Integrating an Intertextuality and Postcolonial Study of American Transcendentalist Literature

As Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden, “Authors, more than kings, exert influence on mankind” (73). When Thoreau published these words, he was not pontificating about his own prowess as a writer; instead, he was attempting to articulate the importance and impact of all writers, books, and written language.  Certainly, Thoreau, along with other American transcendental philosophers, had experienced the magnificent power of learning via literature; in fact, the knowledge he gained through reading must have kindled some of the ideas he would eventually publish for others to imbibe.  With this assertion in mind, and using the method of TEXTUAL ANALYSIS, I propose to perform an INTERTEXTUALITY study between American transcendental literature and philosophical literature from earlier time periods and varying cultures.  Although Emerson and Thoreau, the two authors who fashioned my paramount objects of study, gave the impression that they were speaking as individuals, intertextual analysis realizes that texts are created “out of the sea of former texts” (Bazerman 83).  While Bazerman’s overview of intertextuality focuses on the explicit and implicit relations that texts possess, the varying levels of intertextuality also come into play, many of which play into the roles of transcendental writing: drawing explicit social dramas, using statements as background, support, and contrast, and relying on preconceived beliefs and ideas (87).

Since societal problems, philosophies, and beliefs have been promulgated for centuries, I feel that there are myriad connections between transcendental works and literature published prior.  I have no doubts that many of the transcendentalists’ ideas were novel; however, it is also evident that writers like Emerson and Thoreau placed old ideas into a new context, thus exhibiting various forms of recontextualization.  Previous studies have been conducted regarding the foundation of American transcendental thought, yet most of these investigations link Emerson to English Renaissance writers, Wordsworth, or other romantic writings from Europe.  Meanwhile, Thoreau’s basis in transcendental thought resides with Emerson, his mentor.  These types of studies are factual and sometimes painstaking, but they also seem to posit significantly recognizable information, for there are plenty of journals and other published accounts where Emerson and Thoreau articulate the origins of some of their fundamental philosophies.  Nevertheless, my research will venture to uncover similar concepts in texts written in numerous time periods and places, texts that may or may not have been encountered by Thoreau or Emerson.  Instead of focusing on romantic or renaissance writings, the majority of my studies will reflect writings from the English Restoration, English Reformation, Age of Reason, and the Puritans.  While some scholars have made subtle connections between American transcendentalism and English Reformation/Puritan writings, I plan to enhance these studies by looking specifically at works by Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Edwards.  Moreover, I intend to link some of the ideas posed by the transcendentalists to the notions disseminated by Thomas Paine, a more unique study that will combine reason with romance. As Rebecca Gould writes, transcendentalists felt that knowledge should be divided between the concept of understanding through rational reflections and the process of reason, which transcendentalists feel is an inherent human gift that every person should nurture (1653).  This evidence promoting the importance of reason among transcendentalists should assist in connecting Paine’s writings with those of Emerson and Thoreau.

In attempting this enterprise, I already realize that I will encroach into areas that are already hazy, probably making them cloudier on occasion.  For example, one of the major debates among scholars of American transcendentalism and textual analysis concentrates on examining American transcendentalism’s identity.  This involves where the transcendentalists received their inspiration, but more importantly, the debates focus on reasons behind the movement and a proper labeling of the movement.  My loyalties lie with critics like Fulton and Osgood, scholars who adamantly oppose the view that American transcendentalism is just a Lockean revolt (Fulton 392).  Likewise, these scholars are apt to believe that the American movement was mostly conceived as a rebirth of the European Renaissance/Restoration (390).  Of course, this is one area where I will slightly disagree, since I plan to research origins also associated with the Age of Reason and Puritanism.  As for the other side of the debate spectrum, I will not accept Matthiessen’s sweeping notion that the American transcendental movement was its own innovative entity and not a rebirth from other climes (Fulton 384).

