The Nature of Criticism - Herbert Read

The Nature of Criticism

           -Herbert Read

The Nature of Criticism is an essay which talks about the inclusion of scientific elements for emotional appreciation.

There are many weapons which are used in order to criticize a work of art. It was perhaps only Coleridge who tried to give literary criticism a scientific approach by relating it to the technical process of philosophy. To evaluate literature scientifically the hard work from every corner is necessary. Any science covers a large variety of every field and it evaluates literature from that point of view in order to analyze literature aesthetically you have to consider all their implication which are social or ethical in nature. So there is need of differentiating one literature from another one.

The discipline of Psychology it is only concerned with the process of mental activity where as literary criticism takes into consideration the product. According to psychologist art is only an expression of mentality and he does not take into consideration the literary values. Whereas psycho analysis involves the reeducations of the symbols to its proper origin. In art there are many symbols and according to Alfred Alder is ‘the attraction of a work of art arises from its synthesis. These were the general limitations of psychological criticism. Moreover the relation of psycho analysis with literary criticism, it is more concern with literature than criticism.

On this basis there are three questions such as:

What general function does psychoanalysis give to literature?

How does psychoanalysis explain the process of poetic creation or inspiration?

According to Herbert Read there are three people who answers psycho-analysis is the best way they are first, Freud, Juang, and Adler. In the matter of general function of literature Juang is only one of all the three to write about in this detail as he talks about the general principle of contrasted attitude. The contrasting attitudes are none as introversion and extraversion.

Any contrasted attitude is an outcome of a specific activity which unites and separates them. This activity is according to Juang phantasy. This situation is none as antitheses as a result any work of art requires phantasy for optimum imagination. Coming to the second aspects, the social validity of a particular symbol is very important. Symbol in literature is more intelligent than the normal symbol or the normal unconscious symbol of psychology. Any creative mind is capable of psycho analysis and in any mind there are two contrary tendencies in one of them it is being conscious and in the second being imagination perhaps subconsciously.

Part- 2

The main problem of the literary criticism is the question between Romanticism and Classicism and also the complexity between Classicism and Romanticism gives birth to inspiration which he sometimes not at all conscious in nature. Moreover the idea is the activity of inspiration which is explain by modern psychologist which are combine together satisfactorily to give the poetic inspiration but it does not have any format to understand the emotional state. Any inspiration is an outcome of an effective procedure first there is thought which gets converted into an idea, it getting converted to a mental image which turns into physicality which will latter on be selected or rejected.

 The conception of inspiration is beautifully illustrated by PLATO who says that a poet creates a poetry not by art but by inspiration and possession. Through this Read wants to suggest that poetry, painting, and sculpture cannot be merely developed by skills, it also requires lot of inspiration which is very spiritual in nature. It is also believe that inspiration has not been religious at all. It has become an aesthetic turn. The Classical and the Romantic writer were totally different in their attitude but Romantic writer always had to be subjective and which required psycho-analysis to be done.

 Freud in his study said that the phantasis turn in imagination and that turns into creation which is of optimum aesthetic value and subliming in nature. The artist has the capacity to turn phantacy into positive pleasure which is extremely independent in nature. On the basis of this Freud explained the individual in three levels: ID, EGO, and SUPER EGO.

In order to become an artist or to study an artist on has to do that through psycho analysis because you may have to understand the neurotic tendency of the artist. Psycho analysis finds in art a system of symbols which represent a hidden reality and by analyzing them you can understand and testify the genuiness symbol.

Part- 3

It talks about the question that does psycho analysis modify in any way our conception of the critic function?

It is used to find out the difficult answers of questions.

For example- “Hamlet”- The case of Hamlet who hesitate in taking the revenge of his father’s murder.

According to Coleridge Hamlet was a very kind hearted person and as a result he was not capable of taking any decision. Robertson says that the play Hamlet cannot be understood from within but there are no outside materials which can give a concrete answers to give but according to Dr. Jones a psychological explanation can give this answer. Through the understand of complex none as Oedipus complex with the use of hypothesis. He can in away give answer to the reasons of his father murdered. One can apply this theory to literary criticism and discover the strange and unfamiliar tracts of the human mind. In this way psycho analysis tries to resolve to the conflict and allows us to come to a common stand point.

