Dear List Members: Throughout university, I learned that TRADITIONAL LITERARY CRITICISM emphasizes authorial biography and intention while CONTEMPORARY LITERARY CRITICISM (a.k.a. "The New Criticism") disregards the author's background and instead emphasizes textual meaning, per se. After reading Craig Hamilton's response to Arwin van Arum (see below), I am wondering if what I learned in university is indeed correct! Could someone please outline the precise differences between traditional literary criticism and contemporary literary criticism? Thanks! Craig Hamilton wrote: "This sort of thinking has not been fashionable for decades in the American Academy. Secondary lit has become as important primary lit in English Departments here, if not more so. Welcome to the world of fin de siecle criticism." Sincerely, Tanya Adele Koehnke <[log in to unmask]>