Daniel Mowery

Literary Criticism
Reception History Compilation Essay
Discussion of Criticisms of The Raven
In 1845, poet Edgar Allan Poe published a poem that granted him instant popularity, and
immortalized him as one of the greatest and darkest poets in history. There are few who do not
know of Poes ominous bird over the door, croaking the ever-perplexing Nevermore, haunting
the minds of readers globally. So infamous is The Raven, that critics, over the century and a
half of its existence, have taken it upon themselves to dive into the stanzas of E. A. Poe and
analyze, hypothesize, calculate, and interpret his work for deeper truths, trying to find the genius
in the madness, or even attempting to disprove the genius. Critics are as diverse and widespread
as regular readers in their thought processes and approaches to The Raven. Not everyone
found the same results, nor did they enter their studies from within similar schools of thought.
Even those critics that shared similar lenses of inspection came out with different conclusions.
The findings of all these dissimilar critics and their variances are almostalmostas interesting
as the poem itself.
In 2011, Jan Andres and Martina Benesova began an evaluation which was left only
partially complete, and which they continued in a second paper published in 2012 (Andres 301).
It is in this continuation that they completed their analysis. The paper, the title a blatant
statement on the content of the essay, is entitled Fractal Analysis of Poes The Raven, II. The
subjects of their analysis contains the original text of The Raven, and thirty-three translations
of the poem into multiple languages. Andres and Benesova set out with the intentions of
1

detecting language fractals in the poem and use all these translated versions for a quantitative
exploration off all textsdiscussed in a comparative way (Andres 301). Needless to say,
Andres and Benesova approach The Raven from the point of view of Structuralism. While they
do not search for signifiers, they do rip the poem apart in an extremely mathematical fashion,
dissecting semantic segmentations, and get behind the formal linguistic structures (302).
They had two stages of tests, each using different processes of calculations. The first test
comprised of three levels. In the first level, i=1, and xj is the length of semantic constructs, zj
their frequency, and yj the length of sentences/clauses. In Level 2, i=2, xj the length of
sentences/clauses in words, zj their frequency, and yj the length of words. Finally, in Level 3
where i=3, xj is the length of words in syllables, zj their frequency, and yj the length of syllables
(the average length in phonemes) (303). As a visual, Table 1 presents the length of semantic
constructs versus length of clauses. For 1 in the x1j column, it was calculated to under z1j to be
251, and further calculated 9.7570 in the column of y1j (307). For the second stage of their tests,
the two researchers use the truncated and non-truncated forms of the Menzerath-Altmann law,
which states that linguistic constructs increase as its constituents decrease, and vice versa. (304).
Though they do not fully explain the way these tests are set up, they do discuss that the poem is
analyzed in three parameters: b1, b2, and b3. As an example of the results, the table showed the
numerical values via convoluted tables of data. For the 2c Babler-German translation, the b1
parameter ranged from (-0.1009; 0.2010), b2 (0.0559; 0.3141), and b3 (-0.0434; 0.6302).
Benesova and Andres point of research was to examine segmentation of the poem on a linguistic
level, and discuss the (non)suitability of a quantitative examination of the text in comparative
ways (301). Andres and Benesovas interest and success at tearing the poem apart word for
word, segment for segment, phoneme for phoneme, clause for clause, in mathematical

procedures reveals their background in Structuralism. As Structuralism focuses on how

sentences and the text are built by the individual segments of words, Andre and Benesova fit
perfectly.
On a completely different when reading The Raven, Eliza Richards took what could be
both reader-response and deconstructive criticism in her essay Outsourcing The Raven:
Retroactive Origins, published in 2005. Though she speaks much of how poets and other
persons after Poe claimed true ownership of the poem, or collaborative dealings of the textone
woman claiming the angel of Poe appeared and wished her to rewrite it with his heavenly words
she addresses the importance of the poem to these people, and their interpretations and her
own on the primal source of origin of The Raven (Richards 207, 211, 216). Richards says,
The Raven instructs readers to look backwards, towards the moment of the poems
inception, as a means of writing its own reception...the poem installs itself as a referencepoint (206). Richards goal seems to be to take a reader-response outlook on the
deconstructive quest of the origin of The Raven. Its an adaptation and combination of two
schools of criticism. She goes on to discuss how the poem inspired different readers to interpret
how and why Poe wrote The Raven. Individual interpretations could derive from anything,
from psychoanalytical to feministic to race studies, even historicism. Richards never delves too
deeply into any of these views, maintaining a broad spectrum for her readers without
overwhelming them with too much detail per interpretation. The theories that Richards does
divulge in are the concepts of Poe stealing basic concepts of the Nevermore, the ornithological
choice, and even the lighting of the setting, from previous poets and their works, such as
Dickens Barnaby Rudge or Elizabeth Barretts Lady Geraldines Courtship (207). Richards
states, The Raven disseminates outwards and dissolves into the work of many writers of the
3