Although I disagree with Matthiessen’s claim regarding American transcendentalism, I do agree with his identification of the NEW CRITICISM as a mode of study that combines cultural and historical attributes (Graff 217).  On the surface, this might not seem pertinent to my intertextuality study; however, without the New Criticism, transcendental studies may not have experienced its rebirth among critics.  While many New Critics sought to separate history from literature, others, like Matthiessen, helped fashion the cultural and historical methods so predominant today.  Still, American transcendentalism’s place within the New Criticism is murky and contradictory.  Since there appears to be a drastic increase in transcendental studies in the 1930s, this seems to coincide with the spawning of the New Criticism (Paine 631).  Nevertheless, it must still be noted that the New Critics showed contempt for any writings that were academic and political, yet this same movement promoted writers like Melville and Thoreau (Graff 213).  Hashing out these apparent contradictions will be integral when I conduct my study, and in order to fulfill the final phase of my scholarly study it will be vital to identify Thoreau and Emerson as valid authors relevant to New Criticism’s scope, for this will promote my perspective that recognizes American transcendentalist literature as being worthy of postcolonial analysis.

*Click HERE to take a brief survey regarding your opinions about connections between American transcendentalism and other works/cultures.

POSTCOLONIAL theory and American transcendental writings are rarely tied to one another, but I see great potential and merit to an examination that links the two.  Booker’s definition of postcolonial theory, which is referenced in English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), is as follows: “Postcolonial theory arises in a cultural context informed by the attempt to build a new hybrid culture that transcends the past but still draws on the vestigial echoes of precolonial culture, the remnants of the colonial culture, and the continuing legacy of traditions of anticolonial resistance” (McComiskey 255). After all, as my intertextuality research will show, transcendentalist writers do indeed draw on past cultures while integrating a framework for a new culture.  Furthermore, Renu Jeneja describes postcolonial literatures as works that alter a person’s way of thinking about two different cultures (65).  Since this is the case, I see no viable argument against joining these two areas of study, for I agree with the majority of critics who articulate the fact that postcolonial studies should focus on domineered cultures and those individuals who are forced to succumb to society’s whims and colonialism’s influence.  Essentially, I see the transcendentalists as a minority, a small group of people who are trying to fight against colonialism’s impact while establishing their own unique hybrid culture.  Meanwhile, it must be noted that some connections between transcendentalist works and postcolonialism have been conducted, but these studies tend to reflect feminist theory based around the works of Margaret Fuller, the most prominent female transcendentalist who published feminist literature in The Dial, which was the Transcendentalist Club’s magazine (Miller 120).  Instead of this tactic, I will continue to examine Thoreau and Emerson through the postcolonial lens.  While performing this study, I will align myself with Marek Paryz, one of the few scholars to publish a study devoted to transcendentalism and postcolonialism.  Published in 2012, Paryz’s book analyzes postcolonial aspects found in Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman; in fact, Paryz clearly expresses Thoreau’s postcolonial position through his notions of living in an inescapable empire (100).

Click on Paryz's book to view the table of contents and full-text Ebook version. *ODU login will be required.
Click on Paryz’s book to view the table of contents and full-text Ebook version. *ODU login will be required.

While I realize the magnitude of my entire study is immense and challenging, I also realize that it may be even more demanding to package everything together in a cohesive manner.  In order to even attempt this rigorous endeavor it will be essential to understand all of my potential objects of study, whether they are works by Emerson, Thoreau, Edwards, Paine, Johnson, or even Paryz.  Along with understanding these works, comprehending the theories prevalent during these publications’ time periods and the historical influences associated with the philosophies contained within will need to take precedence.  No doubt, this will not be easy, for there will be myriad genres covered in the study: philosophical fiction, classic fiction, memoirs, essays, autobiographies, and narrative nonfiction.  Aside from the various theories associated with each genre, accruing professional knowledge through associations will be imperative. For example, joining groups such as the Thoreau Society, the American Philosophical Association, and the Thomas Paine National Historical Association could all prove beneficial, for each of these organizations promote publications and offer valuable professional conferences that are worth attending.  Even though I am aware of the prospective challenges this study holds, perhaps my biggest concern involves potential biases that I possess.  Overall, I place great credence in the philosophies implemented by the American transcendentalists, but I need to make sure that my biases do not affect the true nature of my study.  Most importantly, while researching, I need to remind myself that it doesn’t matter if the ideas articulated by the American transcendentalists were original or not.  I don’t need to place Emerson and Thoreau upon a pedestal; instead, I need to find out where their brilliant ideas originated, for the philosophies are most significant, not the men or cultures from where they came.

