History

In my practical criticism class, we discussed the concept of "New Criticism." Although it is hardly new anymore, it emerged in the thirties, the methods are still practiced. Even though I (as nearly all people) was trained to read in that fashion, two points boggle me. One: everything the reader needs to know about the content of the text is already in the text, whether the author intended it to be or not. Two: historical context may be considered, but should not effect the way the reader interprets the literature. I had a hard time finding these two elements possible, and I am thoroughly impressed by the reasoning behind this science. New critics believe that a text must be strictly read for content and that any moral to the story is irrelevant. They wanted the reader to be wary of history due to the fact that history tends to be distorted through individual perception, and texts possess the ability to actually alter the way events are perceived. Over time entire occurrences can be morphed into something else entirely. The entire concept baffles me, even though I see it all the time. It is the seemingly simple matter of people seeing what they want to see, and projecting that image onto and into something else.