Originally, this type of analysis was used specifically to break down religious texts, and in a way this could make sense. By separating yourselfs from the text, students may have been able to see the word of God in a clearer sense then if they were just reading it. The holes in this theory began once the rules were used on more modern texts, such as novels and poetry. Liberal humanism has a firm standing against flowery and descriptive language. It is supposed that this sort of language takes away and distracts from the texts true nature, and that being direct and simple is the finest way to create “good” writing. In this theory most poetry is disregarded as too frivolous to be taken seriously. The different novels that the theory was tested against were just as scrutinized. When Thomas Hardy wrote the Withered Arm, he wrote it within the context of his own worldly experience. Of course, Hardy was never a milkmaid, a bastard child, a beautiful young woman, or a farmer but the reader, and those who analyze the text can infer that Hardy was able to construct those experiences through his own understanding of the world. Hardy wrote this story to tell a message and expand on his own ideas of femininity, class, and self worth. Nonetheless, when using liberal humanism, the reader are meant to disregard the author's own intention and position. Sadly, this is somewhat difficult in this particular situation because the author was a well known individual whose life was public. In this context it becomes difficult to separate, even if only on a subconscious level, as the reader would already be bias in this matter. To continue with this train of thought, perhaps the reader was a milkmaid, or a bastard child, or a young beautiful woman. This would also be an inherent bias, as this would affect how the story was seen. This is one of the biggest problems that comes with using liberal humanism, as no one can possibly completely separate from any text. As human beings, our subconscious minds are constantly forming connections
Originally, this type of analysis was used specifically to break down religious texts, and in a way this could make sense. By separating yourselfs from the text, students may have been able to see the word of God in a clearer sense then if they were just reading it. The holes in this theory began once the rules were used on more modern texts, such as novels and poetry. Liberal humanism has a firm standing against flowery and descriptive language. It is supposed that this sort of language takes away and distracts from the texts true nature, and that being direct and simple is the finest way to create “good” writing. In this theory most poetry is disregarded as too frivolous to be taken seriously. The different novels that the theory was tested against were just as scrutinized. When Thomas Hardy wrote the Withered Arm, he wrote it within the context of his own worldly experience. Of course, Hardy was never a milkmaid, a bastard child, a beautiful young woman, or a farmer but the reader, and those who analyze the text can infer that Hardy was able to construct those experiences through his own understanding of the world. Hardy wrote this story to tell a message and expand on his own ideas of femininity, class, and self worth. Nonetheless, when using liberal humanism, the reader are meant to disregard the author's own intention and position. Sadly, this is somewhat difficult in this particular situation because the author was a well known individual whose life was public. In this context it becomes difficult to separate, even if only on a subconscious level, as the reader would already be bias in this matter. To continue with this train of thought, perhaps the reader was a milkmaid, or a bastard child, or a young beautiful woman. This would also be an inherent bias, as this would affect how the story was seen. This is one of the biggest problems that comes with using liberal humanism, as no one can possibly completely separate from any text. As human beings, our subconscious minds are constantly forming connections