Talk:Biographical criticism

You've Come A Long Way, Baby

This is to thank all those who have contributed to the development of this page. Biographical criticism is, of course, an essential and important dimension of any fully informed literary criticism, and I was shocked when I first learned that there was no wikipedia entry on the topic. --BenJonson (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnson's Lives of the Poets ref

It doesn't seem to me that the type of biographical criticism this article is about applies to Johnson's Lives of the Poets. Johnson actually examines the author's statements about their own lives, according to the review cited. I don't see anywhere that he criticises their work based on biographical details. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted several references, which apparently weren't read by whoever inserted them. There is a great confusion here of biographical criticism with the literary criticism of the biography genre. Boswell did not use "biographical criticism," he laid out a critical method of writing biography, as anyone who has actually read his Life of Johnson would know. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't delete material and references like this. If you doubt the statement about Johnson, then place a fact tag on it. If you want to question the editor who inserted the reference, then simply contact him/her instead of casting aspersions on them.Smatprt (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mish-mash of poorly understood sources. The reference is not to the type of biographical criticism this article is about, and Johnson did not do that type of biographical criticism. You are basing the statement that Johnson did that type of criticism on a review that discusses biographical criticism as something that is clearly not what this article is about. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a description of Johnson's "biographical criticism": When it came to biography, Johnson disagreed with Plutarch's use of biography to praise and to teach morality. Instead, Johnson believed in portraying the biographical subjects accurately and including any negative aspects of their lives. Because his insistence on accuracy in biography was little short of revolutionary, Johnson had to struggle against a society that was unwilling to accept biographical details that could be viewed as tarnishing a reputation; this became the subject of Rambler 60. Furthermore, Johnson believed that biography should not be limited to the most famous and that the lives of lesser individuals, too, were significant; thus in his Lives of the Poets he chose both great and lesser poets. In all his biographies he insisted on including what others would have considered trivial details to fully describe the lives of his subjects.

As you can see, it is quite different from the topic of this article, and in fact, this article should be rewritten to include the common understanding of what is meant by the term, that is, a critical theory of biographical works. You might start by reading Keepers of the Flame: literary estates and the rise of biography by Ian Hamilton, which I just finished. I think you'd find it very interesting, especially the early biographers such as Izaak Walton, who wrote the first literary biography of John Doone without mentioning his poetry. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the bottom line is that we have a reliable source that says the following "Samuel Johnson's Lives of the Poets (1779–81) was the first thorough-going exercise in biographical criticism, the attempt to relate a writer's background and life to his works." That is exactly what this article is about. You really need to refrain from deciding for yourself when a source is right or wrong. A)That is not up to you (or any editor) to decide; and b) Wikipedia is not here to decide "the truth" - but rather to share what reliable sources have to say.Smatprt (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Peripatetics and "Biographical Criticism"

Because, dear Smatprt, if you read the page in the source, you will see that the Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) did not engage in biographical criticism as a school of criticism. What they did was to try to find biographical information from the literary work, then later critics used that biographical speculation as if it were an external source to explain that same literary work. The point of that section is to point out the circularity of their method, not that they engaged in "biographical criticism" as a school of criticism. IOW, they weren't "show[ing] the relationship between authors lives and their works of literature" (as per the definition given in note 1), they were reading the work of literature to find something about the author's life, which speculation was then later used by others to "show the relationship between authors lives and their works of literature". Do you see the difference? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is from WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

Instead of bull-doggedly trying to insert your opinion into this article, why don't you do some actual research and try to make it into a comprehensive treatment of the subject? The definition is still wrong, but instead of trying to make it up the way you seem to be doing in the hope that eventually you'll stumble upon the right one, I'm waiting until I do some research, at a real library, using a real book. One of my ADD problems (and the reason why it takes me forever to finish a project) is that I get interested in the topic itself instead of getting caught up in how the idea can advance my POV. That's what's happened in this case (probably because I've been reading that book I recommended as well as a biography of Jonson) and I've got a list of references to consult before I make any major changes. In the mean time, it would help immensely if you could refrain from adding wrong and misleading edits and/or do some actual research instead of settling for the Google results that appeal to you. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I recast the sentence in question to avoid any interpretation, merely stating the facts as quoted in the RS. It's good information that can be used in this article, so hopefully my rewrite will not offend. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from simply deleting material, but, if you see a problem, try rewriting it instead.Smatprt (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can park it there for the time being. It could be used as an example of the abuse of the technique. I went to the library today and took several pages of notes and checked out some references, so I'll be making some edits in the near future.

