In his essay The Formalist Critics, Cleanth Brooks lays out and defends the critical principles of what came to be known as the New Criticism. This school of thought became the dominant mode of literary study in American universities from the 1940s through the late 1960s. Brooks, influenced by I. A. Richards and his own extensive critical practice, uses this piece to address common misunderstandings and objections to the formalist method, rather than merely restating its basic principles.
At the outset, Brooks affirms some key articles of faith to which he subscribes. First, he claims that literary criticism is primarily a description and evaluation of its object — the literary work itself. Criticism, in his view, should be centrally concerned with the unity of a work: the manner in which its parts fit together to form a coherent whole. Brooks argues that the formal relations in a work of literature surpass logical relations, implying that literature operates through complex structures that involve metaphor, symbolism, and emotional resonance rather than pure rationality. He asserts that form and content in literature are inseparable; the form of a work is itself its meaning. Thus, literature is fundamentally metaphorical and symbolic. He also emphasizes that universality in literature arises not through abstraction but through the concrete and particular details embedded in the text. Additionally, Brooks clarifies that literature is not a substitute for religion nor is its purpose to preach morality, even though it deals with moral issues. Finally, he notes that the principles of criticism define its area of operation but do not provide a strict method for carrying out criticism.
Brooks then moves on to respond to persistent criticisms of the formalist approach. The first objection he tackles is the notion that focusing on the work itself cuts it off from its author and the life experiences that inform it. Such a severance, critics argue, leads to a bloodless and hollow understanding of literature. Brooks acknowledges this concern and notes that many scholars, particularly those in graduate schools, continue to focus heavily on biographical contexts, studying authors through letters, diaries, and other personal documents. Similarly, popular culture, with its emphasis on literary gossip, tends to favor biographical over textual analysis. Even aspiring writers, struggling with their own creative processes, may find the formalist focus too detached.
The second major objection he addresses is that emphasizing the literary work seems to ignore its readers. Literature, critics argue, is written to be read, and the response of readers is essential to understanding a work’s value and meaning. Furthermore, the historical context and audience expectations are said to condition a literary work’s form and content. Brooks acknowledges that literature is rooted in history and that audience reception does play a role. Yet, he argues that while biography and historical context are important and worthy fields of inquiry, they must be distinguished from the criticism of the literary work itself.
Brooks insists that distinctions are necessary and inevitable. Though human experience may indeed be a seamless whole, criticism requires isolating the work for focused analysis. The formalist critic fully understands that works are created by human beings with various motives and that readers bring different capacities and biases to their reading experiences. Nevertheless, the formalist critic’s primary concern remains the work itself — its internal structure, its use of language, its symbolic patterns.
Brooks discusses the implications of two key assumptions that formalist critics make. First, they assume that the relevant part of an author’s intention is what has been successfully embedded in the work, not necessarily what the author consciously intended or remembers intending. Second, the formalist critic assumes an ideal reader — a conceptual figure who reads the work without personal prejudice and is capable of perceiving its structure accurately. Brooks acknowledges that no real reader perfectly matches this ideal, but he maintains that positing such a reader is a necessary critical strategy. Without it, criticism would either descend into complete relativism, where all readings are equally valid, or shift into sociology and psychology by studying the history of taste or mass opinion.
Brooks addresses another criticism: that the critic arrogantly assumes his reading is the "ideal" one. While he admits this danger, he contends that striving toward the ideal is still essential. Critics must constantly check themselves, aware of their limitations, but they must nevertheless attempt to focus on the work rather than their personal reactions.
He critiques two popular but, in his view, inadequate tests for literary value. The first is the sincerity or emotional intensity of the author during composition. Brooks dismisses the idea that strong feelings during writing guarantee a work’s worth. He illustrates this with examples like Ernest Hemingway’s personal assessment of his own novel, which, regardless of his feelings, might not align with critical judgment. Likewise, he mocks A. E. Housman’s suggestion that a good poem could be judged by the physical bristling of one’s beard upon reading it. Such subjective responses may say something about the reader but not about the work itself.
Brooks stresses that the formalist critic does not deny the humanity of writers or readers. Emotional engagement is inevitable and important. However, detailed descriptions of a critic’s personal emotions do little to help another reader understand the work’s structure. Criticism, therefore, must aim to illuminate the internal relations within the text.