According to Juang there are two fundamental types- the extroverted and the introverted. One is visible and another is imaginary. Therefore the psychologies should take up the position and he must try to expand the horizons of criticism.

Understanding is an outcome of the experience which can be both individual and collective but according to Juang the mind builds up primordial images which eventually turn into some kind of myths or religions through which they find expression in literature.

Conclusion:

Therefore we can say that psycho analysis has to look into myths for actual understanding the poetic imagination and it can only we done by building a hypothesis. The mind of the psycho-analysis has to unite everything in order to criticize any particular work and to solve the problem. 

The Function of Criticism - T. S. Eliot

The Function of Criticism

     T. S. Elioth

                                  

  This essay is an outcome of the controversy that was created in the year 1919. It is actually an answer to Murray’s essay on Eliot’s essay of “Romanticism and Tradition”. This essay is reply to the essay written by Murray.

 In this essay Eliot showcases the close relationship between the present and past in the world literature. One cannot say that which of them is superior. Both of them are dependent and yet independent. According to Eliot criticism is the analysis of the works of literary nature, criticism always has to be about something and its goal is to give proper explanation of all the literary text. Sometimes critics differ from each other because they have their personal biases. According to Eliot all critics should cooperate in order to critics a particular text. The aim and the method of the criticism of the work it should be according to the nature of the work.

  The Second part of this essay talks about Murray’s views on Classicism and Romanticism according to Murray a classical writer cannot be a romantic writer and a romantic writer cannot be the classical writer. But Eliot not believes in this statement that English people are only romantic and French are classical.

  Moreover, he discusses the problems in criticism and goes against the views of Matthew Arnold who differentiated between critical writing and creative writing. Both of them are equally important and critic in order to a criticize other and sometime they are capable to criticize their own work also.

Afterward Eliot differentiated two rates of artists:

 First rate of artists are those who sacrifice and also surrender themselves in order to get meaning of the text.

Whereas the second rate artist does not believe in this and works in a completely opposite direction.

  In the third part Eliot completely goes against the views of Murray as it is all about the discovery some common principles in order to achieve the perfection in art. The perfect artists are those who kept both the past and the present with them and go on writing. The artist who believe in inner voice only are not aware about the tradition, the wisdoms and the experiences of the past which can be extremely advantageous.

  The forth part of this essay is about there is no difference between a critical writer and creative writer, they are almost same. Moreover the highest level of the criticism done by those who criticize their own work. Eliot also talks about the facts and figure of ideal critics:

$   To be an ideal critic, one has to develop an extraordinary sense of facts about the work of art, the conditions, the setting and the mannerisms.

$   Any critic has to be good in comparison and analysis about the theme, the plot and the technical aspects like the structure and the content all of them should be taken together in order to interpret.

$   Facts are not always beneficial because they can sometimes mislead. Fact should be in close connection to what you are writing upon.

$   A good critic has to be extremely objective in nature and should have a scientific attitude by following all the above mention points.

Conclusion:

  In short, Eliot strongly believes in the concept of individuality and originality but he does not neglect the importance of tradition. He respects those critics who criticize the works with the idea of “PASTNESS OF THE PAST” in their mind.

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time by Matthew Arnold

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

     Matthew Arnold


                            

This essay by Arnold was published in "Essays in Criticism" in the year 1865. The major point of concern in this essay was the prevailing attitude that creative and constructive capasity is more important than the critical capasity.

Arnold here tries to elaborate on the definition of criticism bt saying that-

"It is the endeavour in all branchies of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science to see the object as an in it self is realy is."

For creating sometimes, it requires to have the necessary mind set to understand it.

Accroding to Arnold, criticism is all about generating ideas during a specific time and at a specific place. 

According to him any literature can only be generated in the climate of great ideas and in this way.

"Criticism prepares the way for creation."

He further argued that emotional experience in writing criticism and creative work is almost similar. He against the opinion of people who under mind criticism.

