Which way are you inclined practical criticism or contextual approaches?

Practical criticism is an effective way of analysing a text, of that there can be no doubt. Any piece of literature must be viewed by itself to start with because if one is commenting on it then it is vital to first understand fully the meaning of the text, and be able to read between the lines to find any evidence of covert message hidden in the text. Then to analyse these things is a credible way of looking at a text.

Having a solely a contextual approach to a text is an absolute waste of time. If one only looks at the background of a piece then you can’t possibly begin to effectively analyse the piece as one because you begin to analyse a whole author in general. This spreads out the way in which someone who favours contextual approaches analyses a text because they are not looking at what is written but why it has been written.

So it comes down to this. What or why? Personally I would favour ‘what’. This is because I believe it is essential to look at a text and see the meaning of it and see how it is written. But the truth is that there is only a fine line between the two. A line of which I myself could be accused of crossing many times. This is because one inevitably begins to say “this has been written in this way” but “why has the author done this” and at this point you see that we have crossed from a practical school of criticism to a contextual analysis.

Even though is started out saying that practical criticism is the only way to analyse a text, I do see the advantages of looking at the background of text to fully understand why. I would still argue however that it is essential to first zoom in before zooming out otherwise you are left with an analysis that is more like a history or sociology essay where as in reality as linguists we must look at language, and to look at language we must favour practical criticism.