Changing Roles of Poets, Writers and Critics - Essay Example

of “Changing Roles of Poets, and Critics” The roles of the poet-artist, the prosewriter, and the critic in art have been subject to various attempts of definition and classification. Poets and writers themselves have attempted to explain their function as they saw it, but have not always followed their own theories. Critics too have made several attempts at locating the function of the poet-artist or writer in society. This paper will note in particular the theories of a few key personalities to reach a conclusion namely, Von Schiller, Wordsworth, Shelley, Arnold, Eliot, Brooks, Barthes, Foucault, Du Bois, Gates and Kolodny. In the Romantic era, roughly 1780 to 1830, poets were regarded as slightly apart from mainstream society. The Romantics were fond of radicalism, sentiment, a return to the pastoral way of living, a glorification of their classical history, among other things. They considered the poets among them to be the most adept harbingers of change. Friedrich Von Schiller, a noted theorist, poet and writer of the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, speaks of a break between the ancient and the modern poets. He claims that writers of the present-time will never be able to match writers of ancient Greece, as their relationship with nature is not as immediate as it used to be. He speaks of the “disrupted present” where it is almost impossible for the writer to conceive of expressing their own aspirations in their work. He advises artists to listen to the “nobler impulses” of the heart and defy society if need be. Schiller’s insistence is on the artist’s individuality. He envisages a world where “Art [will] triumph over Nature” (Leitch, 2001). In his preface to the Lyrical Ballads in 1798, William Wordsworth made path-breaking assertions about how poetry should be. He speaks of the language of the “low and rustic life” being superior to ornate, urban diction: a position that would be considered rebellious in light of the French Revolution. Wordsworth describes the poet as the “rock of defense of human nature” (ibid.), the epitome of idealistic love in society. Percy Bysshe Shelley, another proponent of the Romantic era, makes the famous statement of poets being the “unacknowledged legislators of the world”, thereby constructing the poet as a prophet-like figure, predicting catastrophe and glory with the power that their pens wielded. All three theorists of this period speak with reference to Poetry. Whether with political inclinations like seen in the early Wordsworth, with social agendas like in Shelley or with the sole purpose of writing what their “nobler impulses” dictated to them, each of these critics saw poets as significant contributors to the creation of social discourse. It is interesting to note also that each of them wrote creatively, though not always in accordance with their own theories. The two critics of the late nineteenth to early twentieth century, Matthew Arnold and Thomas Stearns Eliot, were extremely influential in shaping literary theories in this period. TS Eliot is considered by many to be the most important of critics of the 20th century. Eliot derides the interpretation of texts and calls for a systematized “comparison and analysis” approach instead. A good critic, in his opinion, can only rely on these tools. Arnold too speaks of what makes a good critic. In his opinion a critic must be a person of “culture”, someone familiar with canonical works of literature over the ages. A well-read individual, but also someone who is “flexible” (ibid.); a critic should never be closed to new ideas. However Arnold’s theories on poets and poetry tend to get restrictive as they delve too deeply into the morality of the content. Two other theorists, who speak of critics and their role, but in our contemporary times, are Henry Louis Gates and Annette Kolodny. Gates seeks to combine deconstructive criticism with the African literary tradition. He tries to be a mediator between assimilation and separation: tendencies that dominated African-American literary traditions for many years before him. His purpose is to create a canon of Black literature, within and yet distinct from, the larger canon of American literature. Kolodny is a feminist-critic whose primary purpose was to locate the struggles of the post-1960s women in the American academic material (ibid.). Among the various approaches that Kolodny advocates, lies one of “pluralism.” Texts can be interpreted in several ways and Kolodny believes that this plurality of all literary works should be made part of a greater critical awareness. Literary criticism should open up to the multiple meanings of texts, specifically the “social constructionism” contained within them that reveal struggles and oppression of women over the years. In comparing these four theorists and their views on Critics, one finds four separate emphases arising. Eliot believes in a clinical, precise mode of criticism, Arnold in a sophisticated but flexible approach, Gates is looking towards specific racial issues in literature and how a critic can address them while Kolodny does the same with reference to women, through feminist ideologies. The latter two, who belong to the later part of the 20th century, are part of the widespread awareness of the cause of the minorities. Much of the 1950s and later have dealt with incorporating previously subjugated groups, races or ethnicities into the main discourse and this is reflected in the theories of these two noted critics. Arnold and Eliot deal with issues that were relevant in their time: namely the justification of poetry against the sciences. Moving on to the other critics, Cleanth Brooks was a theorist of the later twentieth-century. His most important works are critical theories on poetry – Modern Poetry and the Tradition and The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry (ibid.). Yet, if compared to the other theorists who talk of poetry (like Shelley, Wordsworth as mentioned), his approach is radically different. Brooks makes the poet almost irrelevant to the study of poetry. His concerns lie primarily within the poem and its workings. This approach pre-empts later theorists like Roland Barthes and Michel Foucalt who also sought to look within texts and not at the writer’s biography. Barthes’ famous statement “death of the author” succinctly summarizes his theory. He contends that the life of the author and speculations of his psychology and so on are completely redundant. The author is not the source of the text, instead just an effect of society like his work. Foucalt, who alone makes the most significant contribution to literary theories in the latter half of the 20th century, subscribes to this view also. He describes the primary function of the writer as being a way to organize the immense body of work that has been left us by the past and also as a way of interpreting it. W. E. B Du Bois, another African-American theorist of note, has very specific ideas of the purpose of a writer. His contention is that the primary duty of a writer should be to advance the cause of his race (Leitch, 2001) through his literary contributions. This perspective can again be restrictive as it registers only social propaganda as a criterion for writing. Among the four theorists we have just discussed, a notion of the Writer is formed. Although Brooks is primarily a critic of poetry, his theories were taken up more elaborately to describe the functions of the writer. While Brooks, Barthes and Foucalt minimize the role and influence of the writer, Du Bois considers it of utmost significance, but only to propagate the history of a race. To conclude, in comparing theorists spanning across centuries, countries and ideologies, one finds several variations in the notion of the creator and his role in the society he inhabits. From being hailed as prophetic, to rendered irrelevant once his work is complete; from being epitomes of love and sentiment to being skilful masters of rhetoric, conceptions of the poet-writer-artist has evolved and transformed and will continue to do so. The work of the critic too has changed: from identifying what is good art, to creating a canon for specific minority literature, critics have had their roles changed in the same way that they have changed the roles of writers and poets. Works Cited Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: Norton, 2001. Print. Read More