Any deleted material is always available in the article history, as you know, and it's an abuse of other editors' time to insert material and expect them to rewrite it for you. It's especially an abuse to restore the material or a non-RS with the remark "if you want to challenge them, go to RS noticeboard". As WP:VERIFY states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It would be much more efficient if you would learn to edit with a NPOV and avoid OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you go again with the accusations. Frankly, you are making little sense and appearing to be carrying on your vendetta again. What a shame. Smatprt (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

“Thanks for keeping track of this, Stephen. Its important to keep careful records. Tom, unfortunately, has no idea where this whole thing is going, so he keeps fighting battles that he cannot win.” --BenJonson (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Tom Reedy (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone who poo-poos conspiracies, you certainly seem to see them everywhere! :) Roger was merely beating his well-worn drum that Oxfordianism is on the rise and (ultimately) you and all stratfordians will lose the battle. You've heard him espouse that so often, that I am surprised you took it any other way.

Ah, yes, I know how important Roger thinks it is for you to record my Wikipedia deletions and reverts because it will make a nice sidebar when the history of the Oxfordians' triumph is written. And I never said I don't believe that conspiracies exist; obviously when two people or more collude to try to make something happen, that meets the technical definition of the term. Unfortunately, the very mindset of most conspirators guarantees that they have little idea, if any, how little their views are shared by others, which causes them to ignore the law of unintended consequences (if they ever knew it). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Biographical Criticism

Tom, I fear you are really going off on a tangent or have somehow become confused about this. You left this on my talk page "Biographical criticism is the literary theory of biography. I've also found material on it as per the definition given at Biographical criticism, but it seems to be a minority view among academic critics." While I suppose that the term might be used (confusedly) in numerous ways, this article is about the term as defined in the article, which is well sourced and is the common definition (not a minority one). I've previously supplied numerous academic references and links (as have you) attesting to this. And here is a short refresher course for you from other academics: [[1]]. And another [[2]], and another (scroll down to "Divisions of Literary Criticism" [[3]]. Smatprt (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) You also might take this short quiz: [[4]] and see how you rate.Smatprt (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and the soource below, although the first one I had looked at previously and found it not to be very helpful. The trouble is that I haven't been able to find very many clear-cut discussions of biographical criticism. None of the major critical encyclopedias have a section on it, and most mentions I've found are only made en passant in discussing some other topic. It seems to me to be a division of historical criticism in the sense that it is used in this article, and to be tied up with intentionalism--that is, that the work possesses a meaning that the author alone gives it. Oh, and I scored 100% on that quiz, which surprised me because I'm not a fan of critical theories; I'm more into scholarship. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh - and next time you are at the library, check the long chapter on Biographical Criticism in "A companion to Faulkner studies" (2004) by Charles A. Peek and Robert W. Hamblin. I think it might help with your confusion. Smatprt (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also - I have found the term often interchangeable with (which is really isn't, but close) with "Historical-Biographical Criticism" (here for example [[5]]), so in your search you might look for the longer term. Often, like in the link I just listed, they then break it down further in the more detailed chapter or section. Smatprt (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we are not dealing with the de Verean stuff, I think one should apply the usual rigorous standards for sourcing to RS, i.e. works with an academic impress. The googled source we are now given, 'Mark Lund, Carver Center for the Arts and Technology, Baltimore County Public Schools, 1996,' is simply not up to scracth. All it says is that:

'Biographical criticism investigates the life of an author using primary texts, such as letters, diaries, and other documents, that might reveal the experiences, thoughts, and feelings that led to the creation of a literary work.'