He then discusses whether criticism should always be detached and analytical. Brooks argues that the critic’s approach must vary depending on the context and the audience. Critics are often involved in tasks beyond pure criticism, such as promoting new writers, teaching undergraduates, or writing accessible book reviews. In such situations, the use of anecdotes, metaphors, personal enthusiasm, and even humor may be perfectly legitimate. Nonetheless, Brooks insists that a critic must understand what his specific job is when engaging in criticism proper: the analysis of the work itself.
Brooks acknowledges the value of lively, human criticism but warns that calls for more “amateur” and “brighter” criticism often lead to a decline into shallow commentary and gossip. He points to the popularity of amateurish, gossipy criticism in book clubs and literary magazines as evidence of the risks involved.
Regarding the critic’s relationship to the creative artist, Brooks takes a modest view. Critics can offer only limited help to writers, and even then, their help is largely negative — they can identify failures but cannot offer a formula for success. Literature cannot be created by following a formula. Creative talent must find its own way, though being in contact with healthy criticism can be beneficial for writers. Nevertheless, there are many cases where the best advice to an artist might be to ignore criticism altogether or seek inspiration elsewhere.
Brooks acknowledges that the kind of practical, intense help that Ezra Pound offered to contemporary writers is extremely valuable. However, he notes that this type of assistance involves more than criticism — it also requires personal understanding of the writer, the ability to inspire, and the offering of positive suggestions — things that go beyond the formalist’s focus on the text itself.
Finally, Brooks reaffirms that while literature reflects historical forces and can influence the future, reducing a literary work merely to its causes or effects is not the same as literary criticism. Good literature is more than just effective rhetoric aimed at advancing true ideas. Even if philosophical agreement could be reached about what is true, literature remains more complex than mere delivery systems for ideology. In other words, a literary work must be appreciated for the intricate way it uses language and form to create meaning.
In conclusion, Brooks outlines a vision of literary criticism centered on the close analysis of the work itself. While acknowledging the importance of biography, psychology, history, and reader response, he maintains that these areas are distinct from true literary criticism. For Brooks, the critic’s primary responsibility is to study the internal structure of a work and reveal how its parts contribute to a unified whole. By maintaining this focus, criticism retains its specific and valuable function in the study of literature.
---
- Cleanth Brooks
- The Formalist Critics
- Formalist Criticism
- New Criticism
- Principles of New Criticism
- Literary Criticism
- Literary Theory
- American Critics
- Close Reading
- Objective Criticism
- Intrinsic Criticism
- New Critics Movement
- Twentieth Century Literary Criticism
- English Literature Notes
- Literary Theory Notes
- UGC NET English Literature
- MA English Literature
- Literary Criticism for Students
- Literary Theory for Beginners
- BA English Literature Syllabus
- Literature Exam Preparation
- English Honours Notes
- Study Guide for Literature
- Literary Concepts Explained
- University English Course
- Detailed Literary Summaries
- Academic Writing in Literature
- What is New Criticism?
- Importance of Formalism
- Summary of The Formalist Critics
- Formalist Critics Simplified
- Literary Devices Explained
- How to Analyze a Poem
- Objective Approach in Literature
- Poetry Analysis Techniques
- Deep Reading of Literature
- Best Critics in English Literature
- Top Literary Criticism Theories
- Famous Literary Theories Explained
- Literature Blog
- English Literature Blog
- Best Literature Blogs 2025
- Top Literary Analysis Blogs
- Love for Literature
- Discover Literary Criticism
- Learn English Literature
- How to Read Poetry
- Book Reviews and Literary Analysis
- Exploring Literature Deeply
- Passion for Literature
- Finding Beauty in Words
- Poetry Lovers Community
- For the Love of Reading
- Literary Imagination
- Journey Through Literature
- Language and Literature
- T.S. Eliot Criticism
- John Crowe Ransom
- I.A. Richards
- R.P. Blackmur
- Allen Tate
- Literary Theorists
- Modernist Critics
- American Literary Criticism
- Literary Trends 2025
- Best Literary Works to Read 2025
- Must Read for Literature Students 2025
- Top Literary Criticism Books 2025
.png)
0 Comments