Works Cited

Bazerman, Charles, and Paul Prior, eds. What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction   to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,   2004. Print.

Fulton, Joe B. “Reason for Renaissance: The Rhetoric of Reformation and Rebirth in the Age of     Transcendentalism.” The New England Quarterly 80.3 (2007): 383-407. JSTOR. Web. 21 October 2016.

Gould, Rebecca Kneale. “Transcendentalism.” Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. ed. Bron Taylor. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, 2010, Print.

Graff, Gerald.  “The Promise of American Literature Studies.”   Professing Literature: An Institutional History.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25.  Print.

Juneja, Renu. “Pedagogy of Difference.” College Teaching 41.2 (1993): 64-70. EBSCOhost: Education Research Complete. Web. 18 October 2016.

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s).  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print.

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the             Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

Paine, Gregory. “Trends in American Literary Scholarship with Reviews of Some Recent Books.” Studies in Philology 29.4 (1932): 630-43. JSTOR. Web. 28 October 2016.

Paryz, Marek. The Postcolonial and Imperial Experience in American Transcendentalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Ebook Library. Web. 24 October 2016.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden, Civil Disobedience, and Other Writings. ed. William Rossi. New York: Norton, 2008. Print.

Analyzing Emerson and Thoreau’s Writings to Answer Major Questions in Transcendental Studies

Since my research in the field of AMERICAN LITERATURE focuses distinctly on writing from the AMERICAN TRANSCENDENTALISTS, the objects of study are condensed to writings created during a span of only a few years.  While this may seem like a relatively small body of time and work, there are still immense literary annals devoted to writers from this period of time who dabbled with transcendental philosophies.  Writers such as Margaret Fuller, Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, Theodore Parker, and even Nathaniel Hawthorne and Walt Whitman, all published works of transcendental literature; however, my explicit study focuses on RALPH WALDO EMERSON and HENRY DAVID THOREAU’S contributions.  Historically, these two men produced the most essential works of transcendental literature, so their writings represent the most widely accepted objects of study in relation to American transcendental studies.  Even more specifically, my study looks at Emerson and Thoreau’s political works, and many of these works can be found in the Transcendentalist Club’s distinct publication, THE DIAL, where the transcendentalists were able to “communicate and exert their influence” from 1840-1844 (Gould 1652).

Click on the image of Thoreau and Emerson to learn more about the Association for Global New Thought.
Click on the image of Thoreau and Emerson to learn more about the Association for Global New Thought.

When scholars analyze Emerson and Thoreau’s political essays and other literary contributions, there are myriad studies performed.  Many scholars choose to analyze specific essays in order to identify contradictions, paradoxes, and incongruities among Emerson or Thoreau’s ideas.  For example, Shawn St. Jean examined Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government,” “Slavery in Massachusetts,” and the John Brown essays in order to deviate from normal perceptions and show that Thoreau actually shows consistency in his beliefs, even if those beliefs are altered by political and social upheavals (354).  Meanwhile, although analyzing each writer’s potential inconsistencies is a common mode of study, there are plenty of other critics who analyze the writings of the time period in order to show how transcendental literature relates to other historic movements in the United States and the rest of the world.  Myriad critics link America’s period of transcendentalism to the European Renaissance, England’s Restoration, America’s Southern Renaissance, or the Puritan influence, yet others see America’s renaissance as its own unique entity, one that is a revolt or completely groundbreaking in its approach.  Nevertheless, after reviewing a majority of the objects of study, the more collective opinion is that the transcendentalist age was not a birth; instead, it was a renaissance that gathered inspiration from numerous previous ages while generating some of its own novel nuances (Fulton 407).