Moreover he makes a comparison between Goethe and Byron. According to his both of them had equal creative and productive power. But Goethe had more strong critical view of cultural background. So, he is considered as and rated highly as a better writer than Byron. So, if any poet must have the background knowledge of society then be creative. Criticism not effect with external forces. It is free from all the barriers. It give way to the flow of ideas. Criticism done with full of honestly and it should be done without looking for any ends.

He also believe that criticism as well as important in education because through criticism, understanding of certain aspects with regard to the political, social, and literary understanding is enhanced.

Moreover, he talks about the importance of creativity is more than the importance of criticism. Moving further Arnold talks about the relationship between creative and critical power and focuses on why any literary creation is not possible without criticism?

Answer to this question is that criticism flurished the intellectual ideas. The ideas which are shaped by creativity. So both are interdependence.

Preface to Shakespeare - Samuel Johnson

Preface to Shakespeare
       Samuel Johnson
   

                                                       
                             


Introduction:

In this essay Samuel Johnson wishes to justify the relevence of Shakespeare even after so many years. In this essay Samuel Johnson talks about the prose and cons of Shakespear's plays. First he talks about the prose of Shakespeare's plays.

It is like-

He does have any heroes he only has characters would enact in the same manner as the character in the place on the Shakespeare. Sometimes he also represent the thinks which are not possible in subtle manner and through those situation he represent the real life issues and perhaps though it the human nature.

Due to this reason Shakespeare's dramas are considered to be the mirror of human life. Shakespeare's characters are basically common instead of that while he talks about historical play. He was one of the rare writer or perhaps only writer who wrote both tragedy and comedy with the same kind of expertise. He united the powers of exciting, laughter and sorrow, not only in one mind, but in one composition.

Earlier there were three basic style of drama comedies, histories and tragedies but none of them had the exact or definite ideas. Tragedy was not during that time more elevated that comedy. Both the genres were treated equally. He wrote in three genre with equal expertise. Shakespeare way of writing is very smothness and clearity. His characters are completely natural who only react to the situation and the circumstances.

Next step is about the cons of Shakespeare's plays. Shakepeare sacrifies virtue to convenience and sometimes without any moral purpose. The plots are often loosely form, sometimes he cannot comprehend his own design and always seems to go for the easier option.

The latter part of the plays is evidently neglect to get the profit out of it imperfection is evident at the end. He had no record to the distinction of time and place. Comic scenes sometimes engages and all the characters almost appeare the same. In tragedy also, the performance seems constantly to be worse.

Narration is naturally tedious. There is scenes of disproportionate pomp it sometimes obstracts the progerss of the action. His set speeches are commonly cold and weak. In a way it is escapist writing. His writing always had quibble.

Conclusion:

In short, Shakespeare's plays have both charactaeristics prose and cons. But the fact is that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writer in the world. 

Waiting for Godot - Samuel Beckett

Waiting for Godot

     Samuel Beckett

Introduction:

      Samuel Beckett as a modernist writer wrote this play waiting for Godot which has not specific beginning and ending. Ideally there is no beginning, no end, something in between. Only the hope. The play starts at the same place and end at the same place. In a way it has no change with big change. This play is big satire on human existence.

Character List:

Vladimir

Estragon

Pozzo

Lucky

Boy

Godot

Brief information about Characters:

1. Vladimir:

    Remain in the play very important character. Moreover he seems to be the more responsible and mature character.

2. Estragon:

     Estragon remains as a second important character with short memory. He seems weak and helpless and always wants to protection by Vladimir.

3. Pozzo:

    Pozzo coming to provides a diversion. He becomes helpful in passing the time of Vladimir and Estragon. In the second act he is blind and does not remember meeting Vladimir and Estragon the night before.

4. Lucky:

    Lucky is servant of Pozzo. In act 1, he entertains by dancing and thinking. However, in act 2, he is dumb.

5. Boy:

    Represent as a messenger of Godot.

6. Godot:

     It is remaining abstract, which is Vladimir and Estragon wait unendingly.

   Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot. The wait never end perhaps they wait for the end of life. Waiting for death in between we try to do something for the sake of passing the time. Vladimir and Estragon doing the same thing. They are trying to pass the time with various activities like:

A)  Passing hat to each other

B)   Playing game of breathing.