period (219). While it is true that his work inspired, and traces of his elements featured in,
many poets writing at the same time as Poe and those that followed after him, Richards asks the
question which many critics have asked: did Poe steal from his colleagues? In her conclusion,
Richards refers to Poes biographer John Henry Ingramparaphrases, reallythat while printed
poems of the time may have influenced Poe or had been the primary germ of certain concepts,
Poe never stole ideas from other poets. So, where does the true origin of The Raven lie? As
with all matters of deconstruction, there is never one answer, just more questions. The answers
all depend on who is reading and interpreting, as per the rules of reader-response criticism. Its
an odd pairing.
Meanwhile, in another school of criticism, Janet Gray published an article in 2012 that,
strangely enough, seems to fall into a New Critical stance, entitled Nevermore the
Reverberations. But wait, isnt Nevermore the reverberations a quote from Walt Whitmans
poem Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking? Yes, yes it is. Gray pulls upon the select
similarities between this poem and Poes The Raven, these similarities being birds given the
gift of human speech and the repeated phrase Nevermore, as a basis for the beginning of a New
Critical interrogation of the two texts. New Critics sought to focus on the meaning of the poem
and the aesthetic beauties that it holds, as opposed to the focus on philology (structure of
language and historical development), which they so much disdained. In her article, Gray
discusses the meaning of the prophetic bird, how Whitman and Poe utilize that bird similarly and
differently, and what the poems, specifically the fowls, mean. The birds, a raven for Poe and a
mockingbird for Whitman, represent death of the feminine. In both there is a lack of the
feminine, which the birds use to speak and challenge the masculine voices. Both poets displace
female voices in order to have their say (Gray 31). The difference between Poe and Whitman,
4

Gray says, is that Poes outcome, or message, is victimization, while Whitmans is empowerment
(31). Gray goes on further to discuss feminist and racial topics. So on top of her New Critical
approach, she throws in just a flare of Feministic criticism. In the beginning of the article, Gray
skims over concepts of Structuralism and how the poets do not rely on truthful relation
between word and world (that she borrowed from Diamond), and replaces mimesis with
mimicry (28). Just a little tinge of Structuralism? Despite her in-depth analyses, Gray does take
a moment here and again to enjoy the dark, aesthetic beauty that Poe became infamous for.
While both poets dealt with death in their specified works, she admits that Poes was much
darker. While Whitmans mockingbird praised American Exceptionalism and healthfulness, Poe
maintained with his raven a sense of morbidity (28). Underneath the overall blanket of her New
Criticism, Gray manages to slide in interpretations following the Feminist and Structuralist
schools of criticism. Gray, as one can tell, covers a large range of perspectives.
Robert S. Forsythe took an interesting stance in his article regarding The Raven. In
Forsythes case, his article, published in 1936, could be said overall to be more of a list than an
essay. His work is headed Poes Nevermore: A Note. Forsythes primary concern is the
word Nevermore itself. He points out that when a common reader hears Nevermore, they are
most likely to link it to Poes cryptic poem. The odd word paired with The Raven has become
iconic. One hears Nevermore and thinks of the The Raven; one mentions The Raven, and
they say Nevermore. Despite this unbreakable connection, Forsythe points out repeatedly that
Poe was most certainly not the first poet to write Nevermore, and he most certainly was not the
last. Forsythe scans poems preceding and following The Raven that utilized the eternal
nevermore, never more, and even stretching it to no more. These phrases resurface almost
constantly in dozens of poetic works. Forsythe cites this reoccurrence in some examples such as
5

Byrons Don Juan, Shelleys The Lament and Rosalind and Helen, Medwins Ugolino,
Lowells Threnodia on an Infant, and others (Forsythe 439, 440, 441). Forsythe also took note
of another theme, or rather name, that keeps popping up in these poems of nevermore. In Poes
The Raven, she is Lenore. In Tennyson, Eleanore, and in the Anacreanotics, a Greek poem
written by Anacreon, she is Lenora (443). Forsythe goes on and on listing similarities in both the
original words and all possible variations of the nevermore phrase, and of closely named female
heroines, spirits, etcetera. Towards the end of the essay, Forsythe begins to question if one poet
stole these things from another, and if so, who could have stolen it from whom? Who was the
original? While these questions come up, Forsythe does not answer them, selecting instead to
merely provide these sources (451). Forsythe could fit nicely into Old Historicism in that he is
very self-conscious of the poem and the likenesses it bears to other works, connecting the thin
lines between all of these different poems. The recurrence of Lenore and Nevermore over the
centuries bares a high regard for historical philology.
Oddly enough, the next critic in question will be familiar, as she has already been
discussed in this essay. Eliza Richards strikes again, except this time she does more than just
mention a paragraph or two towards feminism. In her article The Poetess and Poes
Performance of the Feminine, Richards drops the reader-response and the deconstruction and
focuses entirely on Feminism Criticism, with perhaps a twinge of New Historicism. Richards
primary discussion topic is the social construct of literature in Poes time period. At this time
white, middle-class women, supposed embodiments of the emotions associated with privatized
domestic life, gained greater sanction not only to write, but also to publish in the most intimate
forms, lyric poetry (Richards 1). The male writers of this time had to find some way to adapt a
masculine authority and adaptation of this aesthetic without losing the attention of their female
6

