main idea in essay on criticism

An Essay on Criticism Summary & Analysis by Alexander Pope

• Line-by-Line Explanation & Analysis
• Poetic Devices
• Vocabulary & References
• Form, Meter, & Rhyme Scheme
• Line-by-Line Explanations

Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticism" seeks to lay down rules of good taste in poetry criticism, and in poetry itself. Structured as an essay in rhyming verse, it offers advice to the aspiring critic while satirizing amateurish criticism and poetry. The famous passage beginning "A little learning is a dangerous thing" advises would-be critics to learn their field in depth, warning that the arts demand much longer and more arduous study than beginners expect. The passage can also be read as a warning against shallow learning in general. Published in 1711, when Alexander Pope was just 23, the "Essay" brought its author fame and notoriety while he was still a young poet himself.

• Read the full text of “From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing”

The Full Text of “From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing”

1 A little learning is a dangerous thing;

2 Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

3 There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

4 And drinking largely sobers us again.

5 Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,

6 In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts,

7 While from the bounded level of our mind,

8 Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,

9 But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise

10 New, distant scenes of endless science rise!

11 So pleased at first, the towering Alps we try,

12 Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky;

13 The eternal snows appear already past,

14 And the first clouds and mountains seem the last;

15 But those attained, we tremble to survey

16 The growing labours of the lengthened way,

17 The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,

18 Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

“From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing” Summary

“from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing” themes.

Shallow Learning vs. Deep Understanding

• See where this theme is active in the poem.

Line-by-Line Explanation & Analysis of “From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing”

A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts, In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts, While from the bounded level of our mind, Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,

But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise New, distant scenes of endless science rise!

Lines 11-14

So pleased at first, the towering Alps we try, Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky; The eternal snows appear already past, And the first clouds and mountains seem the last;

Lines 15-18

But those attained, we tremble to survey The growing labours of the lengthened way, The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes, Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

“From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing” Symbols

The Mountains/Alps

• See where this symbol appears in the poem.

“From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing” Poetic Devices & Figurative Language

Alliteration.

• See where this poetic device appears in the poem.

Extended Metaphor

“from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing” vocabulary.

Select any word below to get its definition in the context of the poem. The words are listed in the order in which they appear in the poem.

• A little learning
• Pierian spring
• Bounded level
• Short views
• The lengthened way
• See where this vocabulary word appears in the poem.

Form, Meter, & Rhyme Scheme of “From An Essay on Criticism: A little learning is a dangerous thing”

Rhyme scheme, “from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing” speaker, “from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing” setting, literary and historical context of “from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing”, more “from an essay on criticism: a little learning is a dangerous thing” resources, external resources.

The Poem Aloud — Listen to an audiobook of Pope's "Essay on Criticism" (the "A little learning" passage starts at 12:57).

The Poet's Life — Read a biography of Alexander Pope at the Poetry Foundation.

"Alexander Pope: Rediscovering a Genius" — Watch a BBC documentary on Alexander Pope.

More on Pope's Life — A summary of Pope's life and work at Poets.org.

Pope at the British Library — More resources and articles on the poet.

LitCharts on Other Poems by Alexander Pope

Ode on Solitude

Everything you need for every book you read.

An Essay on Criticism

By alexander pope, edited by jack lynch.

An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope – Complete Overview

Here in this informative post we have explained about ‘An Essay on Criticism’ by Alexander Pope. It includes Ideas, Summery, Overview about this book.

Table of Contents

History of ‘An Essay on Criticism’ by Alexander Pope

The essay on criticism is a very famous essay which was written 300 years ago. Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism is a bold associate work of art written in the couplet. Written in 1709 and Printed in 1711, this author essay changed into a venture to spot and describe his very own position as a poet and a critic. 

Ideas on criticism

He powerfully places his ideas on persevering with the question of if poetry has to be herbal or written according to the preset artificial policies set with the aid of the classical poets. This essay via Pope is neoclassic in its premises, within the way of life of Horace and Boileau. Pope believes that the well worth of writing depends now, not on its being historic or trendy, but on its being genuine nature. 

We find this to nature in genuine wit. Life is to be located each in the count number and within the manner of expression, the two being indivisible. Once the author is asked to follow nature, he is genuinely asked to “stick with the standard, the standard, and therefore the commonplace.” he’s to painting the planet as he sees it.