   Moreover Estragon playing with shoe while Vladimir playing with hat. It is indicates the habit of characters such as Estragon with the shoe represent as a hungry beast while Vladimir represent as a thinker.

     The play goes particular to general. The four characters represent as a particular in the lay but they symbolized as a whole human beings. However he satirizes on the work that the characters are doing. Or in a way he satirizes the work doing by the whole human beings. They are doing the same what Vladimir and Estragon are doing.

     It’s not make any difference though Vladimir thinks a lot or Estragon interested in hunger. The fates of both characters are similar.

     Through this Beckett satire on philosopher also who thinks a lot. He raised question like-

What does it matter if we knowing the things?

     But the knowledge becomes difficult for Vladimir. He always in tension because of this he also tries to Estragon must be in tension. So he frequently remaindered to Estragon that why are they there. They are waiting for Godot. It is very basic human nature.

This play remains open for interpretation about anything.

For example-

What is Godot?

Who is Godot?

Is he Godot himself?

Is it an abstract idea only? Or

Is it a symbol of death?

   So, everything remains as abstract ideas. The ambiguity lies in the play “Waiting for Godot”.

Existentialism:

      Existentialism crisis are found in the play. Profound questions of human existence raised by Beckett in the play. Characters are playing the game BREATHING. Breathing itself is an example of existentialism. Why are we taking breath? Is it our habit of doing that?

                                    Life + Anxiety = Truth

    The truth is the ultimate reality of life-Death. In between the birth and death there is only anxiety. So, Estragon tries to suicide. Existentialist considered this idea of suicide as a good idea. But human like to live this pathetic life. They are habituated. They are happy in doing that, just like Camus- “Myth of Sisyphus”.

Conclusion:

     “Waiting for Godot” is a serio-comic play. It’s includes so many things surrounded by human beings such as- existential crisis, Marxist ideology, psychology, Christian idea, socio-political matters, the effect of world war second and so on. The basic questions like-

Who is Godot? What is Godot? Whether Godot came or not? What are the questions that writer should ask?

At the end play end with hope.

Middlemarch: A Study of Provincial Life - George Eliot

Middlemarch: A Study of Provincial Life

            George Eliot

Introduction:

   George Eliot’s Middlemarch is a novel embroidered by social relations, marriages, gender roles and a plain perspective on the Victorian society. The “Middlemarch” is a novel of relationships. Eliot here studied the life of social people. In a way it is a study of culture or in general it is the study of human nature. Nineteenth century England experienced a great deal of change and upheaval. Societal norms were questioned as Europe experiences numerous   revolutions that cried for equality.

Character List:

Dorthea Brooke

Celia Brooke

Mr. Brooke

Mr. Casaubon

Sir James Chettam

Lady Chettam

Mr. Cadwallader

Mrs. Cadwallader

Will Ladislaw

Dr. Lydgate

Rosamond Vincy

Mary

About the novel- “Middlemarch”:

   The central character of this novel is Dorthea- A young lady who is idealist and who stands against the patriarchal law of the Victorian Society. Dorthea is known as “FREE BIRD”. She was simple by nature. Her ambition in life is to help people. She married with Casaubon with this intention only that she help him in his research work and also increase her knowledge. But after marriage she came to know that the research which doing by her husband it was already done by someone else. Even the matrimonial life of Dorthea is in ruin. Though she is known as idealist she cannot understand her husband. Rosamond- who is rich lady in search of “Mr. Perfect” and she married with aged Dr. Lydgate.

    The matrimonial life of Mary and Fred becomes successful because Mary thinks truthfully. Both of them love each other but Mary denied to Fred that if he don’t becomes clergyman she couldn’t marry with him. But after becomes clergyman their life is more lovely. Marriages based on capability work better. Here in this novel Dorthea represent as a ideal woman, Rosamond represent as a real woman, while Mary represent as a truthful woman.

    Marriages based on capability work better because after the death of Casaubon she fails to break free completely from the societal pressures.

Conclusion:

    Some of the major themes stated in the novel can be considered as disillusion, gender roles and frustrated love relations and marriages especially with the marriages of some major characters such as Dorthea, Casaubon, Lydgate and Rosamond.

