INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY CRITICISM

Clarification

 

    The word criticism is invariably used in everyday conversation in the meaning of censure or finding fault. After all, to criticise is essentially construed as an act of passing negative remarks on somebody or something. This however is a prevalent misconception. Criticism comes from the Greek ‘Kritikos’ meaning critic which in turn derives itself from ‘kritos’ meaning a judge. Criticism thus literally denotes judgement, which implies the idea of discerning both the positive and negative qualities with regard to the phenomenon under scrutiny. The reason as to why the term is employed in a predominantly pejorative sense, primarily comes down to the fact that as humans we tend to be relatively far more perceptive of the negatives than the positives while judging. Considering what criticism truly means, it naturally follows that literary criticism exemplifies the activity of deciphering and setting forth the merits and demerits of a literary work. This said however it must be pointed out that the significance of literary criticism has tellingly evolved over the years, to the extent that it presently denotes a whole range of concerns from analysis to evaluation, examination to interpretation. The point is that literary criticism as it exists today, cannot possibly be pinned down to any definite or specific essence, a factor that underscores both its diversity and complexity as a discipline.

 

Functions of Literary Criticism

 

    Though its significance has grown substantially in due course, the fact still remains that literary criticism is fundamentally a secondary venture, and therefore should never strive to overshadow the primary significance of the actual work of art. After all, there is no question of criticising literature if there is no literature available in the first place. It must therefore be borne in mind that the function of literary criticism should be aimed at facilitating an orientation towards the actual work of art being criticised, rather than trying to affirm its own significance. Keeping in view this imperative, we can say there are two functions that literary criticism is expected to perform. On the one hand, it must seek to explain what the literary work is essentially about, which is to say, set forth explicitly what is implicit in the text. On the other, it should motivate in such a way that the reader is compelled to read the actual work of art in question, and if it has already been read, compel to read it again. To elucidate and inspire, these are the twin obligations of literary criticism.

 

Literary Critic

     Anyone everyone can pass judgement on a work of art, explain its meaning, offer an interpretation, but it does not mean all can legitimately claim to be a literary critic. There are certain virtues that a person needs to cultivate in order to be truly considered as such. To begin with, the knowledge of a literary critic in the chosen field of study must far exceed that of a normal person, this is to say, a critic should be a thorough scholar to reckon with. Secondly, a literary critic should be a person of discipline, who will not be swayed by prejudices or predilections in the endeavour of criticism. Objectivity is a hallmark of a literary critic that cannot possibly be compromised. Thirdly, although a critic needs to be stern in adopting the impersonal stance, the fact still remains that such a person is also required to be flexible at the same time. As time moves on, literary paradigms and principles inexorably undergo transformation, and in order to keep with the changes, if a critic has to alter perspectives then it must be done. Finally, a critic should be someone who is astutely capable of finding new and fresh insights into a literary text that others might fail to identify. The critic in short should be a path finder. In summation, we could simply say that a critic as an expert, unlike an ordinary reader who is decidedly not.

 

Types of Literary Criticism

 

    There are so many ways and means in which literary criticism can be classified. Hence it is required to establish a criterion in the first place, if we are to do so in a definite sense. With this precondition in view, adopting the two forms of logical reasoning deduction and induction as our parameter, we can categorise literary criticism into two basic types, judicial and inductive. Judicial criticism exemplifies a method of analysis in which the literary work of art is studied in relation to a certain body of principles that supposedly pre-exist it. The judicial critic is therefore required to become initially familiar with the general laws of literature in question, before taking up the individual work of art for analysis. This is to say, the critic is expected to undertake an enterprise that follows the paradigm of deductive reasoning, which necessitates a movement from the general to the particular. Inductive criticism on the contrary epitomises a mode of evaluation in which the literary text is studied without any prior knowledge or precepts in view, mandating that the principles be actually discerned from the reading of the text. The inductive critic is thus required to approach the text with an open mind, and subsequently venture to construct a body of principles from the analysis performed. This is to say, the critic is expected to fall in line with the pattern of inductive reasoning that warrants a movement from the particular to the general. It must be remembered that both the types have their relative merits and demerits to consider. Judicial criticism  might be for instance considered in one sense as being restrictive in scope, while in another could be construed as hailing an ordered approach to the study of literature. Inductive criticism for its part could be celebrated for endorsing a liberal approach to the work of art on the one hand, while on the other could be readily condemned as being reckless. It is therefore to be borne in mind that the two types of criticism must not be regarded as mutually superior or inferior, only different.