While some of these areas may be touched upon in my own research, my primary goal is to analyze Emerson and Thoreau’s works from a POSTCOLONIAL standpoint. While performing this research, looking at transcendental literature through a CULTURAL STUDIES lens is required.  Since cultural/postcolonial studies are tied to the inception of the NEW CRITICISM in America, analyzing the transcendental works to identify how they fit into the New Criticism approach is necessary.  Furthermore, in order to accomplish these tasks, the importance of the history of American literature studies also needs to be addressed to show how transcendental studies can help answer some of the major questions posed by scholars of both postcolonial and New Criticism studies.  One of the major questions related to the New Criticism focuses on what works of literature were revived after WWI.  As Gregory Paine notes, Emerson and Thoreau were two of the authors whose works rose in the “literary firmament” during the 1930s (631).  This augmentation fits well with the New Criticism’s objectives to become a cultural and historical method where continuity could be charted in literary traditions in writings from the Puritans, Transcendentalists, and Romantics (Graff 217).

While this connection between the New Criticism, the Transcendentalists, and cultural studies may seem obvious, the inclusion of transcendental studies is often debated.  Graff continues by noting that New Criticism’s emergence created a revival in unpopular writers like Melville and Thoreau, for the critics were attempting to scorn everything academic (213).  The main hurdle here is that Emerson and Thoreau’s political works were often viewed by many scholars as primarily academic, and a major question as to transcendentalism’s place as a conservative or liberal movement must be posed.  Obviously, most critics refer to the movement as liberal; however, certain elements of Emerson’s writings in particular display more conservative approaches that are unique but not radical.  As Thomas P. Miller writes, “The New Criticism was instrumental in distancing literary studies from the more politically engaged schools of criticism that were popular in the Progressive era—those of “Leftists, or Proletarians…” (162). Miller’s statement muddies the water further, for it seems nearly impossible that the New Criticism can praise Thoreau while having contempt for academic and political literature.

The connections between the New Criticism and American transcendentalism are quite hazy, but most scholars find or consider major connections between transcendentalism and postcolonial studies.  According to Kropf, “American literature, in contrast and uniquely among national literatures, defines itself according to geographical and political criteria” (21).  This is precisely what transcendentalist writings do, and postcolonial studies remain part of this realm too.  Perhaps Renu Juneja sums up postcolonial studies best when she says, “This is a literature that veritably forces on our consciousness, and at all various levels, the fact that ways of thinking are altered by this contact between two different cultures” (65). While this summation clearly articulates the value of postcolonial studies, it can simultaneously be used to define exactly what transcendental writers like Emerson and Thoreau endeavored to accomplish.

Works Cited

Fulton, Joe B. “Reason for Renaissance: The Rhetoric of Reformation and Rebirth in the Age of     Transcendentalism.” The New England Quarterly 80.3 (2007): 383-407. JSTOR. Web. 21 October 2016.

Gould, Rebecca Kneale. “Transcendentalism.” Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. ed. Bron      Taylor. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, 2010, Print.

Graff, Gerald.  “The Promise of American Literature Studies.”   Professing Literature: An Institutional History.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25.  Print.

Juneja, Renu. “Pedagogy of Difference.” College Teaching 41.2 (1993): 64-70. EBSCOhost: Education Research Complete. Web. 18 October 2016.

Kropf, Carl R. “The Nationalistic Criticism of Early American Literature.” Early American Literature 18.1 (1983): 17-30. JSTOR. Web. 13 September 2016.

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the             Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

Paine, Gregory. “Trends in American Literary Scholarship with Reviews of Some Recent Books.” Studies in Philology 29.4 (1932): 630-43. JSTOR. Web. 28 October 2016.

St. Jean, Shawn. “Thoreau’s Radical Consistency.” Massachusetts Review 39.3 (1998): 341-57. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2016.

Major Questions and Trends in American Literary Criticism

Most scholars of American literary studies are likely to pinpoint the NEW CRITICISM as the most predominant postwar methodology associated with American literary criticism; however, questions and debates about the New Criticism’s objectives and scopes of study raged for decades, and varying perspectives led to alternate philosophies in regard to determining a consistent definition for what the New Criticism entailed.  Even as late as the 1950s, there was still a widespread agreement in America that literary criticism and history should merge (Graff 210).  This consensus was primarily due to the fact that American literature had been so deeply entwined with political, revolutionary, and religious writings since the inception of Colonial America.  However, as Thomas P. Miller writes, “The New Criticism was instrumental in distancing literary studies from the more politically engaged schools of criticism that were popular in the Progressive era” (162).

