Eliot, Criticism, Classicism...etc

I think this article was very interesting because of the way it was written. I found Eliot’s lighthearted method for criticizing very effectual. I think it allowed him to express himself in a manner that made his opinions seem unthreatening. Instead of conspicuously criticizing the romantics, he takes the approach of subtly explaining himself. He also discusses lots of the ideas of traditional writing: ideas of classicism. His description of these classic ideas do justice in helping the reader understand exactly what classicism is by comparing it with ideas about romanticism.
As Eliot puts it, romanticism focuses on a set script for writing, rather than writing in an analytical way. I found it interesting that classicism and traditional are supposed to affect one another as the past and present both work off one another. I do understand it though. I think that the way classicism pulls text together makes it so that romanticism seems too formulated. This formulated method seems to be one that I would associate with classicism because I expect it to focus on a more traditional form of writing, one that I would accuse of being more formulaic. I guess these are the type of ideas that Eliot is fighting against when he says that writing is open to criticism and if this is the case, then all writing must adapt to challenge this criticism.
I did really enjoy reading about the individual talent. It reminded me of the idea of eliminating psychoanalytic criticism when reading someone’s work. In the same way Eliot prefers that a work is taken for what it is and not who wrote, so does psychoanalytic criticism call for removing the writer from the work. I think this method is very important in reading anything. It is interesting that Eliot and Woolf both seem to support this, considering their respective medical issues.