New Criticism vs Structuralism

File: 1485282573161.jpg (457KB, 1920x1149px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1920x1149px

I have an exam tomorrow and I've made a list about the differences between New Criticism and Structuralism.

I don't know if I've done anything wrong or if I should add something, I hope you contribute.

>nc focuses only on the text, str looks at the conventions of a literary genre and universal narrative structure, intertextual connections.
>nc says literature should be disinterested, str says it cannot be
>nc says even one word is important in the text, but str introduces horizontal(readerly) reading and you skip some words and ignore the language
>nc is microcosmic, str is macrocosmic
>nc is self-referential, meaning only the text is important, str says external connections are also important
>nc says paraphrasing is heresy, but it's not important for str because str focuses only on the structure
>nc says form and content are important
>nc studies figures of speech and so on, str studies opposites and how they interplay in the text
>nc looks at ironies, metaphors... within a work, str digs deeper to look at less abstract ideas like plot structures.(str kind of tries to look at the text in scientific ways)
>nc is limited because the only source is the text, but str is more relax because it can use other sources
>in str, Propp systematizes 31 functions that can be seen in every text
>nc seeks to find meaning through looking at tensions and ambiguity while Structuralists have no need to find meaning within a text.
>nc looks at what the text means, str looks at how it means what it means.
>nc makes close-reading “scrutiny”, the structure and intertextuality are important for str

pic is not related