IÑIGO, CHELISSA ISABELA ANA F.

MA COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

THE STUDY OF CRITICISM AT THE PRESENT TIME

Davis and Schleifer

AN APOLOGY FOR CRITICISM

• Literary critics are defensive and apologetic about their craft.

• 'Matthew Arnold
◦ He started the genre of APOLOGIA CRITICA when he wrote an essay discussing objections to the importance of criticism.
◦ Detractors said that Arnold was wrong about criticism and that the importance given to it was excessive.
◦ Arnold then said that THERE IS CREATIVITY IN CRITICISM AS WELL AS IN LITERATURE.
• Northrop Frye
◦ He wrote an essay that worried about the critic as an ARTIST MANQUE and criticism itself as a PARASITE FORM OF
LITERARY EXPRESSION; a SECOND-HAND IMITATION OF CREATIVE POWER.
• Susan Sontag
◦ She blasted critics for the way they interpreted literature – for saying misleading things like “X really means A.”
◦ She said that TRANSPARENCE was more valuable, as –
▪ THE HIGHEST, MOST LIBERATING THING IN ART;
▪ EXPERIENCING THE LUMINOUSNESS OF THE THING ITSELF;
▪ OF THINGS BEING WHAT THEY ARE
• David Lodge
◦ He disputed Sontag's point and imagined a sad cadre of TEACHERS OF LITERATURE WHO [DISCOURAGE READING
CRITICISM BECAUSE IT BLUNTS CAPACITY FOR INDEPENDEDNT RESPONSE AND JUDGMENT].
• Geoffrey Hartman
◦ He quoted Eliot and said that CRITICISM IS AS INEVITABLE AS BREATHING.
◦ He explored PHILOSOPHIC CRITICISM and PRACTICAL CRITICISM.
◦ He assured critics that CRITICISM MUST BE ACCORDED ITS STATUS AS A GENRE OR PRIMARY TEXT TOO.
• J. Hillis Miller
◦ He said that CRITICISM [ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS WIDER AREAS OF CULTURAL PRACTICE BEYOND
LITERATURE.
◦ He said that THE STUDY OF LITERATURE [CARRIES FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION A WHOLE FREIGHT OF
A CULTURE'S VALUES].
▪ CULTURE = THE BEST THAT IS KNOWN AND THOUGHT IN THE WORLD

THE CONTRARIETY OF CRITICISM

• There is a conflict within critical practice: the CONTRADICTION BETWEEN –

◦ CREATING A SITUATION IN WHICH CULTURE CAN HAVE WIDE CURRENCY (TRANSPARENCE); GETTING AS
MANY PEOPLE IN CONTACT WITH CULTURE
▪ where culture is written about as it is
◦ MAINTAINING CULTURAL VALUES IN GENERAL [IN THE VERBAL UNIVERSE]
▪ VERBAL UNIVERSE: WHERE LIFE AND REALITY ARE INSIDE LITERATURE, [WHICH CAN ONLY BE
UNDERSTOOD THROUGH CRITICISM].
▪ where criticism must be applied to understand culture
• Criticism's horizon includes a vast array of questions across disciplines.
• LITERARY THEORY: THE EXPLORATION OF WIDER CULTURAL QUESTIONS
◦ Literary Theory often meets opposition because it MAKES THE CONTRADICTION IN CRITICISM.
◦ Literary Theory is apologetic because it EXPLORES AND SITUATES WHAT IT IS DOING.
• Friedrich Schlegel
◦ He imagined criticism to be a RECONSTRUCTIVE PROCESS – WHERE A CRITIC ENHANCES THE DEVELOPMENT
OF ART.
◦ Because of the RECONSTRUCTIVE PROCESS, CRITICISM HAS EXPLORED ITS PRACTICE AND SOCIAL
SITUATION, ELEVATING IT TO [AN ART FORM].
• Frank Kermode
◦ He poses a contrary view to Schlegel's.
◦ He says that GENRE IS A CONSENSUS; A SET OF PRE-UNDERSTANDINGS INDEPENDENT OF A TEXT, WHICH
ENABLE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW A TEXT.
◦ He says that criticism is DEPENDENT ON LITERATURE; AN ADJUNCT.
◦ He says that criticism and literature belong in different areas of culture.
• Another parallel view to Kermode's is that –
◦ CRITICISM IS A HERMENEUTICS THAT AIMS TO RECOVER THE INTENTIONAL MEANINGS OF THE ARTIST THEN
QUIETLY DISAPPEAR.
▪ HERMENEUTICS = the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation
◦ Rarely does criticism increase our appreciation of artistic form.
• Because of the uncertainty about criticism vis-a-vis literary texts, WE ARE LEFT WITH A HYBRID CRITICAL THING THAT IS
MUTUALLY IMPLICATED.
IÑIGO, CHELISSA ISABELA ANA F. MA COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

• It is difficult to say how criticism and literature form a relationship.

THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE

• There is a dispute between M.H. Abrams and Miller.

• Miller's side –
◦ Abrams says in an essay that certain authors have TRANSLATED SUPERNATURALISM INTO HUMANISM AND THEN
INTO ROMANTICISM.
◦ Miller says that these assumptions are a VERSION OF WESTERN METAPHYSICS – ONE THAT COULD EVEN BE
DEFINED AS ROMANTIC.
◦ Miller also says that the essay PRESENTS THE FAMILIAR SPECTACLE OF A BOOOK WITH ROMANTIC
ASSUMPTIONS.
◦ Miller also says that when Abrams DRAWS UPON ROMANTIC ASSUMPTIONS IN HIS WORK, HE BLURS THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRITICISM AND LITERATURE.
◦ Miller also says that by USING “AND” IN BETWEEN CRITICISM AND LITERATURE IS A MOMENT OF APORIAS
▪ APORIA = AN IRREVERSIBLE CONTRADICTION
◦ Miller also says that the CRITIC IS HOST TO LITERARY TEXTS; BOTH WORDS “HOST” AND “TEXT” SUBDIVIDE.
◦ Miller also says that CRITICISM IS INHERENTLY FICTIONAL AND FICTION IS DEEPLY CRITICAL.
• Abrams' side –
◦ Abrams says it was CORRECT TO USE TASTE, TACT, AND INTUITION [IN HIS ESSAY] VERSUS A CONTROLLING
METHOD BECAUSE THE RULES OF ROMANTIC DISCOURSE ARE COMPLEX...
◦ Abrams says, in response to Miller's claim that he wrote a romantic fiction, that he was WORKING INTUITIVELY TO
DISCOVER THE ROMANTIC INFLUENCE LOCATED OUT THERE WITH OBJECTIVE VALIDITY.
◦ Abrams also says there was no Romantic stance in his work, nor a mixing of poetry with criticism.
◦ Abrams also says that literature and criticism are distinct entities.
◦ Abrams also says that criticism draws life from literature's body; LITERATURE IS THE HOST.
◦ Abrams also says that CRITICISM AND LITERATURE PARTICIPATE IN A LITERARY DISCOURSE WHERE “HOST” AND
“GUEST” ARE SIGNIFICANT AND REVERSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.
◦ Abrams also says that CRITICISM AND LITERATURE ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE IN A WAY THAT CHALLENGES
THEIR DISTINCTNESS.
• Four Major Areas of Contemporary Critical Strategies –
◦ The Exegetical Approach
▪ EXEGETICAL = AN EXPLANATION OF A TEXT
▪ Criticism finds the external constraints on a text – A FORMAL ORDERING OF TEXTUAL CONTENT.
▪ Criticism is undesirable yet unavoidable.
▪ This area is a variant of Sontag's anti-interpretation stance.
◦ The Hermeneutic Approach
▪ This is a less rigid division between criticism and literary text.
▪ This criticism attempts to discover literary form through the probing of a text – AN INTERROGATION OF THE TEXT'S
INTERIOR.
▪ This approach entails believing that a TEXT CONSTITUTES ITS OWN INTERIOR WORLD, WHICH CAN BE
ENTERED DIRECTLY BY THE READER THROUGH IMAGINING THE TEXT.
◦ The Reader-Response Approach
▪ This approach creates a smaller separation between literature and criticism.
▪ Here, the relationship is affective in that it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE A TEXT'S AFFECT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE
READER.
• AFFECTIVE = PSYCHOLOGICAL
• AFFECT = EMOTIONAL CONTOUR
▪ This approach uses a more social than personal way to understand the text within a reader.
◦ The Semiotic and Deconstructivehe Approach
▪ In this approach, the barrier between criticism and literature dissolves altogether.
▪ Here, the criticism/literature relationship INVOLVES MULTIPLE INFLUENCES AMONG TEXTS AND SYSTEMS –
CHAINS OF SIGNIFIERS MOVING FREELY WITHIN TEXT.
▪ Here, EACH CRITICAL OR LITERARY TEXT IS A LOCALIZED BUT INDETERMINATE INSCRIPTION OF AN
INTERTEXT.
▪ There are two extremes.
• In one extreme, GENRE IS AN EXTRATEXTUAL CONTEXT OF EXPECTATION/A SET OF PREVIOUS
UNDERSTANDINGS PRESENT IN READERS' AND WRITERS' MINDS.
• At the other extreme, THE CRITICAL TEXT SLIPS IN AND OUT OF SIGHT AS IT MERGES INTO AND COMES
OUT OF THE LITERARY TEXT.
• Reading is a radically historical concern, happening each time as if for the first time.
◦ Raymond Federman
▪ He says that TOMORROW'S FICTION WILL UNMASK ITS OWN FICTIONALITY AND EXPOSE THE METAPHONE
OF ITS OWN FRAUDULENCE.
• This statement means four things for the future of fiction –
IÑIGO, CHELISSA ISABELA ANA F. MA COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

