Most criticism is interpretative in a sense, but the main weaknesses of interpretation as a basic critical approach are that it tends to accommodate literary meaning to some other kind of meaning and that it is particularly subject to the selective fallacy. Whatever we are comparing must be similar enough to justify the comparison, yet different enough to yield clear distinctions of one thing from another, for comparison is useful particularly when we want to define the uniqueness of something. Often a certain theme or technique can be clarified by comparing it with its more extended use in other works by the same author. There is danger, of course, in trying to explain the work of A by comparing it with the work of B, for even if we assume that B is a source of A, any significant work alters and transcends its sources. Comparisons are best organized in terms of the basis of comparison rather than the subjects of comparison.
Evaluation is concerned with appraising the merit of a literary work.
Once the main concern of criticism, evaluation has been neglected by modern critics, who tend to feel that they ought to devote their attention to works that have already established themselves. Evaluation depends on criteria , standards of judgment. Many modern critics feel that these questions illustrate the intentional fallacy. Such critics feel that the only intention which can be studied is the realized intention within the work and that any intention not found in the work is irrelevant. Internal Standards .