Answer:
Some scholars, most notably the New Critics of the mid-twentieth century, employ a formalist strategy. The formalist strategy focuses only on the text. It analyzes the structure of the text. Elements of structure are: diction, repetition, metaphor, irony, symbolism, plot, and characterization. All of these elements contribute to our understanding of a text. Extrinsic factors are elements outside of the story, such as historical foundations or the literary context. The psychological strategy of literary analysis adapts psychoanalytic theory, predominantly that of Sigmund Freud, as a critical apparatus for understanding the motivations and interactions of characters and the responses of the reader. Examine how Norman Holland explains how Ernest Jones applies the idea of the Oedipus complex in his interpretation of Hamlet: How does a psychological strategy, then, as opposed to a formalist approach, change the characterization of Hamlet? In a sense, can Hamlet be considered to be complicit in his stepfather’s violence? Can the audience? If perception is reality, then it is easy to see why there are so many different ideas about what is true. You can describe Hamlet very differently depending on the perspective (psychological, formalist, etc.) you have. Deconstructionist critics look at how meaning is unstable and often conflicting upon closer inspection. They don't view language as static, but as something that the ability to be caught up in a myriad of interpretations. The deconstructionist complicates then, rather than elucidate, the meaning of a text. Keep in mind that no single approach is “right” or best. Application of each strategy simply illuminates another facet of a text. Feminist critics also employ sociological strategies to examine and critique the ways in which women are depicted in literature, seeking to uncover oppression and add critical female voices they see as underrepresented in patriarchal societies.
Step-by-step explanation: