Sunday, September 4, 2011

The Relationship Between Literature and Criticism

Critical theory in regards to literature is important. If literature is meant in any way to be a reflection of life and our individual and collected experiences during the span of our existence, then criticism is necessary as a way to interpret this reflection. It helps us to better understand ourselves both as individuals and as a species. By extension, it is a learning process and a means to the end of bettering ourselves.

It is for this reason that I take issue with the fact that literature has become subservient to criticism. Burke states that over the past century, the history of criticism has taken precedent over the history of literature itself. It is implicit that works of literary merit should fall within a specific school of thought or theory. It fetters the literary process and puts a cap on progress. If a new literary work is introduced that does not conform to any previous set of rules or limits, a new literary school of thought and criticism is born which categorizes and manages this new idea. I think criticism is essential and should not be in any way neglected, but it should be subservient to literature and should serve its needs instead of vice versa.

I study classical music as a hobby. It has been a passion of mine since I was very young, when I first heard a recording of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" and was instantly enamored with the art form. What I've come to understand about music during my studies is that musical criticism is a much more elusive field of study than literary criticism, chiefly because music is a much more visceral experience, as opposed to literature, a concrete and visual form of art. More importantly, over the course of my personal journey through the world of classical music I've discovered a slow unraveling of the rules and forms of music. During the 18th and 19th centuries, composers adhered rigidly to structure: sonata, rondo, binary, ternary and theme-and-variation forms were all structural components that were fiercely studied and defended. However, in the middle to late 19th century these forms began to be altered or disregarded, and now in the 21st century, classical music is highly free-form and fantasia-like. The greatest triumph in classical music, however, is that composers are free to either use or not use these forms as they please. Despite the raucous objections of traditionalists, classical music continues to blossom and evolve at will, free of the restraints of theorists and critics. Music is enjoyed for the sake of music itself and nothing else.

I believe literature should follow music in this regard. It should be allowed to flow freely from one whim of creation to the next, unhindered by convention or rules. Criticism should always follow in its wake, but should never precede it. Neither can survive without the other, but we forget that literature came before criticism and that criticism stems from literature, not the other way around. Action-reaction.

3 comments:

  1. I started to comment on this post, but it turned out too long, so now it is its own post! Thanks, though, for the inspiration to write it. I was seriously stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris, this is an intriguing post (from my vantage point) but there are some assumptions underlying it that I need to have unpacked for me, so that I know where they stem from (so that I can in turn figure out whether I understand what you argue).

    I'll offer some questions here, and you can feel free to decide whether you want to take them up, now, later, or perhaps some time in the future. What are your definitions of "literature" and "criticism"? Are these objects or processes? What causes you to say that literature "came before" criticism?

    It sounds as if you are implying that literary canons always have been circulating on their own, and that criticism is a 20th-century invention, but you may not be implying that at all.

    -Prof. Graban

    ReplyDelete
  3. Literature is a work of artistic merit using language: novels, poems, essays, etc. Criticism is the response to literature. Sometimes the two overlap, but in general, literature comes before criticism because criticism is by nature a response to a literary work. It cannot exist without literature first being in existence. No, I do not mean that criticism is a 20th-century invention; I'm only parroting what Burke stated, that the history of criticism has surpassed the history of literature in precedence over the course of the past century.

    Both literature and criticism can be considered both objects and processes. The object is the finished product penned by the author, whereas the process is the compositional method AND the comprehension method, carried out by both the author and the reader/audience.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.