Wimsatt & Breardsley's 'Intentional Fallacy': Summary and Analysis

 

Literature has been studied differently by different readers and critics. Various approaches of criticism have been recommended by various critics down the ages. Some of the popular approaches are - historical approach, psychological approach, biographical approach, analytical approach, linguistic approach, reader response theory and so on. But with the advent of 20th century, literature and criticism found a new way of creating and understanding literature. The new critics like T. S. Eliot, I. A. Richards and Lionel Trilling have emphasized on the close study of text. Some other critics gave more importance to the writer's intention in order to evaluate the work of art.

AUTHOR'S INTENTION:

In modern criticism, there was a group of critics who family believed that there is an intention of the author in his work. The critic, they suggested, needs to derive the author's intention and accordingly see to what extent the intention has been achieved in the work of art. According to them, the success of the work can be accounted considering the achievement of the author's intention in his work. So the critic's basic, fundamental job is to find out the author's intention.

THE INTENTIONAL FALLACY BY WIMSATT AND BEARDSLEY:

'The Intentional Fallacy' by W. K. Wimsatt and M. C. Beardsley first appeared in the 'Sevanee Review' in 1946. In this critical work, they argued about the problems of the theory of finding intentions of the author in a work of art. There are critics who believe that a work of art is independent in itself. It has autonomous life and it should be studied by itself, not in relation to the author and milieu. On the other hand, there are critics who prefer to study the text, ignoring all other external aspects like the author's biography, historical, political or cultural contexts. Wimsatt and Beardsley hold a balance between the two and conclude that it can be studied in both the ways. But both these ways have their own limitations and one of the limitations of the biographical study is ‘intentional fallacy’.

CONTEXTUALISTS AND ANTI-CONTEXTUALISTS:

The critics can be broadly divided into two categories - contextualists and anti-contextualists. The contextualists are those who believe in studying the work of art in its social, political, biographical or cultural contexts.  Saint Beuve was the pioneer of biographical approach in criticism. But the other group, anti-contextualusts believe that art exists all by itself, belonging to no time, place or milieu. They assert that it does not even belong to the author. Once it is completed, it is cut off from all such relationships. True criticism is one in which the critic contemplates and investigates the form, shape, structure, sound, meaning and language of the text itself. These anti-contextualists believe that when the critic goes searching for the author's intention in explaining a passage, he goes to such external things as the author's social environment, culture etc. They object to this and consider it a serious mistake which they call 'intentional fallacy'.

WHAT IS INTENTIONAL FALLACY?

It is a fallacy of those critics who try to find out the intention of the author first and then criticize the work in order to derive the meaning. But there are many limitations of this intentional theory.

LIMITATIONS OF INTENTIONAL THEORY:

Wimsatt and Beardsley enlist some limitations of the intentional theory of approaching a work of art. They are as follows:

1.   There is an old belief that the Muse inspires the poet. This implies that the author has no design or intention of his own. He writes what is dictated to him.

 

2.   The search for the intention of the author outside the work of art is invalid in criticism. There is no authenticity of such intention.

 

3.   It is possible to find the intention of a living author or that of a writer about whose life enough biographical information is available. But it is difficult to find the same in case of the author who is not living.

 

4.   The critics like Robert Warren believe that sometimes the writers themselves do not know their own intention behind writing a piece of art.

 

5.   The intentions also exist in the mind of the reader and so there are as many intentions as there are readers.

 

WIMSATT AND BEARDSLEY ON INTERNATIONAL FALLACY:

While discussing the question of 'intentional fallacy' Wimsatt and Beardsley make a series of prepositions as under.

 

1.   A poem is intended and designed by the poet but it is not the critic's function nor can it serve as a standard by which to judge the worth of the poem.

 

2.   How does a critic find out the poet's intention? Does he find it in the poem or outside the poem?

 

3.   We judge the poem by the work it does. It is well said to say that "a poem should not mean but be." 

 

4.   If a poem is revised by the poet, which one contains the poet's intention? The original or the revised one?

 

Having proposed these ideas, Wimsatt and Beardsley assert that personal study should not be confused with criticism. Here, they make a distinction between criticism of poetry and that of biography or psychology of the author. When the poet writes poetry, he has nothing to do with any approach or school. But the question arises - "Where are the evidences of the meaning of the poem?  According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, there are two evidences - external and internal. But the paradox is that internal evidence (syntax, structure, words, melody etc.) of the poem is public and the external evidence (the poet's intention, his life etc.) is private.

BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY - TO BE OR NOT TO BE:

According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, the biographical study may show the author's intention or it may not. But it does not involve intentionalism. For example, 'Kubla Khan', written by S. T. Coleridge. Now, one who is familiar with the sources of this poem may see more meanings and have deeper understanding than one who is not. This is so because a good deal of history is connected with 'Kubla Khan'.

To take another example, Eliot wrote 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' where a line occurs, "I have heard the mermaids singing." This line resembles line "Teach me to hear mermaid's singing." from John Donne’s poem ‘Song’. Various questions arise in our mind.

"Is Eliot alluding to John Donne?"

"Is Prufrock thinking of Donne?"

"Is Eliot thinking of Donne?"

The answer is that the resemblance has no significance.

Eliot has also made use of many illusions and references in his poems and at the end he has given many notes. Now, the question arises - "Aren't the appended notes the external evidences?" If one emphasizes on the study of the poem itself and no external evidences, what is the use of these notes? This question is raised in case of Eliot's 'The Golden Bough'.

But Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that though the notes appear to be external indexes, from one point of view, they may be taken to be internal parts of the poem taken in its totality.

CONCLUSION:

Biographical study of a work of art has its own limitations which is known as 'intentional fallacy'. 

But studying the text by itself also may not serve the purpose, sometimes biographical details may be helpful to derive the meaning. 

So, the work of art can be studied in both the ways.