For a majority of scholars associated with the New Criticism, the separation of history and literature was essential, for many critics felt that the “study of literature means the study of literature, not of biography, not of literary history…or anything except the works themselves, viewed as their creators wrote them, viewed as art, as transcripts of humanity” (Miller 139).  Nevertheless, completely separating history from literature was not part of the process for all scholars of the New Criticism.  According to Graff, theorists like Winters, Maule, and Matthiessen applied the methods of the New Criticism to American literature, allowing the New Criticism to become a cultural and historical method” (217).  These critics sought to turn the New Criticism into a method of cultural analysis where they charted continuity found in literary traditions and allegorical meanings in writings from the Puritans, Transcendentalists, and Romantics (Graff 217).

Graff writes that Matthiessen's book "comprehensively fused cultural criticism and academic literary history with the New Criticism's method of explication and its themes of complexity, paradox, and tragic vision" (217). For more information about this book, click on the image.
Graff writes that Matthiessen’s book “comprehensively fused cultural criticism and academic literary history with the New Criticism’s method of explication and its themes of complexity, paradox, and tragic vision” (217). For more information about this book, click on the image.

However subtle, the connection to history still played a role in the study of literature, and this played a major role in making American literature exclusive from other literatures.  Eventually, other advocates of the New Criticism began to question this style of literary study.  Some critics argued that this mode of New Criticism purposely ignored American literary texts from the Revolutionary Era and non-symbolic texts that did not conform to its presuppositions (Graff 221).  Debates such as these inspired new methods of criticism, most importantly, the NEW HISTORICIST perspective that offered “a revisionary reinterpretation of American literary history” (Graff 221).  This change led to myriad other American literary modes of scholarship.  As Robert P. Yagelski writes in “English Education,” a chapter from English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), objectivist principles associated with the New Criticism gradually shifted to principles associated with language and epistemological relativism of postmodernism, which opened up previously marginalized and ignored literatures that promoted cultural critique while challenging the literary canon (McComiskey 303).

One such cultural study that has grown extensively over the last two decades, thanks in part to the New Historicist perspective, has been the field of NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES.  However, scholars in this field of study also debate about what constitutes Native American studies, the perspectives from which its texts are written, and are even embroiled in arguments about who should be allowed to publish scholarship in the field.  As most studies suggest, “The literatures that American Indian authors produce disrupt and resist the narrative strategies of colonial imaginings…” (Nelson 381).  Nevertheless, despite this credence among most scholars, a newer shift in the paradigm of Native American studies is occurring, leading to a variety of related questions.  Although NATIONALISM, where the focus centers on producing literary criticism that supports Native sovereignty, used to be the dominant critical form of study, a shift in critical focus to the “Native intellectual, cultural, political, historical, and tribal national contexts” is at the forefront of the new wave of study (Nelson 379).  One prime reason for this shift in study is that the nationalism approach promoted an expansively broad range of study, often crossing over into all Indigenous studies, ethnic studies, and race studies, instead of just Native American studies (Nelson 383).

If that doesn’t muddy the water enough, the Indigenous literatures present further problems regarding their study.  “No distinction is even attempted between migrant literatures and Indigenous literatures.  But this distinction is, in fact, the elephant in the room that no one wants to address in discussions of how Native American literature should be presented (Madsen 357).  As Madsen denotes, the haziness surrounding Native American literature and its subdisciplines continues to generate new questions that the field of study needs to address.  Overall, these research questions are more likely to be addressed in America, for as Madsen points out, there are no European departments or programs for Native American studies (355).  If these hurdles are not troublesome enough, another problem arises in terms of the act of publishing Native American studies.  Ethnic conflicts about which scholars ought to publish Native American criticisms take on multiple forms.  Some scholars feel that non-Indian critics should not write about Indian literature, some Indians critics claim that Indian critics should write only about Indian literature, and other critics support the notion that both Indians and non-Indians should write about Indian literature (Hove 203).

Works Cited

Graff, Gerald.  “The Promise of American Literature Studies.”   Professing Literature: An Institutional History.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25.  Print.

