Vijay Wali
Criticism is a word which should not be teamed with the meaning of opposition, but accepted as a part of literature, as literary criticism enhances and elongates the life and reach of literature for the ages to come. While as today we lack critics as well as tolerance for accepting the just criticism, it may not be overlooked that ancient Indian and world literature which is considered the fundamental in forming the rules for creative writings, flourished only because these works were subjected to Critical acclamation by many and renowned reviewers and great commentary writers of their times. It is an historical fact the Pundits of the South India used to send their books to The Sharda Peeth University of Kashmir for review and acclamation. It is said that the standards of education, literature and the criticism were so high in those ages, that more than often, the books would be shoved off, and the learned writers willingly or unwillingly resubmitted the revised versions until they were found eligible for approval.
It is true the literary world is free for all, anybody can write anything, whether acceptable or not, in a free democratic order of the liberal world, at the same time the readers also have every right to express their reaction about these creative writings, may they be poetry or pose. This natural phenomenon is responsible for birth of criticism.
As we see both state and Church were and are still found to be deterrents of criticism, but the great thinkers and philosophers have initiated revolutions that have changed the face of the world.
In furtherance of literary criticism, we find a vast number of definitions by great critics of their times.Great literary critics say that best criticism is, comparing creative writing with a masterpiece. Mathew Arnold puts it as, whatever we know and think about this world, can be the prism of criticism. Other great critics opine that not following the set standards of a particular genre renders the writing to laughing stock and even farce.
As far as the critical acclamations are concerned, they are also to be adjudged in the right context, and as per the views the literary personalities, these should be gauged from the personality of the said critic itself, in light of his literary and expressing capacity. A critical acclamation should be inspired by practical superiority of the understanding and intelligence of the critic over the writer.
Joseph Addison, another acclaimed critic of the literary world, said that, good features of the witting should be highlighted while as the bad ones neglected, but Jeffrey Archer is opposed to crossing the limits of glorification.
To evaluate a witting from the set standards, again seems flimsy as the standards keep changing with times. Again, the genres keep becoming obsolete and new ones keep taking their place, which have no preceding set standards, and are part of the literary liberty, which is ever important for literature to breathe life.
Now the question arises, then what are the parameters to be kept in view while reviewing any specific creative writing? That is why the modern day man has set this continuous process to a change. Milton says criticism is not literature that keeps changing forms as per the requirements and wishes of the individual, but a Science.
As per Milton the criticism should be discussion not only on a particular creative writing or a book, but a dialogue between the contents and the criticism itself. He further says that, it should glorify the qualities and reject the loopholes in a way that excludes bias or attachment. The evaluation should be on the literary standards. He is also strictly against comparisons.
The best way of evaluation remains nature’s rules, because the human being is also product of the nature and has his own individual nature also. So the critical acclamation should be research oriented and real.
It is cent percent true that great writers care a fig for set standards. They are as independent, as their thought, content and form are, but we should not forget their exertion in maintaining the genre, vocabulary, sweetness, ornamentation and meter etc., which are foolproof, leaving no space for second thought, thus having bare minimum chances of inviting criticism.
Normally there are many misunderstandings about the criticism and the writers generally do not see a critic as their ally. Some call criticism as art of opposition, while others say criticism, is opposed to originality. There are notions that the critical acclamation is there to show others down or finding faults with them. The height goes to classifying the critics as normal minds void of any creativity. There are others who call critical acclamation the produce of narrow-mindedness. Probably it is on this account we see now more reviewers than critics, who just rain praises to keep themselves good books of everybody.
Another of the great personalities of the world literature, Robertson says that criticism is the difference between two ways of writing. The one under review and another, the better and perfect one. It should not only oppose or favor but debate.
Criticism has its dark side also, as two great writers of our times fell to cruel criticism, it is said. One was great John Keats and decades away from him Lord Tennyson, who faced undue criticism of their creative writings.
The basics of criticism happens to be integrated thought, judgment, an open heart, sacrificing time and energy to evaluate along with encouragement.
The great critics have claimed that the writing is like voice or sound, from which one detects the capacity of a writer. Just like we can recognize a nightingale and a donkey by how they sound. This view also stands endorsed by Theophrastus, a disciple of Aristotle.
Liberal standards of criticism say that narrative is wrap of the thought and personal thoughts are expressed through personally selected genres and ways of expression, which depend on the personal factors of the writer.
Generally the Rules of the review or critical acclamation have been earmarked as outlay or presentation of the Book, which is naturally the first impression of the book. Secondly, the life and surroundings of the writer are taken into consideration, which influences his thinking and way of writing. Then comes the most important point of subject, thought or the central idea of the book depicting the philosophical elevation of the creation, and last but not least is the review that whether the creative writing or the book has fulfilled the demands and requirements of the subject matter. The language and its use is also a stepping stone of a review.
Another quality of the book is, that it should confer to the tastes and requirements of time and period, the thoughts must be original, based on the observation or research, and it should be necessarily ornamented with the literary beauty along with being realistic. The creativeness should be a combination of internal thoughts and external world.
To study the science of criticism one will have to traverse through sea of definitions and explanations by all time greats like Crates,Edgar Allan Poe, Holmes, Milton, Butcher and to add to the list great Aristotle and his school of thought which has even classified the words in many categories. The real words like names of places, persons or things, the words borrowed from other languages, the similes and metaphors, the synonymous and above all the coined words, which are the perfect measure of gauging the depth and knowledge of the writer. This school of thought divided the creative writing in two sections, the rhetoric and poetic. They cautioned that the words are the pegs on which we hang our thoughts.
Wordsworth also did not favor theory of comparison and believed in supremacy of the philosophy contained in the content. In his view the best creation is that which impresses an elite mind. He held the human nature responsible for individuality of the thought in creative writings. This simply means that the creative writing should either be ornamented with literary or totally different and thought provoking.
Ultimately, the creative writing which emerges from heart in all probabilities proves to be the best one. Writing only for sake of the writing or rhetoric of genres never qualifies an writer to be the best. It is what he gives his language, culture and of course literature.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel