Question

Passage 2 (Questions 8–14)

In the first place, to make the poem or the novel the central concern of literary criticism has appeared to mean cutting it loose from its author and from the author’s particular hopes, fears, interests, conflicts, etc. A criticism so limited may seem bloodless and hollow.

In the second place, to emphasize the work seems to involve severing it from those who actually read it, and this severance may seem drastic and therefore disastrous. After all, literature is written to be read.

The formalist critic knows as well as anyone that poems and plays and novels are written as expressions of particular personalities and are written from all sorts of motives–for money, from a desire to express oneself, for the sake of a cause, etc. Moreover, the formalist critic knows as well as anyone that literary works are merely potential until they are read–that is, that they are re-created in the minds of actual readers, who vary enormously in their capabilities, their interests, their prejudices, their ideas. But the formalist critic is concerned primarily with the work itself. Speculation on the mental processes of the author takes the critic away from the work into biography and psychology. Such studies describe the process of composition, not the structure of the thing composed.

On the other hand, exploration of the various readings which the work has received also takes the critic away from the work into psychology and the history of taste. But such work, valuable and necessary as it may be, is to be distinguished from a criticism of the work itself. The formalist critic makes two assumptions: (1) that the relevant part of the author’s intention is what the author actually put into the work–that is, the critic assumes that the author’s intention as realized is the “intention” that counts. And (2) the formalist critic assumes an ideal reader–that is, instead of focusing on the varying spectrum of possible readings, the critic attempts to find a central point of reference from which to focus on the structure of the poem or novel.

There is no ideal reader, of course. But for the purpose of focusing on the poem rather than on the critic’s own reactions, it is a defensible strategy. (The alternatives are desperate: Either we say that one person’s reading is as good as another’s, and thus deny the possibility of any standard reading, or else we take the lowest common denominator of the various readings that have been made–that is, we frankly move from literary criticism into social psychology. To propose taking a consensus of the opinions of “qualified” readers is simply to split the ideal reader into a group of ideal readers.) As consequences of the distinction just referred to, the formalist critic rejects two popular tests for literary value. The first proves the value of the work from the author’s “sincerity” (or the intensity of the author’s feelings as he or she composed it). We discount also such tests as the intensity of the critic’s reaction.

A literary work is a document and as a document can be analyzed in terms of the forces that have produced it, or it may be manipulated as a force in its own right. It mirrors the past, it may influence the future. These facts it would be futile to deny, and I know of no critic who does deny them. But the reduction of a work of literature to its causes does not constitute literary criticism; nor does an estimate of its effects. Good literature is more than effective rhetoric applied to true ideas–even if we could agree upon a philosophical yardstick for measuring the truth of ideas and even if we could find some way that transcended nose counting for determining the effectiveness of the rhetoric.

Material used in this test passage has been adapted from the following source:
C. Brooks, The formalist critic. ©1951 by The Kenyon Review.

The author of the passage probably rejects the use of biography and psychology in literary criticism because these disciplines:

1. cannot provide any information about literature.
2. assume that the author’s intention as realized is the only intention that counts.
3. take into account the entire range of possible readings of a literary work.
4. focus on the process of literary composition and not on its product.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

1. The passage author acknowledges that “such work [may be] valuable and necessary”. Implicitly, however, its value and necessity are the responsibility of biographers, historians, and psychologists, not of literary critics (see rationale D).
2. According to the passage author, it is the formalist critic for whom the intention as realized–i.e., the finished work–is the only relevant consideration. Conversely, it is the proper role of biography and psychology to consider the intention within the author’s mind.
3. The passage asserts that one alternative to an analysis of the poem itself is that “we take the lowest common denominator of the various readings that have been made–that is, we frankly move from literary criticism into social psychology”. This assertion does not reject psychology (biography is not at issue in this regard) because it might study the effects of literature on readers; it rejects this psychological approach for critics because it “does not constitute literary criticism”.
4. To use biography in literary criticism would be to consider facts about an author’s life; to use psychology would be to speculate about the inner life of an author or of those who have commented on a literary work. The passage author contends that the application of either of these disciplines to an author is inappropriate for a literary critic because both “describe the process of composition, not the structure of the thing composed”. The argument against a critic’s using psychology to explore the various ways that readers have understood a work is that this investigation, too, “is to be distinguished from a criticism of the work itself”.

I thought B "assume that the author’s intention as realized is the only intention that counts." was the correct answer because in the passage it literally states that the authors intention REALIZED intention is the only intention that counts. The explanation given by AAMC doesnt really make much sense to me.

Answer 1

in front of the pack, to make the sonnet or the novel the focal worry of scholarly analysis has seemed to mean cutting it free from its creator and from the creator's specific expectations, fears, interests, clashes, and so on. An analysis so constrained may appear to be bloodless and empty.

In the runner up, to stress the work appears to include cutting off it from the individuals who really read it, and this severance may appear to be radical and in this manner sad. All things considered, writing is composed to be perused.

The formalist pundit knows just as anybody that sonnets and plays and books are composed as articulations of specific characters and are composed from a wide range of intentions in cash, from a longing to communicate, for a reason, and so forth. In addition, the formalist pundit knows just as anybody that artistic works are only potential until they are perused that will be, that they are re-made in the brains of real perusers, who change hugely in their abilities, their inclinations, their preferences, their thoughts. Be that as it may, the formalist pundit is concerned basically with the work itself. Theory on the psychological procedures of the creator removes the pundit from the work into account and brain research. Such examinations portray the procedure of sythesis, not the structure of the thing created.

Then again, investigation of the different readings which the work has gotten likewise removes the pundit from the work into brain research and the historical backdrop of taste. However, such work, important and fundamental as it might be, is to be recognized from an analysis of the work itself. The formalist pundit makes two presumptions: (1) that the important piece of the creator's expectation is the thing that the creator really put into the work–that is, the pundit accept that the creator's intention as realized is the "aim" that matters. Furthermore, (2) the formalist pundit accept a perfect peruser that is, rather than concentrating on the shifting range of potential readings, the pundit endeavors to locate a main issue of reference from which to concentrate on the structure of the sonnet or novel.

There is no perfect peruser, obviously. In any case, to concentrate on the sonnet as opposed to on the pundit's own responses, it is a faultless technique. (The choices are frantic: Either we state that one individual's perusing is tantamount to another's, and in this manner prevent the chance from claiming any standard perusing, or else we take the most minimized shared factor of the different readings that have been made–that is, we honestly move from artistic analysis into social brain research. To propose taking an agreement of the assessments of "qualified" perusers is essentially to part the perfect peruser into a gathering of perfect perusers.) As outcomes