DHAKA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
ASSIGNMENT ON
“LITERARY CRITICISM AND QUALITIES OF GOOD CRITICS “
COURSE CODE: ENG-202
SEMISTER: 3rd
SUBMITTED TO
S. JUBAER AL AHMED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

SUBMITTED BY
MD.KAMRUL ISLAM
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
BATCH: 47B
ROLL: 26
:REGISTRATION CODE:113305

Contents
● Literary criticism
● Qualities of good critics

LITERARY CRITICISM
Introduction
Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the study, evaluation, and
interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often influenced by
literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of literature's goals and
methods. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not
always, and have not always been, theorists.
Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of
inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of
some controversy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory
and Criticism draws no distinction between literary theory and literary
criticism, and almost always uses the terms together to describe the same
concept. Some critics consider literary criticism a practical application of
literary theory, because criticism always deals directly with particular literary
works, while theory may be more general or abstract.

Definition:
Literary criticism, the reasoned consideration of literary works and
issues. It applies, as a term, to any argumentation about literature, whether or
not specific works are analyzed. Plato’s cautions against the risky
consequences of poetic inspiration in general in his Republic are thus often
taken as the earliest important example of literary criticism.

Classical and medieval criticism:

Literary criticism is thought to have existed as far back as the classical
period. In the 4th century BC Aristotle wrote the Poetics, a typology and
description of literary forms with many specific criticisms of contemporary
works of art. Poetics developed for the first time the concepts of mimesis and
catharsis, which are still crucial in literary studies. Plato's attacks on poetry as
imitative, secondary, and false were formative as well. The Sanskrit Natya
Shastra includes literary criticism on ancient Indian literature and Sanskrit
drama.

Later classical and medieval criticism often focused on religious texts, and the
several long religious traditions of hermeneutics and textual exegesis have had
a profound influence on the study of secular texts. This was particularly the
case for the literary traditions of the three Abrahamic religions: Jewish
literature, Christian literature and Islamic literature.

Literary criticism was also employed in other forms of medieval Arabic

literature and Arabic poetry from the 9th century, notably by Al-Jahiz in his al-
Bayan wa-'l-tabyin and al-Hayawan, and by Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz in his Kitab
al-Badi.
Renaissance criticism:
The literary criticism of the Renaissance developed classical ideas of
unity of form and content into literary neoclassicism, proclaiming literature as
central to culture, entrusting the poet and the author with preservation of a
long literary tradition. The birth of Renaissance criticism was in 1498, with the
recovery of classic texts, most notably, Giorgio Valla's Latin translation of
Aristotle's Poetics. The work of Aristotle, especially Poetics, was the most
important influence upon literary criticism until the late eighteenth century.
Lodovico Castelvetro was one of the most influential Renaissance critics who
wrote commentaries on Aristotle's Poetics in 1570.

