Nevertheless, despite the numerous flaws of an exclusively New Critical approach, the New Critics were one of the most successful schools of literary theory in the admittedly brief history of literary studies. In the hundred or so years that literature has been taken seriously as an academic discipline within the university system, the New Critics are undoubtedly the most influential, and longest-lasting, of all critical schools. It was not until the politically and ideologically turbulent decades of the 1960s and 70s that the methods of the New Critics were questioned, and in the wake of their downfall, literary theory has never had as unified a system of literary analysis as it had during the time of New Criticism. Current scholars are beginning to reevaluate the methods of the New Critics in order to apply them to the broader fields of culturally and politically relevant criticism that have emerged, and it is clear that many of the ideas of the New Critics—and those of Formalists at large—are far from obsolete.

I.A. Richards

Ivor Armstrong Richards (February 26, 1893-1979) was an influential literary critic and rhetorician who is often cited as the founder of an Anglophone school of Formalist criticism that would eventually become known as the New Criticism. Richards' books, especially The Meaning of Meaning, Principles of Literary Criticism, Practical Criticism, and The Philosophy of Rhetoric, were seminal documents not only for the development of New Criticism, but also for the fields of semiotics, the philosophy of language, and linguistics. Moreover, Richards was an accomplished teacher, and most of the eminent New Critics were Richards' students at one time or another. Since the New Criticism, at least in English-speaking countries, is often thought of as the beginning of modern literary criticism, Richards is one of the founders of the contemporary study of literature in English.
Although Richards is often labeled as the father of the New Criticism, he would likely dispute the connection, as the New Criticism was largely the product of his students, who extended, re-interpreted, and in some cases misinterpreted, Richards' more general theories of language. Although Richards was a literary critic, he was trained as a philosopher, and it is important to note that his own theories of literature were primarily carried out to further a philosophical theory of language, rather than as a critical theory of literature. Richards is perhaps most famous for an anecdote he reproduced in Practical Criticism, illustrating his style of critical reading. As a classroom assignment, Richards would give undergraduates short poems, stories, or passages from longer works without indicating who the authors were. He discovered that virtually all of his students—even the most exceptional ones—were utterly at a loss to interpret, say, a sonnet of Shakespeare's, without relying on the clichés drawn from Shakespeare's biography and style. In attempting to ascertain why his students had such difficulty interpreting literary texts without the aid of biographical and historical commonplaces, Richards hit upon his method of extremely close-reading, forcing his students to pay an almost captious degree of attention to the precise wording of a text.
In addition to developing the method of close reading that would become the foundation of Formalist criticism, Richards was also deeply invested in understanding literary interpretation from the perspective of psychology and psychoanalysis. He was well-read in the psychological theory of his day, helping to further the development of psychoanalytic criticism that would ultimately surpass the New Criticism embraced by most of his students. While Richards' theories of poetic interpretation and poetic language have been surpassed, his initial impulse to ground a theory of interpretation in psychology and textual analysis has become the paradigm for the development of the curriculum of literary studies.

[حلمي كبير]

****** انا ما اغلط البنات اللي حصل بينهم سوء فهم أو أتكلم عنهم بالأصل لكن (حجوة تقرقع بجوفي) على قولة خالد عبد الجليل وهذا بصراحة وقتها .

في اعتقاد سائد وللأسف بين الأي بلس ستيودنتس ومادري ليش بصراحة ان البنت اللي تسأل أو تطلب مساعدة معناتها انها هوب لس وماتقدر تسوي شي بالدنيا وانها انسانة أتكالية ومهملة وألخ ألخ ألخ ألخ .
أانا ما انكر وجود هالفئة لكن مو كل العالم كذا, اذا انتي شايفة انك تعبتي وان مافي احد يستاهل تعبك ببساطة أحتفظي هالشي لنفسك ترا عادي.

واذا انتي اخترتي انك تساعدين (واللي مرررة واضح انه هدف الملتقى ) لك الأجر بتفريج كربة مسلم بالدنيا , ومايحتاج طبعا أفصل بهالأمر .

لكن كلمة حق تنقال
أناا مرررة أستفدت منكم وخصوصا هالفترة كانت عندي ظروف وان شالله ماتصير لأحد وتغيبت عن أكثر من محاضرة والتجمع هنا ساعدني واجد , و يعلم الله أن كل وحدة استفدت منها بشي أو حتى كان هالشي مايخصني أني أدعي لها من قلبي (ودعوة المسلم لأخيه المسلم مستجابة بإذن الله )

الله يوفقنا