[I had written this article sometime ago to plead for a more accessible and simpler approach to literary criticism. ]

The role of imaginative literature in the process of human existence, the relationship between literature and society, and the utility of literary and cultural criticism to the society and to literature itself have been topics of hot and provoking debates since Plato and Aristotle, to the present day. These topics have always been discussed evaluated and re-evaluated with utmost zeal and energy by critical thinkers and litterateurs of high caliber, repeatedly over the ages and yet they have remained questions of immortal significance- every age re-evaluating these topics to formulate its own notions of creation and criticism for its own good.

The study of literature as well as the practice of literary criticism today, has become too much academic and jargon-ridden and the need to formulate proper notions of the study and criticism of literature is greater today than it ever was. This obviously calls, for a serious rethinking of the function and purpose of literary criticism, proper and fit for our age – the age of visual media and digital culture.

It won’t be altogether wrong if we choose to call the previous century ‘a century of critical theories’. The later half of the twentieth century in particular was an era when ‘critical theories’ flourished, but ‘criticism’ suffered, in the sense, that while there were so many isms (e.g. Structuralism, Post-structuralism, Feminism, Marxism, Postmodernism, Post -colonialism and the fairly resent -New Historicism), the perceptive and simple reading of literary works (whether classics or contemporary) for the common reader with the purpose to arouse or increase his interest in literature and at the same time to encourage his independent thinking about literature, was rarely in place. So many brilliant minds were (and some of them still are) at work producing dazzling works of scholarship and putting forth path-breaking notions and theories about literature and criticism. Many traditions were broken and many accepted notions and beliefs were toppled in the process of proclamation and practice of these theories, but as we look back the questions that need to be addressed are: “Whether this enterprise was able to draw the attention of the common reader and awaken him towards the new found truths? Were these findings conveyed beyond the boundaries of the universities (because, as we know most of the twentieth century critical theories evolved in the universities and the academia) to the curious reader in the language and manner conducive to his understanding?”

Literary criticism since the 1950s and 60s has largely become a scholar-to-scholar communication and does not reach out beyond the academic debates, conferences and scholarly books to the naive and ordinary reader with little or no literary competence as much as it should do. As I discuss these questions, the common, curious and ordinary reader that I have in mind is the one who reads literature because he loves literature and who loves literature because it delights him, teaches him something, makes his life a bit better and reminds him that he is something more and better than just a species on planet earth.

This essay, by no means attempts to undermine the importance of literary theories. All the major literary theories of the twentieth century have been, in their essential form, genuinely helpful in imparting some new approach to the literary studies so as to arrive at the true meaning of literary texts. But the problem is in the excess, which, almost all these theories do in the ignoring the ‘moral’ concerns of literature and attempting too microscopic analyses of the text and context so much canonical, so much jargon-ridden that it rarely excites the attention and curiosity of an ordinary lover of literature.

Whosoever coined the term cannon for literary theory, must be praised because it (the literary theory) is indeed like a cannon which, if shot from proper distance, may prove helpful in demolishing the walls of ambiguity around the text but then, there is always the danger of the text itself being demolished if the cannon is used over-enthusiastically and taken too close.

Coming back to the point then, the need to promote literature and literary studies by means of criticism, is greater today than it ever was. The reason behind this, is that the culture of reading, contemplation and debate is in serious jeopardy due to the excessive bombardment of the uncensored, unevaluated information through visual media which often leaves us in awe, hampers our faculties of judgment and corrupts our tastes to the extent that we formulate the habit of boarding the bandwagon, sometimes knowingly but often unknowingly, which creates situation which the postmodernists call hyperreality¹ (a condition when the difference between surface and reality is eliminated and what is simulated, is mistaken as real.) We need to guard ourselves and our tastes against this modern Philistinism (to borrow Arnold’s phrase.) The authority of good literature once more needs to be asserted in order to make sure that the culture of our civilization remains ‘Culture’ and is enriched at the same time. Championing good literature and promoting culture to prevent people from being addicted to unhealthy forms entertainment is what we need. Once more then, the Victorian path of criticism, suggested by Matthew Arnold as the promotion of the best that is known and thought in the world needs to be trod by the twenty-first century literary critic.

It should be made clear at this point, however, that this discourse is not meant to be a defense of the traditional liberal humanist critical practice. It only means to say that the critic analyses a literary text for no other purpose than to help a commoner enjoy it, and deepen his love of literature. Today, when the popularity of serious literature is suffering a perceivable decline, due to the excess of the visual culture, this function of literary criticism becomes all the more important. If criticism drifts from this basic principle, it may be of high scholarly and academic value, but it can never be engaging and profound. It won’t be read by the masses. It won’t do any fruitful service to literature itself and what on earth can its purpose be then?

