In every period there are books-the vast majority which are enormously popular and which at the same time, produce a strong emotional response in the majority of their own readers, but which after a generation they do survive, only as literary curiosities evidence of then queer taste of our forebears. They have pleased only the contemporaries, for whom they have written, but even other books written earlier have been as moving and satisfying to the people they were addressed. Such are the works of Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton and so on. Even their readers belonged to different races or periods of history which were far too remote from those of which they were born, living in totally different circumstances, with different religions, philosophies and political and social assumptions. Every period has it’s own way of life, beliefs, preoccupations, hopes and fears which arouse strong, often violent emotion are changed when the circumstances which produced them change. But at the same time, down in the depths there are the universal and unchanging human passions, problems and aspirations. The sufferings of an Oedipus or a Hamlet, however much the circumstances, or even the beliefs, which cause them belong to the age in which the play was written, have in them selves nothing to do with historical circumstances; they are fundamental to human nature, irrespective of time and place. The greatest literature is that which goes deepest and appeals to what is most universal in man. Analysis involves looking at the various parts of the work and relating it to the whole. This might involve looking at the play in terms of theme structure, imagery or meter. It is generally agreed that the best way to tell a story is to turn it into a plot. E.M. Foster has defined the difference between a plot and a story in the following way: “we have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality”. Where as in a story any thing can happen as the plot becomes rational.
A play writer’s job is to create living characters in the play which we read for pleasure and emotional release which is essentially for living the lives of others than ourselves.
According to Shelley in a ‘ Defence of poetry’ he says, “Poetry, in the general sense, is the expression of the imagination”. Its primary purpose is to make something happen to the reader. The poet through his imagination recreates as a first hand experience to the reader of what happens. Like in Keats ‘Ode to a Grecian Urn’ saw certain scenes that he felt were unchanging beauty and through this he underwent the passing of time into eternity. The word image originally meant visual picture, but in the language of literary criticism it’s meaning has both been extended and restricted, extended in the sense that it is no longer confined to the visual but now includes the calling up in the imagination of an impression made upon any of the five senses, hearing, taste, touch, sight and smell but restricted in it’s form ‘imagery’ It is limited to sensuous impressions when they are used to make metaphors and similes.
Aristotle was among the first of the critics to suggest a scheme of analysis for various genres suggesting tragedy. His definition of tragedy was “ A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in it-self…in a dramatic not in a narrative form, with incidents arousing pity and fear, where with to accomplish it’s catharsis of such emotions.” Analysis and explication both are inter related because they both help each other. Unless we know the convention operating in the work we do not understand it ‘s meaning and also if we do not get the grip of a work unless we have analyzed it. Evaluation is inescapable in literary criticism though it many or may not be explicit. Criticisms assume that we are to discriminate and heighten out appreciation and therefore evaluation is a means of discrimination. Modern critics are vary of the specific judgments that are found in Mathew Arnold or Dr.Johnson. Eliot looks at specific works and analyzes them vigorously. It is not a mechanical process. We consciously apply certain norms or standards, which have evolved from previous experiences. Mathew Arnold has said that works of the past are like touch stones, which help us to judge. According to him the classics provide us with such touchstones. Eliot has suggested that we use tradition to judge contemporary viewpoint and sensibility to judge the traditions itself. In his essay ‘Tradition and the individual talent’ he said the not only must the classics be used as touchstones to judge modern works but we must also be aware of the modern if we are to look at the older touchstones critically. Eliot did that by re evaluating metaphysical poetry. Literature cannons are never static as they are constantly changing under the growth of feminist and working class movements.
Criticism involves application of certain norms while criteria, involves use of analytical tools. Therotical criticism involves general forms of principles, classifications that can be applied in criticism. Aristotle was among the first theoreticians who generalized his comment on poetry and tragedy.
British literary criticism has been a distrust of theory and one must respond to it with one’s own inner emotions. This belief has much to do with the traditions of British literature that were philosophically popular. The empirical notion was that one must respond to the work, but our responses are not unmediated as our mind that experiences does so with a set of assumptions. A question that arises is the use of classification in various genres. We could look at every work distinctly and that genres are rigid classifications. The act of criticism requires that we compare works that are similar.
The critic not only saves our time for discovering for us which books are good and what we can look for in them but he can as a critic be alert to new talent and if it were not for the perceptiveness of such critics and their power of exposition no experimental writer would find his public. “ A book is a good book for those who like it, a bad one for those who do not-in fact, every man is his own critic”