I.e. a cliché, that has nothing to do with the de Verean/SAQ game, which does not involve the use of primary texts, letters, diaries, and other documents, to reveal the sources that might have lead to the creation of a literary work.' If one persists in trying to jerryrig a page to make the de Verean practice of using 'primary sources' to prove the ascribed author didn't write the works associated with him, but that one can deduce from those works, another author, with experiences, thoughts and feelings deducible from the text to clarify his secret life, well and good. I am not going to accept a link to this page on the SAQ page unless a first rate academic source4 defines 'biographical criticism' in this peculiar sense.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't express my disappointment that you changed "biological" to "biographical". I know it was too much to hope for, but I was waiting to see when--if ever--either of the other editors discovered it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I lost patience. I'd been waiting myself for someone over there to notice, as proof they actually read what they edit, but like the SAQ page, it appears they don't. Happy Easter, Tom.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Method employed in Shakespeare studies?

Smatprt, can you quote us some passages that indicate that biographical criticism is used to analyze Shakespeare's biography to show the relationship between his life and his work? The few pages of the reference available on Google books demonstrate the exact opposite, i.e. that the works (in this case the sonnets) are used to speculate about his biography. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I think the problem here stems from your very narrow definition of "Biographical Criticism" and the equally narrow scope you seem to want to limit this article to. Biographical Criticism in relation to Shakespeare studies "to show the relationship between his life and his work" has been used for over 100 years, from Malone on down to Rowse. I think you need to look at the bigger picture in terms of scope and take into account the relationship between Biographical Criticism, Historical Criticism and Literary Biograph, how they overlap, how the method is often circular and far-reaching, and yes, why for those very reasons the method is often criticized, especially by adherents of New criticism. All of this information should be in the article (and if it is, one would think that it might actually be a very interesting and informative piece!) Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a couple of passages from the Schiffer essays (2000 edition) I referenced that show different, though related, applications of Biographical Criticism. The second one is pretty long, but touches on everyone from Rowse to Schoenbaum to Sobran, so I included several excerpts. If you want to read the sections in their entirety, I'm sure you have access to them:

• p 395: (discussing unlocking "the key" to understanding Shakespeare's Sonnets) "This key is "perfect" because it is found within the text itself - thus keeping the text untainted by outside forces - and, following Edward Dowden's biographical criticism, it perfectly reveals how the Sonnets were not tangential to but rather "essential to Shakespeare's perfection as an artist" and uncovering the name and the "profession," boy actor, of the beloved.

• p 42: "Yes some forms of the old biographical criticism have persisted. For example, in 1964 Leslie Hotson came forth with the last significant "new" theory about the young friend: that he was William Hatcliffe....

• p 42: "The flaw in evidential logic that Schoenbaum describes is a frequent problem in biographical criticism. As we have seen, A. L. Rowse continued until his recent death to insist on identifying Emilia Bassano Lanier as the dark lady...Duncan-Jones offers extensive support for Pembroke's identity as the young friend. The anti-Stratfordians, meanwhile, continue to use the Sonnets to make the case for their favorite authorship candidates. Most recently, Joseph Sobran presented evidence..."

I think what you also have to remember is that numerous sources and quotes, including the RS ones above, have been supplied that show how various scholars and critics have defined and referenced "Biographical Criticism". It's really not our place to interpret it, or to simply include what we agree with, but rather to simply report what these resources are on record as having said. Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to ensure that the most up-to-date scholarship is presented, and that out-of-date ideas be presented as such. I have Dowden, and I can guarantee you that nobody thinks the way he did; in fact, his book was the last great hurrah of biographical projection, which is a more accurate term for the type of "criticism" described. I'm not questioning the source as unreliable, but I insist that its depiction of biographical criticism be presented accurately, and judging from the excerpts you've supplied, it appears to present it as an out-of-date and thoroughly discredited method for Shakespeare studies.

And the problem doesn't stem from my "narrow scope;" the problem stems from the scarcity of modern sources for the topic. As I said earlier, I got notes and books on Saturday; I just haven't had time to organize them yet, but Wikipedia is ever patient. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)