The reality of characteristic is to be observed in not unusual humanity, now not in any eccentricity. Pope argued that nature is ever identical. The perfect object of imitation is that the basic style of fact for Pope, and consequently, the basic rule of artwork, is to “comply with nature” – “nature methodized.

He would not negate the threat of transgressing the principles if the critical intention of poetry is done, and this transgression brings hope nearer to the thought of nobility. The writer should have a sturdy feel of a literary lifestyle to shape smart judgments because the critic should be there. 

Pope notes Virgil’s discovery to the imitate Homer is that more of a mimic nature. Pope says companion creator resembles the character. His life is that the aggregate of 2 components society (human nature) and regulations of classical artists-“nature is methodiser.” Traditional creator already discovers the natural policies and laws.

Now, it’s not essential to travel to nature as soon as more. This is because to follow the classical creator, to journey to the character. So, assets of artwork, square degree society and historical artists. Pope’s number one concern all through this essay is his recommendation to the principal for critics, and secondarily for artists or poets. 

Pope claims that artist’s own genius while critics own fashion (classical fashion developed by using traditional artists). Here a critic needs to be chosen by taking some insights into texts from classic artists.

An author can’t transcend his intention; they restrict himself at intervals he needs. He should not be over-ambitious and over ingenious, but critics will transcend their purpose. The author should endure observing, gaining knowledge of, and experiences. That square degree equally vital to critics too. 

Pope says, “A minimal mastering can be a risky thing.” So, the critic has not to be proud. A critic who has pride can’t eliminate the $64000 essence from the text. To be a practical critic, one must have bravery, modesty, and honesty . Decorum, for Pope, is that the perfect stability among expression and sound of content and kind, and it comes below versification.

Pope considers wit because of the polished and adorned fashion of language. Vogue and concept should move along. The writer uses a ‘heroic couplet’ (shape) to precise the heroic fabric (content). Pope implies that if the author should break the rules and regulations, he has to use a license. 

Alexander Pope an English Critic

Alexander Pope (1688–1744) was an associate English critic, translator, satirist, and author WHO have become the most important figurehead of the neoclassic generation in English literature, typically known as the statesman Age. Pope suffered from what became brilliant then as “tuberculosis of the spine” (now exquisite these days as Pott’s disease), which left him sickly and unpleasant from a younger age.

Being kyphotic, he stood not over four and a [*fr1] feet tall. He turned into conjointly a devout Catholic in a preponderantly Protestant state and will now not preserve billet, attend university, or perhaps vote.

Therefore, the Pope discovered a way to apply his vast information, poetic ability, and sharp wit to achieve an ill reputation and fame. Along with the eighteenth-century contemporaries like Johnson and Ridiculer, Pope becomes interested often in reinvigorating inventive designs, tropes, genres, and philosophy.

He learned this from the traditional Greeks and Romans. Aside from being a funny political ironist, Pope became conjointly a perceptive, thoughtful, and scholarly critic WHO believed that poor criticism became, in lots of ways, worse than bad writing.

 “An Essay on Criticism” (1709) may be a painting of every poetry and complaint. Pope tries in this long, three-element literary paintings to look at neoclassic aesthetics in poetry and argues that the purest fairy poetry is that this is nearest to his theory of “Nature.” He conjointly argues against separation of type and content, disputation that naturalism in poetry ought to be mirrored in every its brand and its content.

The poem, written in heroic couplets (or two end-rhymed strains of iambic pentameter), is heavily influenced by Aristotle’s literary study, Horace’s Ars Poetica, and Nicolas Boileau’s L’Art Poëtique. In its 1st section, the speaker of the literary work describes, but the critics of his time square measure defective of their judgments and tastes.

Being for the maximum element eager on the traditional Greek and Roman writers, the speaker claims that several of his contemporaries have misplaced bound critical factors of high-quality poetry. This correctly states that poets should write what they recognise, however, no longer stray on some distance aspect that material which now not all sturdy poetry adheres to usual conventions or rules.

In distinction to half 1’s generality, 1/2 lists in more significant detail the assorted precise errors created by using critics of the time. One in all the troubles is that the absence of holistic methods in the complaint; in opportunity words, critics fail to ponder the add its entireness. The speaker of the literary paintings conjointly claims that critics desire and square degree misled by using excessively showy, needlessly convoluted, and synthetic writing element 3.

After arguing about his problems with contemporary criticism, the speaker offers some pointers on what makes for good criticism. 

He claims that critics ought to comply with the prescriptions of the ancient philosophers and poets in matters of taste while also preserving in mind the importance of nature in writing. Other poets can use extra classical works as fashions for improving their craft and interact with significant situation matter.

