In an short essay (at least 250 words, not too much more than 500, please J) first give a clear and comprehensive account of what Brooks understands to be the formal unity of a work.
Second, itemize all those elements that he downplays/deemphasizes and/or rejects….on account of their allegedly not being essential to the meaning of a work of literature, i.e. all those that don’t immediately pertain to its formal unity. Please be cautious in your reading, e.g. just because Brooks acknowledges the existence or essentiality of something does not mean that he thinks it is fundamental to the consideration of the formalist critic.
Third, reflect on which downplayed element (s) (religion, biography, historical context, subjective process, etc. ) that you think Brooks may have neglected most. If possible give a contemporary reference and/or draw the comparison to Aristotle.
(The Wikipedia article on Brooks may be helpful to you. And one heads up: Lionel Trilling, who is mentioned, is another literary critic of the first half of the twentieth century who is close to Brooks intellectually in significant ways, with the exception of his interest in psychoanalysis and historical consciousness [Freud and Spengler]).
Please cite the text and edit your work as you will be graded for both FORM and CONTENT. Be sure your upload to includes your name. Thanks J
This quiz is worth 100 points, but outstanding work will earn extra-credit!