Enlightenment of criticism:
In the Enlightenment period (1700s to 1800s), literary criticism
became more popular. During this time period literacy rates started to rise in
the public;no longer was reading exclusive for the wealthy or scholarly. With
the rise of the literate public, the swiftness of printing and commercialization
of literature, criticism arose too.Reading was no longer viewed solely as
educational or as a sacred source of religion; it was a form of
entertainment.Literary criticism was influenced by the values and stylistic
writing, including clear, bold, precise writing and the more controversial
criteria of the author's religious beliefs.These critical reviews were published in
many magazines, newspapers, and journals. The commercialization of
literature and its mass production had its downside. The emergent literary
market, which was expected to educate the public and keep them away from
superstition and prejudice, increasingly diverged from the idealistic control of
the Enlightenment theoreticians so that the business of Enlightenment became
a business with the Enlightenment.This development – particularly of
emergence of entertainment literature – was addressed through an
intensification of criticism.Many works of Jonathan Swift, for instance, were
criticized including his book Gulliver's Travels, which one critic described as
"the detestable story of the Yahoos".
19th-century Romantic criticism
The British Romantic movement of the early nineteenth century
introduced new aesthetic ideas to literary studies, including the idea that the
object of literature need not always be beautiful, noble, or perfect, but that
literature itself could elevate a common subject to the level of the sublime.
German Romanticism, which followed closely after the late development of
German classicism, emphasized an aesthetic of fragmentation that can appear
startlingly modern to the reader of English literature, and valued Witz – that is,
"wit" or "humor" of a certain sort – more highly than the serious Anglophone
Romanticism. The late nineteenth century brought renown to authors known
more for their literary criticism than for their own literary work, such as
Matthew Arnold.
The New Criticism:
However important all of these aesthetic movements were as
antecedents, current ideas about literary criticism derive almost entirely from
the new direction taken in the early twentieth century. Early in the century the
school of criticism known as Russian Formalism, and slightly later the New
Criticism in Britain and in the United States, came to dominate the study and
discussion of literature, in the English-speaking world. Both schools
emphasized the close reading of texts, elevating it far above generalizing
discussion and speculation about either authorial intention (to say nothing of
the author's psychology or biography, which became almost taboo subjects) or
reader response. This emphasis on form and precise attention to "the words
themselves" has persisted, after the decline of these critical doctrines
themselves.
Theory
In 1957 Northrop Frye published the influential Anatomy of Criticism. In
his works Frye noted that some critics tend to embrace an ideology, and to
judge literary pieces on the basis of their adherence to such ideology. This has
been a highly influential viewpoint among modern conservative thinkers. E.
Michael Jones, for example, argues in his Degenerate Moderns that Stanley
Fish was influenced by his own adulterous affairs to reject classic literature
that condemned adultery.Jürgen Habermas in Erkenntnis und Interesse [1968]
(Knowledge and Human Interests), described literary critical theory in literary
studies as a form of hermeneutics: knowledge via interpretation to understand
the meaning of human texts and symbolic expressions – including the
interpretation of texts which themselves interpret other texts.
In the British and American literary establishment, the New Criticism was more
or less dominant until the late 1960s. Around that time Anglo-American
university literature departments began to witness a rise of a more explicitly
philosophical literary theory, influenced by structuralism, then post-
structuralism, and other kinds of Continental philosophy. It continued until the
mid-1980s, when interest in "theory" peaked. Many later critics, though
undoubtedly still influenced by theoretical work, have been comfortable
simply interpreting literature rather than writing explicitly about methodology
and philosophical presumptions.
Value of academic criticism:
VThe value of extensive literary analysis has been questioned by several
prominent artists. Vladimir Nabokov once wrote that good readers do not read
books, and particularly those which are considered to be literary masterpieces,
"for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations".Terry Eagleton
attributes an unsung stature to literary critics and to criticism in academia. He
believes that critics are not so well-known and praised, to his disappointment,
and that literary criticism is declining in its value because of the manner the
general audience is directing it towards that underappreciated state. At a 1986
Copenhagen conference of James Joyce scholars, Stephen J. Joyce (the
modernist writer's grandson) said, "If my grandfather was here, he would have
died laughing ... Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be
picked up, read, and enjoyed by virtually anybody without scholarly guides,
theories, and intricate explanations, as can Ulysses, if you forget about all the
hue and cry." He later questioned whether anything has been added to the
legacy of Joyce's art by the 261 books of literary criticism stored in the Library
of Congress.
Qualities of good critics
T. S. Eliot as a Critic
● Eliot is one of the greatest literary critics of England. Both from the point
of view of the bulk and quality of his critical writings. His critical articles
have a far-reaching influence on literary criticism. His criticism was
revolutionary which inverted the critical tradition of the whole English
speaking world. John Hayward says: “I cannot think of a critic who has
been more widely read and discussed in his own life-time; and not only
 in English, but in almost every language, except Russian.”
● As a critic Eliot has his faults. At times he assumes a hanging-judge
attitude and his statements savor of a verdict. Often his criticism is
marred by personal and religious prejudices blocking an honest and
impartial estimate. Moreover, he does not judge all by the same
standards. Critics have also found fault with his style as too full of
doubts, reservations and qualifications.
● Eliot’s criticism has revolutionized the great writers of the past three
centuries. His recognition of the greatness of the Metaphysical poets of
the 17th century resulted in the Metaphysical revival of the 20th
century. The credit for the renewal of interest in the Jacobean
dramatists goes to Eliot. He has restored Dryden and other Augustan
poets to their due place. His essay on Dante aroused curiosity for the
latter middle ages. The novelty of his statements, hidden in sharp
phrases, startles and arrests attention. According to Eliot, the end of
criticism is to bring readjustment between the old and the new. He says:
“From time to time it is desirable that some critic shall appear to review
the past of our literature, and set the poets and the poems in a new
order.”
● Such critics are rare, for they must possess, besides ability for judgment,
powerful liberty of mind to identify and interpret its own values and
category of admiration for their generation. John Hayward says:
“Matthew Arnold was such a critic as were Coleridge and Johnson and
Dryden before him; and such, in our own day, is Eliot himself.”
● Eliot’s criticism offers both reassessment and reaction to earlier writers.
He called himself “a classicist in literature”. His vital contribution is the
reaction against romanticism and humanism which brought a classical
revival in art and criticism. He rejected the romantic view of the
individual’s perfectibility, stressed the doctrine of the original sin and
exposed the futility of the romantic faith in the “Inner Voice”. Instead of
following his ‘inner voice’, a critic must follow objective standards and
must conform to tradition. A sense of tradition, respect for order and
authority is central to Eliot’s classicism. He sought to correct the
excesses of “the abstract and intellectual” school of criticism
represented by Arnold. He sought to raise criticism to the level of
 science. In his objectivity and logical attitude, Eliot most closely
resembles Aristotle. A. G. George says: “Eliot’s theory of the
impersonality of poetry is the greatest theory on the nature of the
process after Wordsworth’s romantic conception of poetry.”
● Eliot’s views on the nature of poetic process are equally revolutionary.
According to him, poetry is not inspiration, it is organization. The poet’s
mind is like a vessel in which are stored numerous feelings, emotions
and experiences. The poetic process fuses these distinct experiences and
emotions into new wholes. In “The Metaphysical Poets”, he writes:
“When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly
amalgamating disparate experiences; the ordinary man’s experience is
chaotic, irregular, fragmentary”.
● Eliot devised numerous critical concepts that gained wide acclaim and
has a broad influence on criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation
of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’ are few of Eliot clichés hotly
debated by critics. His dynamic theory of tradition, of impersonality of
poetry, his assertion on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’ tended to
impart to literary criticism catholicity and rationalism.