‘An Essay on Criticism’ was posted while the Pope was pretty young. The work remains, however, one of the best-regarded commentaries on the literary complaint. Although the paintings treat literary criticism mainly and thus is based heavily upon ancient authors as type masters, Pope still extends this complaint to widespread judgment about all walks of life.

He shows that genuine genius and understanding are innate presents of heaven; at the identical time, he argues, many own the seeds of those gifts, such that with the right schooling, they can be developed. His enterprise takes on a straightforward structure: the general traits of a critic; the unique laws using which he judges paintings; and the correct man or woman of a critic.

Part 1 starts with the Pope’s massive indictment of fake critics.

In doing so, he shows that critics regularly are a fan of their judgment, judgment deriving from nature, like that of the poet’s genius. Nature provides absolutely everyone with some taste, which may ultimately assist the critic too.

Alexander Pope Poem – An Essay on Criticism Below

‘Tis hard to say if greater want of skill Appear in writing or in judging ill, But of the two less dangerous is the offense To tire our patience than mislead our sense Some few in that but numbers err in this, Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss, A fool might once himself alone expose, Now one in verse makes many more in prose (Read Complete Here)

Leave a comment Cancel reply

An Essay on Criticism: Part 2

Pope, alexander (1688 - 1744).

An Essay on Criticism

1928 facsimile reprint.

CRITICISM .

In search of Wit these lose their common Sense , And then turn Criticks in their own Defence. Those hate as Rivals all that write; and others But envy Wits , as Eunuchs envy Lovers . All Fools have still an Itching to deride, And fain wou'd be upon the Laughing Side: If Mævius Scribble in Apollo ' s spight, There are, who judge still worse than he can write . ⁠ Some have at first for Wits , then Poets past, Turn'd Criticks next, and prov'd plain Fools at last; Some neither can for Wits nor Criticks pass, As heavy Mules are neither Horse or Ass . Those half-learn'd Witlings, num'rous in our Isle, As half-form'd Insects on the Banks of Nile ; Unfinish'd Things, one knows not what to call, Their Generation's so equivocal : To tell 'em, wou'd a hundred Tongues require, Or one vain Wit's , that wou'd a hundred tire. ⁠ But you who seek to give and merit Fame, And justly bear a Critick's noble Name,

Be sure your self and your own Reach to know. How far your Genius, Taste , and Learning go; Launch not beyond your Depth, but be discreet, And mark that Point where Sense and Dulness meet . Nature to all things fix'd the Limits fit, And wisely curb'd proud Man's pretending Wit: As on the Land while here the Ocean gains, In other Parts it leaves wide sandy Plains; Thus in the Soul while Memory prevails, The solid Pow'r of Understanding fails; Where Beams of warm Imagination play, The Memory's soft Figures melt away. One Science only will one Genius fit; So vast is Art, so narrow Human Wit; Not only bounded to peculiar Arts , But oft in those , confin'd to single Parts . Like Kings we lose the Conquests gain'd before, By vain Ambition still to make them more: Each might his sev'ral Province well command, Wou'd all but stoop to what they understand .

⁠ First follow Nature , and your Judgment frame By her just Standard, which is still the same: Unerring Nature , still divinely bright, One clear, unchang'd and Universal Light, Life, Force, and Beauty, must to all impart, At once the Source , and End , and Test of Art . That Art is best which most resembles Her ; Which still presides , yet never does Appear ; In some fair Body thus the sprightly Soul With Spirits feeds, with Vigour fills the whole, Each Motion guides, and ev'ry Nerve sustains; It self unseen , but in th' Effects , remains. There are whom Heav'n has blest with store of Wit, Yet want as much again to manage it; For Wit and Judgment ever are at strife, Tho' meant each other's Aid, like Man and Wife . 'Tis more to guide than spur the Muse's Steed; Restrain his Fury, than provoke his Speed; The winged Courser, like a gen'rous Horse, Shows most true Mettle when you check his Course.

