Hey Arnold!
Main Source: Arnold, Matthew- “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time”
I am by no means a literary-minded kind of guy. In general, I’m a writer for fun and profit, of fiction, even. The theory behind writing has never really interested me insofar as it doesn’t seem to effect how or what I write. Before you all start brandishing torches and storming my castle (which is beautiful, I might add), I’ll note the word “seem” in that last sentence. Apparently, I’m working with theory without even trying, according to notable dead fellow Matthew Arnold (older brother of Tom Arnold (the academic, not the actor (nor the British politician))). Apparently, according to “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” (the “present time” being 1864, by the way), the fact that I have “asserted the inherent superiority of the creative effort of the Human spirit over its critical effort” likens me somewhat to William Wordsworth (which does not strike me as a bad thing) (807). Arnold accepts this view as well: “the critical power is of lower rank than the creative” (808). A victory for me! Or is it?
Well, no. Not really.
Apparently, and I must admit that I find the argument rather complicated, ideas are the basis for creativity. Now, “literary genius does not principally show itself in discovering new ideas,” since that’s the job of philosophers, according to Arnold, but rather, “the grand work of literary genius is a work of synthesis and exposition. . . . Its gift lies in the faculty of being happily inspire by a certain intellectual . . . atmosphere, by a certain order of ideas” (808). What order is that, you may ask? Obviously, criticism, which apparently is absolutely necessary.
Arnold’s basic approach in this essay seems to tend towards proof by means of “because I said so.” Arnold states that “the creation of a modern poet, to be worth much, implies a great critical effort behind it; else it must be a comparatively poor, barren, and short-lived affair” (809). So, in case you’re still wondering about a function of criticism at the present time (1864 A.D./C.E.), here’s one: without it, authors are doomed to be poor, barren and short-lived, or something along those lines. I’d disagree, but I am a writer who doesn’t know much about criticism, and I am poor and thus far barren, so he may have a point. Arnold notes that “this is why Byron’s poetry had so little endurance in it, and Goethe’s so much” (809). Goethe, with his (presumed) critical background had the benefit of being a polymath, but Byron’s poetry, being no longer read, lends credence to— oh, wait, nevermind.
Now, obviously, I’m being a bit harsh on Arnold. I disagree with him and my bias is fairly evident at even a glance. His conception that the society builds the poet gives a societal construct which restricts the greatest authors by their age. Being a product of an age, as Shakespeare was of Elizabeth’s reign in Arnold’s terms (810), does not mean that without the age, there would have been no Shakespeare. The Bard’s work may have been different, but the innate spark of creativity must not be attributed to a period of time, but to the mind of the author.
Emerson was sure that writing was more important than reading by a large degree. Arnold would most likely say that reading is just as important, and thus, criticism is just as important as creative work, since it builds character and, in his words, “at some epochs no other creation is possible” (825). I am more of the mind of Emerson. It is not the epoch that builds a writer, but the writers that build an epoch.
-Andrew Heil
Tags: Arnold, Criticism, Emerson, Reading, Writing
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
19 February 2008 at 12:28 am
I now feel a lot more erudite than I did before starting this post. AND I laughed a lot. So, I think that means you can tell Arnold QED. Yay writing because it’s FUN! My small group came up with that answer for “why do we study history?” in senior seminar last fall. I think we wreaked havoc with Wilson’s blood pressure. Oops.
21 February 2008 at 2:53 am
The author needs a context. Maybe it’s society, maybe it’s the wilderness. Simply because an author cannot write without living and an author cannot live without a place to live. The subject matter of the author will be different according to which society, which epoch, whichever construct or lack thereof the author comes from.
But like you said, genius comes from the mind of the author, not the author’s context. If the writer is a brilliant person, s/he will make masterpieces no matter what age or culture s/he lives in.
Now if Shakespeare were alive today…how would he write, I wonder…*ponders*
24 February 2008 at 11:05 pm
Glad you took on Arnold–both to read him and critique him–Andrew. I think what Liz says is very much to the point, and it is ultimately Arnold’s point. Poets write out of a context that either nurtures or blunts their possibility. He wants to argue that criticism, far from being a secondary and inconsequential “commentary” on works of greater creativity, serves the role of laying the groundwork for great poetry.