I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:
In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).
I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.
Cute, but retarded.
Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?
Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.
How would satire be interpreted?
How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?
How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?
If im off base, correct me.