Important Literary Criticism Theories

Why This Matters

When you encounter a passage from Beowulf, a Chaucer tale, or a Shakespeare sonnet on your exam, you're not just being asked to identify literary devices—you're being tested on how different critical lenses reveal different meanings in the same text. These theories are the tools scholars use to unlock texts, and understanding them transforms you from a passive reader into an active interpreter. Whether an FRQ asks you to analyze power dynamics, examine linguistic structure, or consider historical context, knowing which theoretical framework applies gives you a clear argumentative strategy.

Think of these theories as falling into three camps: text-focused approaches that treat the work as a self-contained object, context-focused approaches that connect literature to history, economics, and identity, and meaning-focused approaches that question how interpretation itself works. Don't just memorize definitions—know what questions each theory asks and which British texts best illustrate its principles. When you can explain why a Marxist reading of a medieval text differs from a feminist one, you're thinking like a literary scholar.

---

Text-Centered Approaches

These theories treat the literary work as an autonomous object worthy of study on its own terms. The text is a closed system—meaning emerges from its internal structures, not from the author's biography or the reader's feelings.

New Criticism

• Close reading is the core method—this approach demands careful attention to word choice, imagery, and formal elements without importing external information about the author or era
• Ambiguity and paradox are features, not flaws—New Critics argue that the tension between multiple meanings creates literary richness, making texts like metaphysical poetry ideal for this lens
• The "intentional fallacy" warns against author-hunting—what the writer meant matters less than what the text actually does, freeing you to focus entirely on the words on the page

Formalism

• Form and structure take priority over content—Formalists examine how meter, rhyme scheme, and narrative architecture create meaning, making this approach essential for poetry analysis
• Literary devices are the building blocks of interpretation—imagery, symbolism, and syntax aren't decorative but functional, each contributing to the work's unified effect
• Literature is autonomous art—like New Criticism, Formalism rejects biographical and historical context, treating the text as a self-sufficient aesthetic object

Structuralism

• Literature operates as a system of signs and codes—drawing from linguistics, Structuralists analyze how language conventions and narrative patterns generate meaning across texts
• Universal structures underlie all storytelling—this approach seeks recurring patterns (hero's journey, binary oppositions) that appear whether you're reading Beowulf or a Victorian novel
• The focus is on langue (the system) over parole (individual expression)—Structuralism cares less about what makes a text unique and more about what connects it to broader literary conventions

---

Context-Centered Approaches

These theories insist that literature cannot be understood in isolation. Texts emerge from specific historical moments, economic systems, and social structures—and they either reinforce or challenge those conditions.

Historicism

• Historical and cultural context shapes meaning—you cannot fully interpret a medieval allegory or Restoration comedy without understanding the period's religious beliefs, political tensions, and social norms
• Literature reflects and responds to its moment—texts are not timeless artifacts but products of specific circumstances, from the Black Death's influence on late medieval writing to the English Civil War's impact on Milton
• The relationship between text and history flows both ways—literature doesn't just mirror events; it participates in shaping ideologies and collective memory

Marxist Criticism

• Class struggle and economic power are central concerns—this lens examines how texts represent (or obscure) the conflicts between social classes, from feudal lords and peasants to industrial capitalists and workers
• Ideology operates through literature—Marxist critics ask whose interests a text serves, revealing how narratives can naturalize inequality or, alternatively, expose exploitation
• Material conditions shape artistic production—the economics of patronage, publishing, and literacy determine what gets written and who gets to read it, making this approach valuable for understanding why certain voices dominate the canon

Feminist Criticism

• Gender roles and power dynamics are objects of analysis—this approach investigates how texts construct femininity and masculinity, often revealing assumptions that earlier readers took for granted
• Women's voices and experiences deserve recovery—Feminist critics challenge male-centric canons by rediscovering forgotten women writers and reexamining how canonical texts represent female characters
• Representation both reflects and shapes reality—how literature portrays women influences societal attitudes, making texts like conduct books or marriage plots sites of ideological negotiation

Psychoanalytic Criticism

• The unconscious mind drives characters and narratives—drawing primarily from Freud and Lacan, this approach interprets desires, fears, and conflicts that characters (and sometimes authors) don't consciously acknowledge
• Symbols and dreams reveal hidden meanings—Psychoanalytic critics treat literary images the way analysts treat dream content, uncovering latent significance beneath manifest surfaces
• Literature illuminates universal psychological truths—from Oedipal dynamics to the formation of identity, texts become case studies in human mental life, making this lens powerful for character-driven analysis

---

Meaning-Centered Approaches

These theories question the very process of interpretation. Where does meaning come from? Is it stable or shifting? Does it reside in the text, the reader, or somewhere in between?

Reader-Response Criticism

• The reader actively creates meaning—interpretation isn't extraction but construction; you bring your experiences, emotions, and cultural background to every text you encounter
• No two readings are identical—because readers differ, the "same" text produces different meanings for different audiences, challenging the idea of a single correct interpretation
• The reading process itself becomes the object of study—Reader-Response critics examine how texts guide, manipulate, or leave open the reader's interpretive activity, making this approach useful for analyzing how British authors engage their audiences

Post-Structuralism

• Meaning is unstable and always deferred—rejecting Structuralism's faith in fixed systems, Post-Structuralists argue that language constantly slips, making definitive interpretation impossible
• Context, culture, and power shape what texts can mean—interpretation is never neutral; it occurs within institutions and ideologies that privilege certain readings over others
• Binary oppositions structure (and limit) thought—Post-Structuralism exposes how categories like nature/culture or reason/emotion organize meaning while concealing their own arbitrariness

Deconstruction

• Texts contain internal contradictions that undermine their apparent meanings—associated with Derrida, Deconstruction reveals how a text's logic works against itself, destabilizing what seems straightforward
• Binary oppositions are constructed, not natural—categories like good/evil or speech/writing depend on each other and can be reversed or collapsed through careful reading
• No final or authoritative interpretation exists—Deconstruction doesn't replace one meaning with another but shows how all meanings remain provisional and contestable

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two theories both reject authorial biography and historical context but differ in their emphasis on interpretive tension versus structural patterns?

2. If an FRQ asks you to analyze how a medieval text reflects the economic conditions of its time, which theoretical approach would be most appropriate—and what key concepts would you use?

3. Compare and contrast Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: what does each assume about the stability of meaning, and how would each approach a binary opposition like "civilization vs. wilderness" in a text?

4. A question asks how a 17th-century poem constructs femininity and challenges patriarchal assumptions. Which critical lens applies, and what specific elements of the text would you examine?

5. Reader-Response Criticism and Deconstruction both question fixed meaning. How do their explanations for interpretive instability differ, and which would you choose to analyze a text with an ambiguous ending?