T.S. Eliot’s Function of Criticism PDF

Preview

Summary

"The Function of Criticism," first published in the Criterion, and later collected in Selected Essays in 1932, provides a cogent commentary on what Eliot sees as the purpose of literary criticism, rather than its application to individual texts and authors or as a platform for mounting assaults on c...

Description

T.S. Eliot’s Function of Criticism "The Function of Criticism," first published in the Criterion, and later collected in Selected Essays in 1932, provides a cogent commentary on what Eliot sees as the purpose of literary criticism, rather than its application to individual texts and authors or as a platform for mounting assaults on contemporary social and cultural issues. Eliot's three essays, individually or collectively, show the progression of his ideas about the value of criticism to literary production and, more importantly, reader receptivity to literary values, as outlined in the three essays. Of course, Eliot also lays out what he considers to be a proper critical method in the process. Eliot, on the other hand, was never one to separate the literary from the non-literary, and the unwary reader of "The Function of Criticism" may wonder what's going on at first sight. As soon as Eliot has defined the critical process and distinguished it from the creative process, he launches into a rant against critic J. Middleton Murry, who Eliot portrays as an exemplary representative of the enemy camp. Murry and his ilk would be labelled liberals in today's culture wars, but Eliot refers to them as Whigs, in keeping with the slurs of his day. It is because of this that these critics adhere to the freewheeling principles of romanticism and its anything-goes mentality that they are opposed to the movement's perceived nemesis classicism and its religious manifestation, Catholicism, with their desire to preserve traditional values and models of behaviour and social propriety. There were still five to ten years to go before Eliot's well-known declaration of his religious and political beliefs in 1923 when the essay was written. Those are all conservative positions to adopt at any point in modern history. Eliot, who had just produced The Waste Land the year before, attacks those who listen to the "Inner Voice" of romanticism and moral disorder, which he caricatures as marching under the intellectual banner of "Muddle Through." He does so with the same restrained passion that he will bring to bear some ten years and life-altering religious experiences later in After Strange Gods (1934). When it came to criticising those who disagreed with his own aesthetic and moral beliefs, Eliot was perhaps too partisan, and this later work would embarrass even him. Although Eliot's argument for the sloppiness of thought and feeling associated with romanticism—that love affair with the Inner Voice—doesn't lend itself to criticism, he makes it clear in logical rather than rhetorical terms in this earlier essay, and such clarity of intent continues to form a great part of the essay's value as critical documentation. "Those who heed the inner voice." Bringing the discussion back to its origins, Eliot asserts that "the attempt to find any common principles for the pursuit of criticism will not be interested." "Why have principles when one has the inner voice?" he asks, only half-joking. Earlier in the essay, Eliot cited the 19th-century English poet and critic MATTHEW ARNOLD to establish the basic principle that criticism in a literary context entails "the elucidation of works of art and the correction of tastes." In 1851, Arnold argued that English literary criticism needed a more authentic intellectual pedigree, and he argued for basing criticism on principles derived from observing an alternating cultural dynamic that required periods of objective critical analysis as much as periods

of unbridled creative effort. This is a theme that Eliot's title no doubt intentionally echoes. For this reason, Eliot goes on to argue that those who rely solely on the inner voice of their intuitive reactions to both their creative impulse and their critical response cannot possibly produce an adequate critical literature or critical method. ' By separating the creative and critical faculties, Arnold, Eliot claims, missed the point. When it comes to creative writing, according to Eliot, the process is both a critical and creative one, especially if the writer is one who relies on long-standing traditions and carefully considered poetic and aesthetic standards of both technical and thematic nature in selecting and discarding the materials that eventually constitute the poem, as opposed to relying solely on the "Inner Voice." Eliot argues that the opposite must also be true. "A large part of what is called 'critical writing,' is really creative," if "a large part of creation is really criticism." Critics, on the other hand, must have a "very highly developed sense of fact" in order to engage in an intense interaction with the creative work with which they are engaged. For an attitude toward creativity that is not based on tradition or technical prowess but rather on an inner voice and a muddle-through approach, this respect for the external aspects of the creative process, as it were, is impossible. Comparison and analysis are the critic's "chief tools," according to Eliot, but one must know what to compare and analyse in order to do so. Although there are some processes of interpretation involved, they must be guided facts that are then passed onto the reader. This type of criticism may appear "arid, technical, and limited," but that's what Eliot sees as true criticism—the elucidation of texts and the correcting of one's tastes. He acknowledges that this kind of criticism may pique readers' interest in reading critical texts rather than the original works of literature, such as poems, novels, and stage productions. Facts cannot corrupt taste but only opinion can, according to Eliot's assertions. In the end, Eliot appears to be arguing for careful, balanced, and informed readings of a text, even if they appear cold and detached. In contrast to the literary impressionism that had defined literary criticism for much of the 19th century, Arnold proposed his own analysis of the cultural dynamics represented by creative and critical impulses. His definition of criticism contrasted with that of literary impressionism. But to read his position this way, we miss the pointed attack on some contemporary critical strategies he felt free to disparage with intellectual vigour in the early pages of his essay. An allusion to Eliot's famous essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent" suggested that the current essay would expand on the ideas outlined in the previous one. Ultimately, Eliot asserts the primacy of tradition over individual preferences and practises, objective judgement over subjective responses, and the whole rather than the part in "The Function of Criticism." In the end, he came to believe that the Catholic Christian foundation of AngloAmerican culture, which he grew up in, was the ultimate authority on all values and valid judgments. However, this same foundation had also bred the profound respect for individuals as the last resort in matters of aesthetic, moral and spiritual judgments,

of which Eliot himself seemed to be more and more distrustful as his own creative and critical instincts matured. This irony was not lost on him. Criticizing a work on the basis of accepted standards of taste and technical mastery, rather than on the basis of one's own preferences and opinions, is the method advocated in this essay by Eliot. No intellectual purist, Eliot understands that this can sometimes mean finding great merit in a work that defies current practises and minimal merit in a work that does nothing more than rehash previously delivered performances. The issue here, however, isn't about that. It's not that the critic's personal preferences have been taken into account, no matter how "tasteful" the works may appear to be. When it comes to political ideology, Eliot will gradually align himself with those who believe in the preservation of enduring foundational values over personal preference. Eliot's intellectual approach to contemporary issues is fascinating because of the seamless nature of his intellectual approach. When it comes to his views, he expands and refines them into all aspects of his personal interests, including spiritual, moral, and aesthetic, but he never abandons his fundamental belief in conforming oneself to the underlying social and cultural structures and strictures from which human values arise. A vague essay such as "The Function of Criticism" became a more and more important source of inspiration for his poetry and criticism, and eventually for his plays....