Hove, Thomas, and John M. McKinn.  “A Relational Model for Native American Literary Criticism.” Studies in American Indian Literatures 19.4 (2007): 197-208. Project MUSE.  Web. 27 September 2016.

Madsen, Deborah. “Out of the Melting Pot, into the Nationalist Fires: Native American Literary   Studies in Europe.” The American Indian Quarterly 35.3 (2011): 353-71. Project MUSE.  Web. 3 October 2016.

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s).  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print.

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

Nelson, Chris. “State(s) and Statements: Reflections on Native American Literary Criticism.”  Great Plains Quarterly 35.4 (2015): 377-89. Project MUSE. Web. 3 October 2016.

Additional Resources:  Click on the link below to visit the American Indian Workshop (AIW), Europe’s professional networking group for Native studies. As Madsen noted, no European departments or programs directed toward Native American studies exist; however, she highly touts the AIW.

http://www.american-indian-workshop.org/index.html

PAB Entry #3: “The Promise of American Literature Studies”

Graff, Gerald.  “The Promise of American Literature Studies.”   Professing Literature: An Institutional History.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25.  Print.

Click the cover of Graff's book to find a summary of the entire text at Amazon.com.
Click the cover of Graff’s book to find a summary of the entire text at Amazon.com.

Graff’s chapter, “The Promise of American Literature Studies,” primarily focuses on common debates among literary scholars in the early and middle portions of the twentieth century.  At the forefront of the debate is the rise of the NEW CRITICISM, which is defined as the process of reading a work of literature as an aesthetic object independent of historical context and as a cohesive whole that reflects the cohesive sensibility of the artist (Brewton).  According to Graff, some scholars felt that American literature should seek to merge with American history, a sentiment that had been shared by myriad people throughout the course of America’s history (210).  Nevertheless, the New Criticism sought to alter these stale perceptions, and this fresh method of criticism began to gain momentum after WWI.

As noted in previous annotations related to American literature’s history, early American literature functioned primarily as a political or religious tool, so numerous educated individuals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed that American writings should remain associated with the country’s political and religious history.  Essentially, many Americans did not see their country’s literature as literary; therefore, some influential educators defended American literature with minimal praise or apologized for it, yet they did not see artistic value in it (Graff 212).  As Thomas P. Miller purports, from the mid-1700s, the establishment of new colleges and expansion of print contributed to more individuals being introduced to literature, and this shaped college English studies (57).  Even with new perspectives and the ability to reach a wider audience, the patriotism associated with the literature was immense. This patriotism actually hindered literature’s impact aesthetically and delayed its implementation as a professional field of study for many years (Graff 213).

Graff continues his chapter by examining how proponents of the New Criticism of the early and middle twentieth century tinkered with theoretical methodologies.  According to Graff, theorists like Winters, Maule, and Matthiessen were the “first to apply the methods of the New Criticism to American literature, and in their hands—more than in other field, I believe—the New Criticism became a historical and cultural method” (217).  These scholars allowed America’s history to play a role in literary study through the culture epitomized in fictional works; for example, these critics looked at symbolism in romantic works of literature, and they applied these symbols to Puritan and other historical and cultural roots found in early America.  In fact, these types of thematic and historical connections can still be found today when opening some high school English textbooks.

When opening a high school text, I find Jonathan Edwards’s sermons just a few pages away from Arthur Miller’s Crucible.  Certainly these works are connected historically through the content and themes surrounding Puritans; however, in reality, these works have little in common structurally, stylistically, and chronologically.  As many scholars of the twentieth century began to realize, New Critical processes were just incorporating everything; however, under the surface many critics realized that the same authors and stories were consistently being examined by the New Criticism, and works from the Revolutionary period were being ignored because they did not fit the new critical scheme (Graff 221).  Eventually, as Graff notes, NEW HISTORICISTS established a break, and this critical turn allowed for the progression of other theories and criticisms, like the feminist approach, to gain steam and look at how history and culture have influenced writing (221).

 

Additional Sources:

Brewton, Vince.  “Literary Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  IEP and its Authors, 2016, www.iep.utm.edu/literary/. Web. Accessed 23 September 2016.

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the             Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.