◦ The boring and restrictive typography of novels will now give the reader an element of choice and
discovery.
◦ Linear narration will be broken up.
◦ There will be a realization that THERE CANNOT BE ANY TRUTH EXTERIOR TO FICTION AND WRITING
FICTION WILL BE A PROCESS OF INVENTING THE MATERIAL ON THE SPOT.
◦ Future fiction will be devoid of any meaning – it will be deliberately illogical...
• These four things EXPOSE THE FICTIONALITY OF REALITY AND SHOW THAT REALITY EXISTS ONLY IN
ITS FICTIONALIZED VERSION.
◦ This seems distant from current ethical and political concerns in criticism.
• These things constitute more than criticism or a prediction for the future.
• These things CONSTITUTE A FUNDAMENTALLY LITERARY TEXT SITUATED WITHIN THE GENRE OF
PROSE FICTION CRITICISM.
• This genre IS A FICTIONAL CONSTRUCT OR SURFICTION AIMED AT NO TRUTH OR REALITY EXTERIOR
TO FICTION.

THE HUMAN SCIENCES AND CULTURAL CRITICISM

• There is another debate: the question of the nature of humanistic study and the disciplinary practice of literary criticism.
• The traditional view is that th HUMANITIES HAVE BEEN AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE THAT EXAMINED UNIQUE HUMAN
EVENTS THAT OCCUR ONLY ONCE AND CAN ONLY BE STUDIED THROUGH DESCRIPTION AND PARAPHROASE.
• Humanistic phenomena ARE NONRECURRENT AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO EXACT AND GENERALIZING
TREATMENT; THERE IS A DIFFERENT METHOD – HISTORY.
• Since the OBJECTS OF HUMANISTIC STUDY ARE UNIQUE, THEY CAN ONLY BE CATALOGUED IN HISTORICAL ORDER.
• The humanities have been HISTORICAL STUDIES and so also with critical practice.
• Literature is yet unorganized by criticism, and THE ONLY ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE DISCOVERED IS CHRONOLOGY.
• The humanities could RISE ABOVE A PRIMITIVE DESCRIPTION TO A SYSTEMATIC SCIENCE...
◦ By doing this, humanities would view their objects in terms of their systematic relationships or the elements that constitute
them.
◦ Humanities would then become THE HUMAN SCIENCES.
▪ Humanities would attempt to describe what distinguishes literature from other language use and what literature has in
common with them.
◦ This would make the humanities a social science.
• There are two methods to literary study –
◦ Literary History
◦ Systematizing Criticism
▪ What allows this method is the fact that humanities deal in the study of language and discourse.
• Criticism can be situated as a part of the study of culture.
◦ CULTURE = THE SIGNIFYING SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH A SOCIAL SYSTEM IS COMMUNICATED...
◦ This puts critical activity in a position to direct methods and observations to the widest area of meaning-production.
◦ LITERATURE = A PRIVILEGED SITE WHERE THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL
FORCES COMBINE AND CONTEND.
◦ The attention of discoure is thus a NATURAL FOCUS OF LITERARY STUDIES AND A NATURAL OUTGROWTH OF
CRITICISM.

THE DIFFICULTY OF CRITICISM

• The paradox to criticism is that critical texts sould be WRITERLY OR OBSCURE AND DIFFICULT TO READ.
◦ This is so because they are not written in the tradition of EXPLICATION DE TEXTE OR IN THE FORMALIST MODE.
▪ EXPLICATION DE TEXTE = CLOSE READING
• There are four types of difficulty in reading contemporary criticism –
◦ Contingent
▪ These are the problems we have with the obscurity of a text, such as terms we need to look up – we either
understand or fail to understand them.
◦ Model
▪ This is the reader's resistance to the text's presentation and the reader's misunderstanding or dislike of its mode.
▪ MODE = GENRE AND FORM
◦ Tactical
▪ This difficulty is created by a writer's strategies for dislocating the reader and inhibiting any usual or conventional
response to a text.
◦ Ontological
▪ THE DIFFICULTIES OF THIS CATEGORY CANNOT BE LOOKED UP BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE BLANK
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF HUMAN SPEECH...
▪ This difficulty arises the text POSITS A NEW PARADIGM OR UNDERSTANDING, BREACHING THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN WRITER AND READER AND TEXT AND MEANING.
▪