      In short the novel “Middlemarch” is a mirror of society. It is speak about the current affairs of society in which individual fails to make his or her own spaces. But at least they MARCH for BETTERMENT. 

Wole Soyinka’s "The Swamp Dweller"

Wole Soyinka’s "The Swamp Dweller"

 

                          The Swamp Dweller talk about the place which is now becomes “THE WASTE”. The Swamp Dweller remains as an ambiguity because nothing is clear. Past of characters are not given by Wole Soyinka. The play mirrors the socio-cultural patterns, the pang and the sufferings of the Swamp Dwellers and underlines the need for absorbing new ideas. The struggle between human being and unfavorable forces of nature is also captured in the play. The play presents the picture of modern Africa where the wind of change started blowing.

Character list:

Makuri

Alu

Igwezu

Awechike

Desala

Beggar

Kadiye

About the play:

     The play starts with the description of the house of Makuri. The old things are there in the house of Makuri accept some things which are given by their children who are living in city. Alu is wife of Makuri. They have twins- Igwezu and Awechike. They both are now in the city to achieve their livelihood. Igwezu married with Desala who is modern woman.

     The story goes like Alu worried about her son Awechike. Alu and Makuri both of them are taking about their son Awechike because he wasn’t came back from the city. Moreover Igwezu come back from the city without his wife. Beggar is outsider to come to Makuri’s house with the intention to help them. Makuri and Alu are interested in Kadiye who is representing as the figure of God. Igwezu not interested in worshipping Kadiye instead of Beggar. At the end beggar gave promise to Igwezu to help his family and Igwezu goes back to the city. Makuri and Alu and Beggar with the hope waiting for their son to come back play end.

The Swamp Dweller: A Critical Analysis:

       The play remains as an ambiguity because nothing is clear in front of reader. The play is a clash between old tradition and new tradition. Makuri and Alu represent as a old traditional people while Igwezu and Awechike represent as a new tradition people. Moreover it shows the differences between city people and village people. Makuri and Alu think that village is better than the city. It is because they loss their one son in the city. Even they believe that village is better in relation than the city. For example- the dialogue of Makuri:

Makuri: “There wasn’t woman anywhere more faithful than you, Alu; I never had a moment of worry in the whole of my life.”

Even they believe that the “CITY IS SWAMP”. See the dialogue-

Makuri: “It ruins them. The city ruins them. What do they seek there except money?”

Alu: “It was the swamp… He went the same way as my son.’’

  The life of Igwezu also destroyed into the city. When his parents insist to go back to the city he uttered the dialogues like:

Igwezu: “An ideal son of the Swamps.”

Igwezu: “I’m afraid. I have had my turn already. I lost everything, my savings, even my standing as a man. I went into debt.”

Igwezu: “I came back with hope, with consolation in my heart.”

    Igwezu lost his wife into the city. And also he lost his brother into the city. But when his mother talks about his second brother Igwezu not feel well so maybe he lost his livelihood and his wife because of his brother and may be his brother Awechike killed by Igwezu. Or maybe because of the effect of industrialization Makuri and Alu lost what they not deserve. So, they called city is swamp. But if city is swamp then what about the village? Villages are not in good position. Nothing is growing there. There people in village are also too live life pathetically. They also live life not with the happy.

   People like Kadiye are responsible the swamp of the land or something remain as a good is it because of the people like Beggar?

Myth in "The Swamp Dweller”:

   Three great deities: Ogun, god of Iron; Sango, god of lightening; and Obatala, the maker of human forms.

 Beggar represent here as an Obatala. Other gods are preceded by a drummer, announcing them, glorifying them – like the Kadiye.

    Alu with the Yoguba earth goddess Edan-fro she conceived the twins when sunk into the earth.

Conclusion:

    He is criticizing his own land, people. Where are their people wrong? Soyinka not gave the perfect picture of city and village. Who is responsible more for the swamp land? Or is it because of the effect of colonialism, industrialism and imperialism? All the things are remain shadow under the tree. All the things are in disillusionment. The play is open to interpretation by the reader.