Against the Poets their own Arms they turn'd, Sure to hate most the Men from whom they learn'd. So modern Pothecaries , taught the Art By Doctor's Bills to play the Doctor's Part , Bold in the Practice of mistaken Rules , Prescribe, apply, and call their Masters Fools . Some on the Leaves of ancient Authors prey, Nor Time nor Moths e'er spoil'd so much as they: Some dryly plain, without Invention's Aid, Write dull Receits how Poems may be made: These lost the Sense, their Learning to display, And those explain'd the Meaning quite away. ⁠ You then whose Judgment the right Course wou'd steer, Know well each Ancient's proper Character , His Fable, Subject, Scope in ev'ry Page, Religion, Country, Genius of his Age : Without all these at once before your Eyes, You may Confound , but never Criticize . Be Homer ' s Works your Study , and Delight , Read them by Day, and meditate by Night,

And tho' the Ancients thus their Rules invade, (As Kings dispense with Laws Themselves have made) Moderns , beware! Or if you must offend Against the Precept , ne'er transgress its End , Let it be seldom , and compell'd by Need , And have, at least, Their Precedent to plead. The Critick else proceeds without Remorse, Seizes your Fame, and puts his Laws in force. ⁠ I know there are, to whose presumptuous Thoughts Those Freer Beauties , ev'n in Them , seem Faults: Some Figures monstrous and mis-shap'd appear, Consider'd singly , or beheld too near , Which, but proportion'd to their Light , or Place , Due Distance reconciles to Form and Grace. A prudent Chief not always must display His Pow'rs in equal Ranks , and fair Array , But with th' Occasion and the Place comply, Oft hide his Force, nay seem sometimes to Fly . Those are but Stratagems which Errors seem, Nor is it Homer Nods , but We that Dream .

Still green with Bays each ancient Altar stands, Above the reach of Sacrilegious Hands, Secure from Flames , from Envy's fiercer Rage, Destructive War , and all-devouring Age . See, from each Clime the Learn'd their Incense bring; Hear, in all Tongues Triumphant Pæans ring! In Praise so just, let ev'ry Voice be join'd, And fill the Gen'ral Chorus of Mankind ! Hail Bards Triumphant ! born in happier Days ; Immortal Heirs of Universal Praise! Whose Honours with Increase of Ages grow , As Streams roll down, enlarging as they flow! Nations unborn your mighty Names shall sound, And Worlds applaud that must not yet be found ! Oh may some Spark of your Cœlestial Fire The last, the meanest of your Sons inspire, (That with weak Wings, from far, pursues your Flights; Glows while he reads , but trembles as he writes ) To teach vain Wits a Science little known , T' admire Superior Sense, and doubt their own!

⁠ OF all the Causes which conspire to blind Man's erring Judgment, and misguide the Mind, What the weak Head with strongest Byass rules, Is Pride , the never-failing Vice of Fools . Whatever Nature has in Worth deny'd, She gives in large Recruits of needful Pride ; For as in Bodies , thus in Souls , we find What wants in Blood and Spirits , swell'd with Wind ; Pride, where Wit fails, steps in to our Defence, And fills up all the mighty Void of Sense ! If once right Reason drives that Cloud away, Truth breaks upon us with resistless Day ; Trust not your self; but your Defects to know, Make use of ev'ry Friend —— and ev'ry Foe . ⁠ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

Fir’d with the Charms fair Science does impart, In fearless Youth we tempt the Heights of Art; While from the bounded Level of our Mind, Short Views we take, nor see the Lengths behind , But more advanc'd , survey with strange Surprize New, distant Scenes of endless Science rise! So pleas'd at first, the towring Alps we try, Mount o'er the Vales, and seem to tread the Sky; Th' Eternal Snows appear already past, And the first Clouds and Mountains seem the last: But those attain'd , we tremble to survey The growing Labours of the lengthen'd Way, Th' increasing Prospect tires our wandring Eyes, Hills peep o'er Hills, and Alps on Alps arise! ⁠ [4] A perfect Judge will read each Work of Wit With the same Spirit that its Author writ , Survey the Whole , nor seek slight Faults to find; Where Nature moves , and Rapture warms the Mind;

Nor lose, for that malignant dull Delight, The gen'rous Pleasure to be charm'd with Wit. But in such Lays as neither ebb , nor flow , Correctly cold , and regularly low , That shunning Faults, one quiet Tenour keep; We cannot blame indeed —— but we may sleep . In Wit, as Nature, what affects our Hearts Is not th' Exactness of peculiar Parts; 'Tis not a Lip , or Eye , we Beauty call, But the joint Force and full Result of all . Thus when we view some well-proportion'd Dome, The World ' s just Wonder, and ev'n thine O Rome !) No single Parts unequally surprize; All comes united to th' admiring Eyes; No monstrous Height, or Breadth, or Length appear; The Whole at once is Bold , and Regular . ⁠ Whoever thinks a faultless Piece to see, Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be. In ev'ry Work regard the Writer's End , Since none can compass more than they Intend ;

All which, exact to Rule were brought about, Were but a Combate in the Lists left out. What! Leave the Combate out ? Exclaims the Knight; Yes, or we must renounce the Stagyrite . Not so by Heav'n (he answers in a Rage) Knights, Squires, and Steeds, must enter on the Stage . The Stage can ne'er so vast a Throng contain. Then build a New, or act it in a Plain . ⁠ Thus Criticks, of less Judgment than Caprice , Curious , not Knowing , not exact , but nice , Form short Ideas ; and offend in Arts (As most in Manners ) by a Love to Parts . Some to Conceit alone their Taste confine, And glitt'ring Thoughts struck out at ev'ry Line; Pleas'd with a Work where nothing's just or fit; One glaring Chaos and wild Heap of Wit: Poets like Painters, thus, unskill'd to trace The naked Nature and the living Grace , With Gold and Jewels cover ev'ry Part, And hide with Ornaments their Want of Art .

[5] True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest, What oft was Thought , but ne'er so well Exprest , Something , whose Truth convinc'd at Sight we find, That gives us back the Image of our Mind: As Shades more sweetly recommend the Light, So modest Plainness sets off sprightly Wit: For Works may have more Wit than does 'em good, As Bodies perish through Excess of Blood . ⁠ Others for Language all their Care express, And value Books , as Women Men , for Dress: Their Praise is still —— The Stile is excellent : The Sense , they humbly take upon Content. Words are like Leaves ; and where they most abound, Much Fruit of Sense beneath is rarely found. False Eloquence , like the Prismatic Glass , Its gawdy Colours spreads on ev'ry place ; The Face of Nature was no more Survey, All glares alike , without Distinction gay:

Where-e'er you find the cooling Western Breeze , In the next Line, it whispers thro' the Trees ; If Chrystal Streams with pleasing Murmurs creep , The Reader's threaten'd (not in vain) with Sleep . Then, at the last , and only Couplet fraught With some unmeaning Thing they call a Thought , A needless Alexandrine ends the Song, That like a wounded Snake, drags its slow length along. Leave such to tune their own dull Rhimes, and know What's roundly smooth , or languishingly slow ; And praise the Easie Vigor of a Line, Where Denham ' s Strength, and Waller ' s Sweetness join. 'Tis not enough no Harshness gives Offence, The Sound must seem an Eccho to the Sense . Soft is the Strain when Zephyr gently blows, And the smooth Stream in smoother Numbers flows; But when loud Surges lash the sounding Shore, The hoarse, rough Verse shou'd like the Torrent roar. When Ajax strives, some Rocks' vast Weight to throw, The Line too labours , and the Words move slow ;

Not so, when swift Camilla scours the Plain, Flies o'er th'unbending Corn, and skims along the Main. Hear how [10] Timotheus ' various Lays surprize, And bid Alternate Passions fall and rise! While, at each Change, the Son of Lybian Jove Now burns with Glory, and then melts with Love; Now his fierce Eyes with sparkling Fury glow; Now Sighs steal out, and Tears begin to flow : Persians and Greeks like Turns of Nature found, And the World's Victor stood subdu'd by Sound ! The Pow'r of Musick all our Hearts allow; And what Timotheus was, is Dryden now. ⁠ Avoid Extreams ; and shun the Fault of such, Who still are pleas'd too little , or too much . At ev'ry Trifle scorn to take Offence, That always shows Great Pride , or Little Sense ; Those Heads as Stomachs are not sure the best Which nauseate all, and nothing can digest.

Yet let not each gay Turn thy Rapture move, For Fools Admire , but Men of Sense Approve ; As things seem large which we thro' Mists descry, Dulness is ever apt to Magnify . ⁠ Some French Writers, some our own despise; The Ancients only, or the Moderns prize: Thus Wit , like Faith by each Man is apply'd To one small Sect , and All are damn'd beside. Meanly they seek the Blessing to confine, And force that Sun but on a Part to Shine; Which not alone the Southern Wit sublimes, But ripens Spirits in cold Northern Climes ; Which from the first has shone on Ages past , Enlights the present , and shall warm the last: (Tho' each may feel Increases and Decays , And see now clearer and now darker Days ) Regard not then if Wit be Old or New , But blame the False , and value still the True . ⁠ Some ne'er advance a Judgment of their own, But catch the spreading Notion of the Town;