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications

In a number of critical essays like ‘The Perfect Critic’, ‘The Imperfect Critic’,
‘The Function of Criticism’ and ‘The Frontiers of Criticism’, Eliot has dealt with
the qualifications and functions of a critic.
● A good critic must have superior sensibility. He must have greater
capacity of receiving impressions and sensations from the work of
art he studies.
● He must also have wide erudition. This would increase his
understanding. His mind would be stored with impressions which
would be modified and refreshed by each successive impression
he receives from the new works he contemplates. In this way
would be built up a system of impressions which would enable
him to make generalised statements of literary beauty. Such a
universalizing or generalising power is essential for an ideal critic,
and he can get it only through erudition.
● A good critic must be entirely impersonal and objective. He must
 not be guided by the inner voice, but by some authority outside
himself. Eliot instances two types of imperfect critics, represented
by Arthur Symons and Arnold. Symons is too subjective and
impressionistic, while Arnold is too dry, intellectual and abstract.
Eliot regards Aristotle as an instance of a perfect critic, for he
avoids both these defects. In his hands, criticism approaches the
condition of science.
● A good critic must not be emotional. He must be entirely
objective. He must try to discipline his personal prejudices and
whims. He must have a highly trained sensibility, and a sense of
structural principles, and must not be satisfied with vague,
emotional impressions. Critics who supply only vague, emotional
impressions, opinions or fancy, as he puts it, are great corruptors
of taste.
● An ideal critic must have a highly developed sense of fact. By a
sense of fact, Eliot does not mean biographical or sociological
knowledge, but a knowledge of technical details of a poem, its
genesis, setting, etc. It is a knowledge of such facts alone which
can make criticism concrete as well as objective. It is these facts
which a critic must use to bring about an appreciation of a work of
art. However, he is against the ‘lemon-squeezer’ school of critics
who try to squeeze every drop of meaning out of words and lines.
● A critic must also have a highly developed sense of tradition. He
must be learned not only in the literature of his own country, but
in the literature of Europe down from Homer to his own day.
● Practitioners of poetry make the best critics. The critic and the
creative artist should frequently be the same person. Such poet-
critics have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the
process of poetic creation, and so they are in the best position to
communicate their own understanding to their readers.
● An ideal critic must have a thorough understanding of the
language and structure of a poem. He must also have an idea of
the music of poetry, for a poet communicates as much through
the meaning of words as through their sound.
● Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of a critic and so a
 perfect critic must be an expert in the use of these tools. His use
of these tools must be subtle and skillful. He must know what and
how to compare, and how to analyse. He must compare the
writers of the present with those of the past not to pass judgment
or determine good or bad, but to elucidate the qualities of the
work under criticism. In other words, he must be a man of
erudition, for only then can he use his tools effectively.
● He must not try to judge the present by the standards of the past.
The requirements of each age are different, and so the cannons of
art must change from age to age. He must be liberal in his outlook,
and must be prepared to correct and revise his views from time to
time, in the light of new facts.
In short, an ideal critic must combine to a remarkable degree,
“sensitiveness, erudition, sense of fact and sense of history, and
generalising power.”s