Mid Term Take Home Essay Assignment
EN 385-50
Andrea
In the literary criticism world, nestled between the idea that all theories are good (aka Open-Ended Eclecticism) and the idea that there is only one valid approach or theory (Dogmatism) lays Critical Pluralism. This is the idea that although not all theories on a piece of work are correct, there may be more than one. How you see the text depends upon which direction you approach it, and there are many paths to each text. However, at all times one must be standing SOMEwhere in relation to a text. Over time, four basic theories have developed: formal, mimetic, expressive and pragmatic. In this essay, we will discuss the latter two, and leave the former for another time.
The first little ledge we might stand on from which to view a piece is given the name “Expressive Criticism.” Expressive criticism evaluates a text upon its terms of relation to its author; how well it reflects them and their ideas. Does it accurately reflect their psychological nature? Or rather, is it an authentic portrait of the artist and their internal workings? This authenticity is the most important criteria when judging a text as an expressive critic. The reader of a “good” text, from the view of an expressive critic, is shown and made to feel the exact emotion the author felt at a given time.
Ethical criticism takes a slightly different standpoint. It views the quality of a work by the effects it has upon the reader. First and foremost, ethical critics believe we, as readers, must be convinced to allow the text to make us feel. We use three different effects to decide this value. The first is its intellectual effect, how does it change our understanding of the world; does it provoke any thought altogether? Is it convincing enough for us to assent to its validity? Or at least, is it engaging enough so that we will suspend our disbelief. The second is the text’s emotional effect. Does the text convince us to feel a certain way, and to what extent? And the third is the work’s ethical effects. Were the characters right or wrong to feel as they did? We judge the characters and their actions as we read along, and are we made to emphasize? These questions are all taken into consideration when a work is viewed from a pragmatic standpoint.
These two theories are similar in that their goal is to move the reader to feel. Although expressive begs the reader to feel as the author, and pragmatic asks them to feel as the characters, the commiseration of emotion must be present in either case. Neither views a work as successful unless it convinces the reader to assent to be entertained; and to entertain a perhaps different point of view than their own.
At first glance, expressive criticism may seem to be the more egotistical of the two. To write about one’s own experiences, does that mean they are somehow inherently better than anyone else’s? But, upon examination, a pragmatic author singles out a character as well, highlighting their imagined emotions as well. Both want the reader to experience something they otherwise might not, to subscribe to a point of view, if only for the duration of the novel.
Where the two differ is in the matter of authenticity. An expressive critic based on the criteria of how close it mirrors the author’s real, psychological emotions. A pragmatic critic may not get an emotion spot on, their goal is to make the reader empathize. If they do that, the text is successful.
Henry James was an expressive critic. In his essay, The Art of Fiction, although he mentions other types of criticism, he is most deeply motivated by the mind of the author, in fact, they are his target audience. He describes a writer’s experiences as a spider web, even if they do not endure an event completely, any hint of an occurance affects them so deeply that it travels directly to their soul. They take to heart all that they see, and they see all, since they are vibrantly sensitive, due to their enlarged imaginations. If one wants to be a good writer, James says, “try to be one of the people upon whom nothing is lost (p441)!” His ideas are best summed in the conclusion of his paper. He can put it no more plainly: it is “the very obvious truth that the deepest quality of a work of art will always be the quality of the mind of the producer (p447).” If the writer has an unimaginative mind, then their work can never be a good representation of true psychology.
On the other side of the fence, we have Mikhail Bakhtin. In his text, Discourse in the Novel, he relates his views as an ethical critic. He propounds his favor of the novel as a literary device, saying it is the best way to portray real, human emotions. There they can engage in discourse, and be least hindered by an author dictating the conclusion of a discussion. He says “the tendency to assimilate others’ discourse takes on an even deeper and more basic significance in an individual’s ideological becoming, in the most fundamental sense (p532).” In other words, we take what we read into ourselves, and it changes, albeit ever so slightly, our way of approaching the world. How we view our lives is a compilation of literary experiences. In other words, “the ideological becoming of a human being, in this view, is the process of selectively assimilating the words of others (p532).” We cannot do this, however if the author stands in the characters’ way. If the author impedes the text, we cannot be truly made to feel, or to judge, or take the work properly to heart.