What is the first responsiblity of literary criticism?

Question

I few years ago, I came across the remarkable assertion that "modern literary theory has three branches: Marxism, Freudianism, and feminism." Is that true? Or do most literary critics believe that their first responsiblity is to make an honest attempt to understand the author's intent, and that it would be dishonest to set down any other commentary without first fulfilling that initial responsiblity?

Answer 1

Reading literary criticism of an author's work can be enlightening and enriching. Reading the work of critics helps us to understand the author's intent and teaches us to eventually to be able to discern that intent ourselves--it teaches us to read between the lines. If you really want to learn to appreciate ,say, a poem, read criticisms by more than one critic. That way, you get several different points of view.

There were a lot of books written in the early to mid-20th century dealing with Marxism, (Ayn Rand--anti Marxist), Freudianism and feminism. These authors intended to further their beliefs and agendas by putting them into a fictional work. In this way they garnered sympathy for their causes.

The easiest example is the story of Bambi. When I was a child, I was very upset that hunters killed his mother. To this day, I hate hunting. It was also probably an early veiled argument for gun control, too.

I probably didn't really answer your question, but these are just my thoughts.

Answer 2

Finding good, unbiased literary criticism is tough. I generally have found that feminist critics are the quickest to pigeon-hole a writer (though I have read some fantastic criticisms from hardcore feminists). It depends more on the critic's ego than anything else. I would suggest that rather than Marxism existing as its own branch, it's more of a political branch in general. This also doesn't take into account religion/spiritual beliefs which many crtics rely heavily on. There is definitely a spiritual branch somewhere in there, though it may not be as central as the other three.

The basic system you layed out is essentially true of literary theory but a number of critics do not adhere to this at all. Unfortunately, good literary criticism has practically disappeared in the last half century or so as the literary community becomes more and more inundated with hack writers. We've lost the core literary community that used to exist. There is no more Left Bank, no more San Francisco, even Alphabet City in New York is pretty much devoid of artists. Without an artistic community, literary crticism has become trite.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Answer 3

I don't know about dishonest, but I would certainly consider it arrogant of a critic to review a work without making an effort to understand the motivation of the author in presenting a story in the way they did, and what that story is meant to convey.

Critics must set aside their own likes, dislikes, prejudices, and ego, to view a book dispassionately. They may err, sometimes wildly, in their interpretation of the characters or message. But that is a result of applying their own perception of the work, when they are unable to understand the intent.

Is that the fault of the author, or the critic's ego? Sometimes, it is a bit of both. The author who is so vague about the foundation of a line of thought that it leaves the door open to extreme misinterpretations, is hoisted by their own petard. A critic who is committed to doing his work well, can only base his opinion on what he reads. He may go over and over the book, and in the end, only be able to base his critique on surface values, because the author has buried their nugget of gold too deep.

On the other hand, the critic with an ego may want it all laid out according to his definition of how a book should be written or a theory developed. And when it isn't, they go off on their own tangent, criticizing structure and other points not because it hasn't been delivered in proper literary form, but because it was not delivered according to how he thinks it should be.

Answer 4

It SHOULD be the critic's first and primary responsibility to attempt to be true to the intent and spirit of the author and the work. Alas, many literary critics have self-interest motives, for example publication, for its own sake, propagandizing a certain world view or point of view, etc.

Answer 5

sure, I easily have. Holy scriptures are not seen to be "mere" literary texts; they are seen sacred. Many atheists are in basic terms employing the comparable wide-unfold believers do while pointing out and comparing their holy books: divinely inspired, inerrant, prophetic, and so on, and so on; those are not the attributes of secular literature, so why prepare the approaches of secular grievance, quite if such approaches are rejected a priori via the believer? somebody who believes Genesis is fairly real, working example, shouldn't care what the Documentary hypothesis has to declare approximately Genesis, so why hardship bringing it up in any respect? the two the claims made on behalf of scripture are supportable or not. it fairly is the priority under communicate. If a believer asserts that is all allegory, or all of it must be seen interior the "context it replaced into written", then how is it the inspiration for their theism?