Graduation Date
1983
Document Type
Thesis
Program
Other
Committee Chair Name
Dr. Peter H. Kunkel
Committee Chair Affiliation
Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty or Staff
Second Committee Member Name
Suzanne Larson
Third Committee Member Name
David Herman
Keywords
Art
Subject Categories
Art
Abstract
The first chapter of the project consists of an examination of the existing schools of literary criticism. For ease in analysis, the various schools are analyzed according to the amount of outside research engaged in by the critic, that is, research which deals with elements extrinsic to the actual text itself. At one extreme is new criticism, which argues that one need not indulge in any outside research, but simply should focus on the literature itself. At the other extreme is historical criticism, which insists that a complete knowledge of the author and the times in which the author wrote is essential to reaching a complete understanding of the work. The first section of the project briefly defines and examines those two critical schools and all the approaches that lie between them: sociological, psychological, mythical, rhetorical, moral and dramatistic. The examination of the various approaches includes a definition of the precepts of each school and the amplification of these precepts.
In the second chapter of the project, a new method of literary criticism, holistic criticism, is created. It attempts to combine elements from the existing schools to form a new approach, freeing the interpreter from the ob- vious limitations of using any one school exclusively. There already exist two critical approaches, the eclectic and synthesis approaches, which are similar to my holistic 6 approach. But the basic difference between holistic criticism and what these two alternative approaches suggest is an important one. The synthesis and eclectic approaches to literary criticism simply instruct the critic to apply what- ever critical approach seems appropriate to the specific piece of literature being studied, also suggesting that a blending of approaches might be advantageous. The problem with these approaches is that they demand that the interpreter have an understanding of all the existing critical approaches to literature. This may be an honorable ideal, but the novice interpreter may never get to the actual act of interpreting if burdened with the extensive research involved in gaining an understanding of all the existing critical approaches. In Chapter Two, I have rearranged and synthesized the existing critical approaches, providing a centrality of necessary questions for an an oral interpreter. Holistic criticism, as opposed to eclectic criticism, offers the oral interpreter a specific set of critical criteria, centralizing the various assumptions offered by the numerous critical frameworks into a workable, single approach. The final section of the project consists of an oral interpretation script suited for performance, which acts as a practical application of the critical framework developed in the second chapter. The script is based on the premise that Shakespeare has come back from the dead and is featured as guest lecturer in an Oral Interpretation class. His lecture focuses on providing the interpreter with a critical framework for analyzing his works. He then moves through the four areas of exploration which are the basis of holistic criticism, using his own Richard III as a working example for practical application of the new critical framework. The focus in this final section of the project is on changing the cold, secondary pieces of information an interpreter would uncover in researching the literature using the holistic approach, into an alive, entertaining and informative oral interpretation script suited for performance.
Recommended Citation
Shilstone, Mark, "Holistic Criticism: The Development of a New Framework for Literary Criticism" (1983). Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects. 2410.
https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/2410