Most of the major figures in the twentieth century literary criticism were theorists (not exactly critics) who spent most of their energies in reacting to the pre-existing literary theories or proclaiming new ones or both. They wrote criticisms mainly to illustrate their theoretical viewpoints rather than promote literature and culture for the commoners. It is true that the need for a theoretical framework (reliable and stable) for the analyses of literary text can’t be overlooked. It is good, as René Wellek once wrote to F.R. Levis, to ‘state your assumptions more explicitly and defend them systematically’² but it is not proper at all for a critic to be a sworn devotee of a particular theoretical approach and always use its spectacles to look at literature and practice criticism only to make his viewpoint prevail. It is presumptuous to think that a certain theory contains all the insights needed for an ideal analysis of literary texts. Criticism must be eclectic drawing into operation all good aspects of each theoretical approach and yet it should be kept simple, entertaining, clear and concise.

The kind of criticism that I have argued for is well exemplified in some recent works of scholars like Harold Bloom and Stephen Greenblalt. The three works of Professor Bloom that stand our in this context are: Genius: A Mosaic of Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human and How to Read and Why. In the first book, we are given entertaining and illuminating accounts of hundred all time greats of art and literature. In the second book, the central augment that Mr. Bloom puts forth through his reading of Shakespeare’s works is that Shakespeare has been the greatest force in shaping the human personality in the Western world. This has provoked a lot of hot debate since its publication in 1998. His third book tries to attract the people to the pleasures of reading and speaks about the benefits and joys of reading and also suggests ways of smart reading. I would like to quote at this point, a fragment from an interview which Prof. Bloom recently gave to a website. The quotation that follows is a part of his reply to the question regarding the inspiration behind his book How to Read and Why and it helps vindicate my position. Professor Bloom says:

“To this day I am deluged with mail from people who say how desperately pleased they are to find that someone is indeed writing about literature for the common reader, that someone does not try, as it were to do a French thing, in regard to literary study or the many ideological modes which I will not mention which are now practiced in the Anglo-American universities and college world”.³

This opinion then, highlights the facts that the academic world is doing very little for the common readers and that the common readers love literature and are delighted when someone of Mr. Bloom’s stature writes for them about literature. It also highlights how scarcely anything is written for the commoner by the literary expert.

Alongside Professor Bloom must be mentioned the name of Mr. Stephen Greenblatt, the Harvard Professor and world renounced Shakespeare scholar whose biography of Shakespeare: Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare has won considerable popular applause and critical acclamation. I haven’t yet had the pleasure to go through Mr. Greenblatt’s book in its entirety, but whatever I have read about it suggests that it is a highly speculative biography of the bard wherein the author imagines him as a literary enthusiast from his very early childhood and tries to place him in a scenario which is the outcome, probably of Professor Greenblatt’s lifelong devotion to Shakespeare as well as some recently discovered politico-historical facts and new interpretations of the text of courses.

I have discussed these very recent examples in extreme brevity just to emphasize the reason behind the popularity of these books: they have been written for the common reader and do not need a highly sophisticated reader with a lot of literary competence to understand and enjoy them. They appeal to scholars alike because of the erudite scholarship of their authors, which they have gained from their long and sustained labour in their respective disciplines.

The point that I want to emphasize is that books like these need to be written to promote literature and culture and cultivate and (if needed) correct the tastes of the masses. This threefold task which Arnold suggested and Eliot practiced, yet remains the right path for the critic because it is hard to think about any other and more important function of literary criticism than this. This essential function of literary criticism has been grossly neglected in the past five decades because there was too much theorizing- almost a war of theories and criticism suffered because of the trend to practice it only to prove or illustrate some theoretical approach.

Nobody can and should undermine the importance of literary theories. A brilliant achievement of twentieth century criticism is the plethora of theories that evolved during its later half. But the excessive attention on theories, led criticism astray from its proper course, which I reiterate, is to promote literature, culture and cultivate and correct tastes.

Criticism, it is true, can’t (and mustn’t) do without theoretical approaches. They are the wheels that move the vehicle of critical effort forward. René Wellek’s advice to state one’s assumption explicitly and defend them systematically is laudable indeed. But to think that a certain critical approach is the only comprehensive approach and swear by it and put its label upon you is altogether wrong. Excesses are there in almost all theoretical approaches that should be reduced and insights and findings from all streams of thought must be employed to light the text up. At the same time, it is important to ensure that these critical efforts are kept mass centric and not just scholar-centric so that the commoners also develop their literary competence which in turn will prove helpful in enriching the taste of the people.

NOTES

1. This term was coined by Jean Baudrillard in his essay ‘Simulacra and Simulations’ originally a part of his book Simulations (1981) reprinted in abridged form in Modernism/Postmodernism (ed.) Peter Brooker (Longman, 1992).

2. In ‘Scrutiny’ March 1937, p.376. Quoted by Barry, Peter in Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory 2^nd Edition, (Manchester and New York: 2002), Manchester University Press.

3. The full text of this interview can be read at http://www.bookbrowse.com