Critics have been widely derided over the centuries. Whether they've been viewed as critiquing on the basis of ignorance, cruelty, incapacity, selfishness or vindictiveness, critics have generally been seen as the black sheep of literature. While writers themselves are taught to ignore critics, critics have been dwindling due to the collective fear of speaking one's mind and displaying one's perceptions, even on the basis of thorough research.
Would-be critics often worry that their words will be misinterpreted, that they will be treated poorly as a result of their review or essay, that they will lose opportunities for grants or career advancements if they are honest in their views of a work, especially if it is popular. Educated criticism however remains crucial. A country's literature cannot grow without the presence of critics who are willing to take risks to speak about what they feel matters in art.
Criticism Introduces the Public to Books
This is the most general significance of criticism. Even basic overviews or summaries of books in magazines and newspapers introduce readers to potential texts. However, critical assessments of them enable readers to think more deeply about the text they are considering reading. Then, if they choose to read it, they can keep multiple perceptions of the text in mind, shaping their own opinion in contrast or comparison to the critic's points of view.
In the absence of criticism, the public might not be able to access such books. More problematically, without criticism they are not given a language in which to think more lucidly about the texts they select.
Criticism Raises Public Intellect
Criticism creates a vocabulary, a set of diction, terms and concepts with which to properly assess literature. Whether it's through the mode of close reading common to the New Critics, structuralism or poststructuralism, biographical or cultural contexts, formalism or other critical traditions, critical writings provide frameworks, responsive to the particular era in which the texts exist, that assist interpretation.
When the public is given these tools, through widespread reading of criticism, they become a better audience for writers. Instead of just digesting texts passively, readers can enter and discuss texts at deeper levels. As this happens, readers become more engaged, demanding and interested participants in the created works.
Criticism Improves a Country's Literature
When there's a dearth of criticism because people are afraid to share their perceptions or they think standards are relative or they believe that what is good will naturally survive in the canon and what is poor vanish, literature suffers. Without critics, writers themselves can become lax, passive, lazy and indifferent to being held accountable for what they create.
If writers know there are astute and educated critics waiting to receive what they have written, they are more likely to hone their skills, do their research, and proofread their texts more closely. In the end, the writer is more enclined to care about their literary production in the presence of critics, though the individual writer might feel oppressed or hurt by a negative review.
Critics can be wrong of course. But then that is the job of another critic, to point out that flaw and thus to stimulate literary debate and discussion. Although John Updike claimed that writing criticism is to the composition of literature as "hugging the shore is to sailing in the open sea" this doesn't have to be the case. Writers of literature can be critics and vice versa. Criticism can be daring, but literature will be less likely to stick to what is safe in the presence of the impassioned, compelled pens of critics.
 |
