Criticism Inc. by J. C. Ransom

 Criticism Inc. by J. C. Ransom

Introduction:

John Crowe Ransom (1888–1974) was a major figure in American literary criticism and a founder of the New Criticism movement. His 1937 essay, “Criticism, Inc.”, is considered a key text in the history of literary studies. In this essay, Ransom outlines what he believes literary criticism should be like.

He argues that criticism must be objective and systematic, meaning it should be based on facts and clear methods—not just personal opinions or emotions. He also believed criticism should focus on the text itself, not on things like history, language, morals, or the writer’s background. His followers—such as Allen Tate, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren—helped develop these ideas further. One of the most important tools they used was close reading, which means carefully studying the structure, language, and details of a literary work.

1. The Business of Criticism:

Ransom begins the essay by talking about the current state of literary criticism. He feels that most criticism has been done by people who aren’t trained properly. These critics often don’t use a clear method or system. According to Ransom, there are three kinds of people who might appear to be good critics, but who aren’t necessarily suited for the job:

A. The Artist

An artist, like a poet or novelist, may understand art in a deep, emotional way. But that doesn’t mean they can explain or analyze it well. Their understanding is often intuitive, not logical. Ransom quotes D. H. Lawrence, who once said, “Never trust the artist. Trust the tale.” In other words, just because someone can create art doesn’t mean they can explain it objectively.

B. The Philosopher

Philosophers often talk about what art is and what its purpose should be. They understand theories about beauty and art. But they usually don’t study individual works of literature closely. This can lead to vague and overly general statements, rather than useful insights about a particular poem or story.

C.  The University Teacher

According to Ransom, university teachers should be the best people to do criticism. They are in a position to study literature seriously. However, many of them focus too much on collecting information—like historical facts or details about language—and not enough on making judgments about the quality and style of literature. Ransom criticizes English departments in universities for relying too much on history and linguistics, and not enough on aesthetic (artistic) analysis.

He argues that criticism should be more like a science—precise, organized, and based on evidence. He believes that universities are the right place to develop this kind of criticism because they can work on it in a serious, cooperative, and long-term way.

2. Professor Crane and Reforming English Studies:

Ransom praises Professor Ronald S. Crane of the University of Chicago, who wanted English departments to focus more on criticism and less on historical studies. Crane wrote an article called “History Versus Criticism in the University Study of Literature,” where he argued that students should focus on literary works themselves rather than on the history around them.

Ransom supports this idea. He believes that English departments should pay more attention to the structure, language, and beauty of literary texts, and not just their background or meaning.

He also talks about two other groups who tried to change English studies but didn’t succeed, in his opinion:

A. The New Humanists

Led by thinkers like Paul Elmer More and Irving Babbitt, the New Humanists said that literature should teach moral values. They focused on how literature could help make people more ethical or thoughtful. While Ransom admits that this was a welcome break from historical studies, he criticizes them for ignoring literary form—the artistic side of literature.

B. Leftists/Proletarian Critics

These critics focused on social and political themes in literature. They looked at how literature represents class struggles, poverty, and justice. Like the New Humanists, they focused on the moral or political meaning of a work, but Ransom says this again draws attention away from literature’s artistic features.

In short, Ransom says that English departments have failed to find their own proper identity. They either focus on history, language, or moral issues. He wants criticism to be its own serious field, focused on the text itself.

3. Appreciation and Historical Studies:

Ransom now explains the difference between appreciation and criticism:

• Appreciation is personal and emotional. It’s about enjoying a piece of literature, often in a private and intuitive way.
• Criticism, on the other hand, is public and systematic. It involves analyzing how a piece of literature works and why it is good (or not good).

He believes appreciation is not enough. Critics must go deeper than just liking or disliking something.

Ransom also talks about the role of historical studies. He agrees that they are useful—especially for older texts. For example, understanding Chaucer’s time helps us read his works more accurately. But history should be a tool, not the main focus. The most important thing is to study how the literature is written and what makes it effective as art.

He says critics should engage with literature as art, not just as a historical object. There should be public discussion and clear analysis of literature’s form and language.

4. What Criticism Is Not:

Ransom says it is sometimes easier to define what criticism is not than to define what it is. He lists six things that should not be considered real criticism:

A.  Personal Registrations

These are personal feelings or reactions to a work. Ransom says this kind of response is not helpful in criticism. He even criticizes Aristotle’s idea of catharsis (the emotional release that comes from watching a tragedy), because it focuses on the audience’s reaction, not the work itself. Critics should focus on the text, not how it makes them feel.

B.  Synopsis and Paraphrase

Simply summarizing or restating a literary work in your own words does not count as criticism. This does not help us understand the artistic qualities of the work.

C.  Historical Studies

Historical context can help us understand a work, but it should not replace the study of the work’s style, form, and language.

D. Linguistic Studies

Learning about grammar, vocabulary, and language changes is useful. But this is not the same as criticism. These studies don’t tell us about the beauty or structure of a literary work.

E.   Moral Studies

Some critics judge literature based on whether it teaches good values. But Ransom says this is not enough. A story might be morally good but artistically weak—or the opposite. The aesthetic quality must be the main focus.

F.   Other Special Studies

This includes things like researching the author's knowledge of science, religion, or other subjects. These can be interesting but should not become the center of criticism.

5. Technical Studies and the Role of the Critic:

Ransom disagrees with Austin Warren, who wanted to combine historical and literary studies. Ransom believes criticism should be an independent field with its own focus and methods.

He says critics should do technical studies—they should look closely at the structure of a poem or story. This includes:

• Meter (the rhythm of poetry)
• Tropes (figures of speech like metaphors and similes)
• Sound and style (rhyme, alliteration, sentence patterns, etc.)

Poetry, Ransom says, uses special techniques that make it different from regular language or prose. These techniques create a world of their own. The poet tries to protect this world from the dullness of everyday life or the cold logic of science.

The critic’s job is to explain how a poem achieves this—to show how the structure, language, and techniques create a unique and powerful aesthetic experience.

Conclusion:

In Criticism, Inc., John Crowe Ransom argues that literary criticism should be careful, systematic, and based on the text itself. He says we should move away from criticism based on emotions, history, language, or morals. The true task of the critic is to study the form, style, and structure of literature—especially poetry—and to explain how these elements work together to create meaning and beauty.

Ransom believes that universities should take the lead in developing this kind of criticism. His essay helped lay the foundation for New Criticism, a movement that shaped literary studies for many decades and still influences how we read and analyze texts today.