The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

Arnold impressed me way more with this essay!

The Function of Criticism is “ to see the object as it really is ” Matthew Arnold writes in his opening paragraph. In order to recognize greatness he says you have to look beyond the social ideas and influences that cast shadows on opinions. So evidently, as he discusses in ‘ Study of Poetry ‘ classical pieces of literature are a rarity. It seems to me that if he incorporated his ideas of criticism in his essay on poetry it would have made for a better literary critique.

These two ‘powers’ of what must occur to create the great piece of literature: “ the power of man and the power of the moment ”, is an interesting concept that Arnold proposes. I agree that both must be present in order for the poem to work, ideally speaking, and this is where the 'critical' aspect come into the foray; It enables the identification of the best elements in the creative work.

In the final part of the essay Arnold talks about the difficulties for critics in the modern world. In particular, the British critics because the British culture is so stuck on hegemonic values and cannot transcend these ideas and values to see the ‘the object as it really is’; In defense, society will question and argue the modern critic on their value and use of criticism as a means of protecting their own ingrained opinion “ people are particu- larly indisposed even to comprehend that without this free disinterested treatment of things, truth and the highest culture are out of the question ”. It’s the difficulty of changing lenses, or view points so to speak. We are so into our own ‘practical lives’, and this is only one paradigm, and the fact that this is so difficult for us, is why Arnold believes criticism is so vital, yet so unabsorbed. I wonder if Arnold would criticize a great summary of this idea, quote Shakespeare " there are more things in heaven and in earth then are dreamt of in your philosophy ".

I guess critiques help, and honest opinion doesn't hurt that much....C'mon when have you ever even remotely enjoyed criticism on a term paper that you've bombed. Never!

Ciao

Study of Poetry

Matthew Arnold, much like his predecessor William Wordsworth, believes that poetry must contain 'truth' and 'seriousness'. He says that without these two distinctions the poetical work cannot be deemed classical: " This is what is salutary, this is what is formative; this is the great benefit to be got from the study of poetry. " (7)

Arnold teaches us how to objectively analyze good poetry, but in breaking down what he is saying " If we are thoroughly penetrated by their power, we shall find that we have acquired a sense enabling us, whatever poetry may be laid before us, to feel the degree in which a high poetical quality is present or wanting there " (11) the analysis is very qualitative subjective. He says that the best way to discover the qualities of high poetry is to look at high poetry. What is high poetry? He does not tell us. As mentioned in class this is a circular argument; he is unable to teach us how to evaluate poetry in a quantitative objective sense. Furthermore he argues that many of us fall into the trap of identifying what we think is good poetry but in fact, we are actually mesmeric by a glazed fallacy of poetry; these fallacies are the historical and personal estimates of poetry. Good poetry he says is the ‘real’ estimate of poetry. Well thanks, very definitive of you!

Furthermore, when Arnold dissects the classics such as Chaucer, Burns, Pope, and Dryden he claims that none of them are truly classical poets, for they lack either the 'truth' or 'seriousness' that is essential for becoming a great poet. These two elements: truth, and seriousness, are merely subjective qualities that Arnold admires in his reading of poetry; these qualities are not necessarily what I admire when I read poetry, because I love Chaucer, and Pope for instance, and I admire a lot the of elements in their writing. Truth and seriousness are both generically definitive signifiers; they are merely subjective qualities. Subjective qualities cannot define the true value of what is a classical poet.