Intentional fallacy and Affective fallacy

 

The terms intentional fallacy and affective fallacy are both concepts central to the New Criticism movement in literary theory. Coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their influential essay The Intentional Fallacy (1946), these terms challenge common assumptions about the role of the author's intentions and the reader's emotional responses in the interpretation of literary works.

Intentional Fallacy:

The intentional fallacy refers to the mistaken belief that the author's intention or biography should be considered when interpreting a literary work. New Critics argued that focusing on the author's intentions leads to subjective interpretations that may not accurately reflect the meaning or significance of the text itself. Instead, they advocated for a method of close reading that prioritized the examination of the text's formal elements, such as language, structure, imagery, and symbolism.

New Critics argued that the meaning of a literary work should be derived solely from the text itself, rather than from the author's intentions or historical context. They believed that the text possesses its own autonomous meaning, independent of the author's conscious intentions or personal experiences.

By disregarding the author's intentions, New Critics aimed to achieve a more objective and systematic approach to literary analysis. They sought to uncover the inherent complexities and ambiguities of the text through rigorous examination of its formal qualities.

The intentional fallacy critiques biographical approaches to literary criticism, which attempt to draw connections between the author's life and work. New Critics argued that such approaches often lead to speculative and reductive interpretations that overlook the text's intrinsic qualities.

Affective Fallacy:

The affective fallacy refers to the mistaken belief that the reader's emotional response to a literary work should determine its meaning or value. New Critics argued that subjective emotional reactions are not reliable indicators of a text's aesthetic merit or interpretive significance.

New Critics rejected the idea that a reader's emotional response to a text could provide insight into its inherent qualities or artistic value. They argued that critical judgment should be based on reasoned analysis rather than subjective feelings or personal preferences.

The affective fallacy highlights the distinction between the reader's personal experience of a text and the critical interpretation of its meaning. New Critics believed that the latter should be based on careful examination of the text's formal features and linguistic devices, rather than on the reader's emotional reactions.

Like the intentional fallacy, the affective fallacy underscores the importance of formal analysis in literary criticism. New Critics advocated for a method of close reading that focused on the text's structural and stylistic elements, rather than on extraneous factors such as the reader's emotional responses or the author's intentions.