readers. For once, women dominated the field, and men were aware of it. Poe, surprisingly
enough, was aware of this and agreed with it. According to Richards, For Poe, the true
essence of poetry is its feminine appeal to the readers aesthetic sense (Richards 3). Poe
relied on the feminine presence in The Raven, but Richards brings attention to a strange
dynamic of feminine control. For there is no female character present in The Raven. In fact,
the poem emphasizes that the female character is now gone. She says, the poet-speaker
replaces female inspiration by drawing from it. Whereas the beautiful woman inspires the poem,
her evacuation is prerequisite to its existence (Richards 10). There is a contradiction here.
There is no woman present, but without her absence, the poem could not exist. The feminine is
the driving force of The Raven, even if its been displaced, for the bird could not speak if the
beautiful Lenore was not Nevermore. The woman, present or not, is in control.
The final essay, written by Richard Godden, and entitled Poe and the Poetics of Opacity:
Or, Another Way of Looking at That Black Bird once again takes a side with the convoluted
beliefs of Structuralism, perhaps this time with a psychoanalytic and Formalist twist. It must be
said first that Godden heavily dislikes The Raven. Poes The Raven would be eminently
readable, were it not that its remorseless trochaic rhythmdisplaces attention from meaning
(Godden 997). Godden then breaks a stanza or two apart syllable and beat by syllable and beat,
focusing on how inconsistent Poe is and how forced some of his trochaic rhythms are. After
massacring Poes passages, pointing out flawed phonemes and graphemes, Godden moves onto
other aspects of Poe. The best way to relay Goddens concept is to use his own words. My
formal problem can be simply stated: why should a group of sub-communicative effects,
amounting to opacity, retain a semblance of transparency? In this instance, reading the
unreadable, or trying to demystify textual effects as they stop short of articulation, might well
7

start at the level of the poems announced referent, Lenore or the deathof a beautiful
woman, (1004). He addresses the culture of women being the captains of poetry, both reading
and writing during the time period much as Richards did, except Goddens views are much less
feminist. He claims that Poe found female morality to be the most poetic topic, which Poe
admitted himself. Godden explains that it came from the culture around him, though he may
have been less self-aware than Richards claimed. Godden goes even further to pull race into the
issue, suggesting the reason women idolized womanhood was to block the reality of interracial
sex between owners and slaves. This cultural repressiona word loved by psychoanalystsof
cruel facts could have been imbued within Poes mind, as he joined the crowd of male poets
placing the female gentry on a pedestal (Richards 1004). From there, Godden begins to stray
away from The Raven, referring to Poes other works, but he gets back on subject for the
concluding paragraph, in which he reiterates from his Structuralist stance that Poe, more
specifically The Raven, is unreadable.
Its strange that of all the criticisms gathered, most were either fans of Poe and his bird,
or indifferent so that they could present their academic interpretations. Whether or not their
results were positive, they remained emotionally detached. It was Godden alone who expressed
any disgust at the poet and The Raven. Although there are many more, only six articles of
criticism regarding The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe have been presented here. Even though two
fell under Structuralism and two were written by the same author, each had different analyses,
interpretations, points, and conclusions. Literary Criticism is a vast and seemingly never-ending
field. There are those who worry that eventually the field will die, but if so many responses to
one single poem can be so varied and prolific, then surely as more material is published, the
critics can find more on which to feed themselves, and in turn produce their own unique insights
8

to the text and the writer behind it. At its birth, no piece of literature can be safe; quoth the critic,
Nevermore.

Bibliography
Andres, Jan, and Martina Beneov. "Fractal Analysis Of Poe's Raven, II." Journal Of
Quantitative Linguistics 19.4 (2012): 301-324. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 3
Dec. 2014.
Forsythe, Robert S. "Poe's 'Nevermore': A Note." American Literature: A Journal Of Literary History,
Criticism, And Bibliography 7.4 (1936): 439-452. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 3 Dec.
2014.
Godden, Richard. "Poe And The Poetics Of Opacity: Or, Another Way Of Looking At That Black
Bird." Elh 67.4 (2000): 993-1009. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Gray, Janet Sinclair. "Nevermore The Reverberations: (For Alan Dawley)." Arizona Quarterly: A
Journal Of American Literature, Culture, And Theory 68.3 (2012): 27-53. MLA International
Bibliography. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Richards, Eliza. "Outsourcing 'The Raven': Retroactive Origins." Victorian Poetry 43.2 (2005):
205-221. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Richards, Eliza. "'The Poetess' And Poe's Performance Of The Feminine." Arizona Quarterly: A Journal
Of American Literature, Culture, And Theory 55.2 (1999): 1-29. MLA International
Bibliography. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

10