<<<
Upon giving the matter a little attention, we percerive that criticism, far from being a simple and orderly field of beneficent activity, from which impostors can be readily ejected, is no better than a Sunday park of contending and contentious orators, who have not even arrived at the articulation of their differences.
>>>
Post a comment
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
One appreciates that honest workmanlike criticism can be invaluable; I think of Frederick Crews' work on Hawthorne's stories before Crews went ballistic on Freud. But the older one gets, the more one realizes that "theory" seems more and more to be the tedious delivery of what one already knows. And why wouldn't it be? It's basically the working out of one's personality in conflict with one's god. On the other hand, poetry starts there, and at its best can be truly visionary. As a recent example of this, I would say read Jorie Graham's poem, "Death," in the April 8th issue of The New Yorker. It's a great poem. You may get annoyed at Graham's affectations, as I do, like right-justification, for instance; but when she hits a home run it leaves the park. "Death" is on the Whitman-Dickinson level of seriousness and greatness, I think. But generally, comparing poetry and criticism is apples and orangutans.
Posted by: jim c | May 26, 2024 at 06:49 AM
Jim, thanks for this excellent comment; it could form the basis of a terrific little essay. I agree with you about Crews and theory. Applicants and orangutans needn't say no.
Posted by: David Lehman | May 26, 2024 at 03:40 PM
"Applicants" is a GREAT synonym for "poets."
Posted by: jim c | May 26, 2024 at 05:13 PM
Every now and then, a sense of the futility of their daily endeavors falling suddenly upon them, the critics of Christendom turn to a somewhat sour and depressing consideration of the nature and objects of their own craft. That is to say, they turn to criticizing criticism. What is it in plain words? What is its aim, exactly stated in legal terms? How far can it go? What good can it do? What is its normal effect upon the artist and the work of art?
Such a spell of self-searching has been in progress for several years past, and the critics of various countries have contributed theories of more or less lucidity and plausibility to the discussion. Their views of their own art, it appears, are quite as divergent as their views of the arts they more commonly deal with. One group argues, partly by directly statement and partly by attacking all other groups, that the one defensible purpose of the critic is to encourage the virtuous and oppose the sinful --- in brief, to police the fine arts and so hold them in tune with the moral order of the world. Another group, repudiating this constabulary function, argues hotly that the arts have nothing to do with morality whatsoever ---- that their concern is solely with pure beauty. A third group holds that the chief aspect of a work of art, particularly in the field of literature, is its aspect as psychological document ---- that if it doesn't help men to know themselves it is nothing. A forth group reduces the thing to an exact science, and sets up standards that resemble algebraic formulæ ---- this is the group of metrists, of contrapuntists and of those who gabble of light-waves. And so, in order, follow groups five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, each with its theory and its proofs.
H.L. Mencken Criticism of Criticism of Criticism
Posted by: Kyril Alexander Calsoyas | June 01, 2024 at 12:18 PM