Literary Criticism

I was in my: Uses and Abuses of English Literary Theory class the other day. I must admit, these english literature subjects, which tend to focus on the analysis of texts and the critiquing of them, is becoming rather tedious and frustrating.

The topic of discussion for the tutorial was: Authorship and Authority. In short, this week we discussed how the author of a novel controls the meaning that is produced, and extrapolated, from the text, by the reader and critic. Furthermore, we discussed whether or not the author, the reader, or the critic should "control" meaning, and how a text would be interpreted. I was quite content with sitting back and watching the debate ensue, whilst also forming my own arguments and saving them for the "opportune moment".
When the question was put to us: "Should the author "control" meaning?" one girl in the class put her hand up and responded thus:
"I don't think the author should, because not everyone would agree with the author's interpretation of events/ issues of concern, in the text. They try to, through interviews and such, but i don't think they should have that "control". Many have started to put introductions in the beginning of the book itself to try and guide our thoughts, but i don't read them, because i know what they're trying to do."

I, having heard quite enought to last me a life- time, raised my hand and stole the floor, immediately plunging into an offensive against the erroneous and misguided claims my fellow scholar had put forward just moments ago.
"In "Ratatouille", the children's film, Anton Ego, the antagonistic food critic gives a final review of the restuarant "Gusteau's". In this criticism Anton says: "...We critics thrive on negative criticism, because it's fun to write and to read..." This tells me one thing: Humanity, as a collective, is firmly set on the deconstruction, and destruction of something new, something sweet, something artistic, something beautiful. I haven't published a book, as yet, but i am trying. The problem is, the author writes with the intention of entertaining. A writer is another entertainer, in an art form, much different to all others. People, every day, define new fashions, new styles, new values, new morals. As if control was not already aquired and held by the masses, but on top of all this, we have critics and other people, some of whom even exist in this class; who are set on reading and interpreting texts in their own way. What these people fail to see is that the introduction at the beginning of a text, whilst may be instructional, and asking for the reader to consider certain factors when reading the text, it DOES NOT have to be taken into account. What this introduction does, what this "statement of intent/ purpose" is doing, is acting as assurance to the author. If the author knows that something in their text may be interpreted as something they had no intention for, then the introduction would ask the reader to take into account certain factors/ circumstances when reading that part/ section/ extract. It has nothing to do with "controlling" what people think or feel or interpret the text as, however, it is asking you to see things from the perspective of the author when reading the text. Instead, what we have are people who are so fond of freedom that they'd sooner take a text, something someone has put their heart into; and critique it, deconstruct it, all for the sake of finding meaning...and as if this were not enough, on top of all this, there exist people in the world set on interpreting certain things as something they're not, and then bringing down the credibility of the author through negative criticism. THIS is the world we live in today! THIS is the sacred art of literary criticism."

Thus ended my seige. The class remained quiet for what seemed a long time. I think the point had hit home, and i also think some thought me a complete idiot for having gone on such a aggressive defence. A friend sitting beside me had looked at me with a smirk when i had started. Gradually the smirk left his face, and by the end of my monologue, the look was indescribable. My other friend, sitting next to him, on the other hand, watched the effect of my words take over the class. She, being of the same mind, was unpurturbed and even smiled at me afterwards. Deborah, our tutor; who understood my stance on english literature criticism from last year second semester, was trying hard to break the silence, and i cannot help but feel as though i may have crossed a line, which even she, despite understanding my argument, would not have crossed. At least, not in the manner which i did.

The point, very loosely, i was trying to make was: Modern day criticism techniques are not just set on the deconstruction and analysis of a text for the sake of enhancing meaning. Modern day criticism techniques are also set on "passing judgement" on a text, and stating the "value" of that text. Undoubtedly, there may be some very poorly written books. However, i return to Anton Ego's words: "In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things the average peice of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."

The challenges many authors face is simple. Writing for the masses means that there are certain conventions, certain events, certain themes that can be included, that should be included, to ensure the success of a novel. Many authors, in fact all authors, devote their time and effort to writing, and subsequently, perfecting their work, till it is put to the press. Having their intentions dictated, their work altered by strange hands, often several times, and after putting in their time and effort to providing a source of entertainment, the author is the subjected to criticism. Not only from the readers, but from the critics as well. Their work, the art- work, their master- piece, is deconstructed, and examined in the most ruthless and unjust way, by BOTH people and critics alike. Rather than enjoy "Art for Art's sake" the people and the critics would prefer to analyse and create dellusions in the minds, by creating false meanings and interpretations of themes/ events and commentaries in the text.

The problem, i believe, is that: even in criticism, critics will look at different things as well. What one will percieve as important, another may disregard as insignificant. What critics fail to see is the importance of the text as a whole. What they fail to realise, because they are so set on criticising, is that the unity of the text is just as important as the individual factors/ elements of a novel and a story, which make up the whole, unifying idea of "novel". However, modern day criticism methods judge a book by how well it perfoms in various areas/ elements, which make up the whole. Furthermore, it is from the individual elements, and how the text and the author have performed in each, from whence the final judgement is made. No critic, nowdays, has judged, or will judge the "value" of a text by combining all the elements of the text, along with the effort of the author, to make a final judgement. The days of enjoying Art for the sake of Art are long gone. In their place have come the days of utter distaste, and a common goal for the destruction of all art that is meaningful.