Every theory has its pet names. What does New Criticism think of literature, authors, and readers?
What is literature?
According to the New Critics, literature is something to be read closely. To be laboriously analyzed. To be pored over with a cappuccino in hand.
See, a text is made up of form, words, and devices, and we can examine these things up-close in order to understand what makes a text great. We can look at a poem's ambiguities, paradoxes, ironies, tensions, harmonies, and more.
All of these elements work together to make the text whole. But we must never forget that this whole is greater than its parts. Plus, not all literature is good; we have to compare an individual poem against humanity's long tradition of poetry, and figure out if it measures up to The Canon.
What is an author?
An author is a craftsman—sometimes a genius craftsman—who constructs works of art. These works are supposed to hold up across time and cultural contexts; we should be able to read them at any moment in history, and derive meaning from them.
Crucial, however, is that to understand authors' work, we shouldn't have to consult the genius-oracles themselves. Each work of literature should have all the answers contained within its very lines, if only we read it closely enough.
(Besides, we really can't trust the author to tell us what she meant when she wrote a poem. Maybe what she actually wrote is far smarter than what she thinks she wrote.)
What is a reader?
A reader puzzles out a piece of literature's many meanings, in all of their glorious complexities and ambiguities. The ideal reader gets up close and personal with each text. If poems were those Magic Eye illusions, New Critics would tell you to start out with your nose pressed up against 'em. Then slowly, very slowly, walk backwards until—bam. Suddenly, a whole new 3D meaning pops out at you.