R(onald) S(almon) Crane Criticism
R. S. Crane (1886–1967) was a seminal American literary critic and a pivotal figure in the development of pluralist criticism. He is renowned for advocating a critical approach that embraces multiple perspectives, asserting that no single critical language can claim dominion over the truth about literature. This pluralistic view allows for literature to be appreciated both as an autonomous aesthetic entity and as a reflection of its contextual surroundings. Crane's methodology is grounded in Aristotelian principles, focusing on understanding literature as a representation of human experience, exploring the human emotions and expectations elicited by the text. His approach is a cornerstone of the Neo-Aristotelian movement, or "Chicago Critics," which includes other notable figures such as Wayne C. Booth and Elder Olson.
Crane's influential works, The Language of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry and The Idea of the Humanities and Other Essays Critical and Historical, encapsulate the core tenets of Chicago criticism. These texts skillfully defend pluralistic criticism and have significantly impacted scholars and theorists, even among those who might not align with his views. Despite some critics, such as Randall Jarrell, questioning the practicality of Crane's neo-Aristotelianism, his work remains influential in the field. The Languages of Criticism highlights Crane's scholarly rigor and his call for revolutionary changes in literary criticism. Furthermore, Northrop Frye supports Crane’s unbiased reading of poetry, although with some reservations. Lawrence Lipking's essay, R. S. Crane and 'The Idea of the Humanities', acknowledges Crane’s unconventional influence, while Bert O. States critiques his dismissal of modern critical methodologies in favor of historical approaches. Overall, Crane's contributions remain vital to understanding the evolution of literary criticism.
Contents
-
Aristotle Alive!
(summary)
In the following essay, Randall Jarrell critiques R. S. Crane's promotion of a neo-Aristotelian school of criticism, acknowledging Crane's persuasive rhetoric while expressing skepticism about its practicality and lamenting its lack of engagement with the imaginative and insightful elements present in contemporary criticism.
-
The Languages of Criticism
(summary)
The critic examines R. S. Crane's work "The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry," highlighting his pluralist approach to criticism, his preference for analyzing poems as organic wholes, and his desire for literary criticism to undergo revolutions akin to other disciplines, while critiquing the complexity of Crane's language and his neglect of certain critical traditions.
-
Content with the Form
(summary)
In the following essay, Northrop Frye examines R. S. Crane's critical methodology, arguing that Crane's focus on the unbiased reading of poetry reestablishes the essential task of literary criticism, despite Frye's reservations about Crane's distinction between didactic and mimetic poetry.
-
R. S. Crane and 'The Idea of the Humanities'
(summary)
In the following essay, Lipking examines R. S. Crane's contribution to the humanities, highlighting his diverse scholarly achievements and rigorous analytical methods, while critiquing his prose style and limitations in addressing esoteric elements, ultimately recognizing Crane's significant yet unconventional influence on literary criticism and the history of ideas.
-
The Idea of the Humanities
(summary)
In the following essay, Bert O. States critiques R. S. Crane's criticism of dialectical criticism and New Criticism, arguing that Crane's dismissal of general principles in criticism overlooks the methodological value such principles can provide, and notes Crane's tendency to favor historical literary criticism over modern movements, often with a nostalgic bias.