The Function of Criticism
T. S. Elioth
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment