New Criticism vs. Reader Response Criticism

New Criticism VS Reader-Response Criticism

What is more accurate, new criticism or reader response criticism? The answer is neither, seeing as both styles of critic views and analyzes the topic at hand and gives feedback. Though both styles offer feedback, they are different forms of feedback entirely. New criticism involves focusing on the material at hand, and not what it was meant to be perceived as, to judge the topic by every measurable feature possible. Reader response criticism is when a reader or a judge would inspect the topic up and down, left and right. The reader is not judging based on hard facts, but as to what the topic means to the reader, how it makes him feel and how he views the topic differently from what the creator may have intended. When explaining food for example, one could say this dish has a lot of salt, or not enough flavoring, or you could say that this dish brings back memories of your childhood. Neither response is inaccurate, nor are they fully correct. A response is entirely subjective and could vary in the eye of the beholder. New criticism is harsh and severe, basing their feedback off hard facts of the topic. Food for example, is one topic that people could use new criticism. My mother makes a dish every Friday night called “Matbucha”. It is an Israeli dish made up of roasted red peppers and tomatoes, usually served cold. A judge using new criticism might mention things like the texture is not right, or that the intensity of the spicy flavor is not up to par. He could say something like, the texture is just perfect and the density is not too thick and not too soft. He views this food as nothing but another dish, noticing its faults and its feats. Reader response criticism is a different story. Though the judge who views my mothers cooking with new criticism may bluntly say what is wrong with the food or what is perfect, reader response criticism entails a new way of looking at my mothers dish. I, for example, do not