It also presents an analysis of some of its author's own poetic works, an unusual characteristic for modern criticism—it has become far more usual today for poets and critics to be in separate camps, rather than united in one individual.
Part of the reason for the importance of this particular piece in Eliot's body of work is the position it holds as successor to an earlier (and probably better known) effort at defining the critical endeavour, Tradition and the Individual Talent.
The existing [literary] monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them.
Ransom, participating in the New Critical tradition of borrowing from Eliot, writes that One of the best things in his influence has been his habit of considering aesthetic effect as independent of religious effect, or moral, or political and social; as an end that is beyond and not co-ordinate with these.
In their theories of literary criticism, it is of vital importance to separate the work in question from all other factors, both on the side of creation (i.e., the writer's intentions) and on that of consumption (the reader's reactions).
(113) Eliot is here giving voice to one of the most common objections to New Criticism, namely that it removes all the enjoyment from a work of literature by dissecting it.
On the whole question of enjoyment, Eliot diverges from the general trend of New Criticism, which primarily concerned itself with interpretation.
[5] A large part of this lecture is devoted to Eliot's critique of what he calls "the criticism by explanation of origins" (107).
The other, however, is James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, a work composed mostly what Eliot refers to as "merely beautiful nonsense" (109) that has puzzled critics since its publication.
He takes an amused tone when describing his feelings on hearing what some readers have thought about his various works, with primary reference to The Waste Land.
He credits Coleridge with bringing other disciplines (e.g., philosophy, psychology) into the field of literary study.
(116–17) The argument of the essay is for a strongly individualist criticism, made clear by the frequent references to the author's own works.
In this, Eliot has something in common with the style of literary criticism expounded by Matthew Arnold, known for its emphasis on reading to make oneself a better writer.