ABSTRACT

N OT all the literary critics who have written about Richards and whose works I have read, show evidence of misunderstanding

hirn, any more than all philosophers do. Only about half fall into this elass, though if we were to incJude a Jull understanding of Richards' theory, then the proportion would dwindle considerably. As I pointed out earlier, few writers seem to have appreciated Richards' theory about the way in which experiences are valuable, because of the increased capacity for fulfilling impulses that they bring about, something wh ich we need to und erstand in order to understand his later notions of growth, and self-fulfilment. If these ideas are noticed at all, they are dismissed as "mysterious" or treated as simple, rather than as the complex abstractions they are. The means to understanding them lie in Richards' speculative theory ab out attitudes. But his critics are generally too ignorant of psychology to follow Richards' reasoning, or so much reacting against what they conceive to be an overemphasis upon science, psychology, and neurological models that they are prevented from seeing the distinct and weIl articulated pattern that is presented in the Principles and which should act as a frame of reference for the later works.