They reason and conclude by Precedent , And own stale Nonsense which they ne'er invent. Some judge of Author's Names , not Works , and then Nor praise nor damn the Writings , but the Men . Of all this Servile Herd the worst is He That in proud Dulness joins with Quality , A constant Critick at the Great-man's Board, To fetch and carry Nonsense for my Lord. What woful stuff this Madrigal wou'd be, To some starv'd Hackny Sonneteer, or me? But let a Lord once own the happy Lines , How the Wit brightens ! How the Style refines ! Before his sacred Name flies ev'ry Fault, And each exalted Stanza teems with Thought! ⁠ The Vulgar thus through Imitation err; As oft the Learn'd by being Singular ; So much they scorn the Crowd, that if the Throng By Chance go right, they purposely go wrong; So Schismatics the dull Believers quit, And are but damn'd for having too much Wit .

⁠ Some praise at Morning what they blame at Night; But always think the last Opinion right . A Muse by these is like a Mistress us'd, This hour she's idoliz'd , the next abus'd , While their weak Heads, like Towns unfortify'd, 'Twixt Sense and Nonsense daily change their Side. Ask them the Cause; They're wiser still , they say; And still to Morrow's wiser than to Day. We think our Fathers Fools, so wise we grow; Our wiser Sons , no doubt, will think us so. Once School-Divines our zealous Isle o'erspread; Who knew most Sentences was deepest read ; Faith, Gospel, All, seem'd made to be disputed , And none had Sense enough to be Confuted . Scotists and Thomists , now, in Peace remain, Amidst their kindred Cobwebs in Duck-Lane . If Faith it self has diff'rent Dresses worn, What wonder Modes in Wit shou'd take their Turn? Oft, leaving what is Natural and fit, The current Folly proves the ready Wit ,

And Authors think their Reputation safe, Which lives as long as Fools are pleas'd to Laugh . ⁠ Some valuing those of their own Side , or Mind , Still make themselves the measure of Mankind; Fondly we think we honour Merit then, When we but praise Our selves in Other Men . Parties in Wit attend on those of State , And publick Faction doubles private Hate. Pride, Malice, Folly , against Dryden rose, In various Shapes of Parsons, Criticks, Beaus ; But Sense surviv'd, when merry Jests were past; For rising Merit will buoy up at last. Might he return, and bless once more our Eyes, New Bl —— —s and new M —— —s must arise; Nay shou'd great Homer lift his awful Head, Zoilus again would start up from the Dead. Envy will Merit as its Shade pursue, But like a Shadow, proves the Substance too; For envy'd Wit, like Sol Eclips'd, makes known Th' opposing Body's Grossness, not its own .

When first that Sun too powerful Beams displays, It draws up Vapours which obscure its Rays; But ev'n those Clouds at last adorn its Way, Reflect new Glories, and augment the Day. ⁠ Be thou the first true Merit to befriend; His Praise is lost, who stays till All commend; Short is the Date, alas, of Modern Rhymes ; And 'tis but just to let 'em live betimes . No longer now that Golden Age appears, When Patriarch-Wits surviv'd a thousand Years , Now Length of Fame (our second Life) is lost, And bare Threescore is all ev'n That can boast: Our Sons their Fathers' failing Language see, And such as Chaucer is, shall Dryden be. So when the faithful Pencil has design'd Some fair Idea of the Master's Mind, Where a new World leaps out at his command, And ready Nature waits upon his Hand; When the ripe Colours soften and unite , And sweetly melt into just Shade and Light,

When mellowing Time does full Perfection give, And each Bold Figure just begins to Live ; The treach'rous Colours the few Years decay, And all the bright Creation fades away! ⁠ Unhappy Wit , like most mistaken Things, Repays not half that Envy which it brings: In Youth alone its empty Praise we boast, But soon the Short-liv'd Vanity is lost! Like some fair Flow'r the in the Spring does rise, That gaily Blooms, but ev'n in blooming Dies . What is this Wit that does our Cares employ? The Owner's Wife , that other Men enjoy, Then more his Trouble as the more admir'd , Where wanted , scorn'd, and envy'd where acquir'd ; Maintain'd with Pains , but forfeited with Ease ; Sure some to vex , but never all to please ; 'Tis what the Vicious fear , the Virtuous shun ; By Fools 'tis hated , and by Knaves undone! ⁠ Too much does Wit from Ign'rance undergo, Ah let not Learning too commence its Foe!

Of old , those met Rewards who cou'd excel , And such were Prais'd who but endeavour'd well : Tho' Triumphs were to Gen'rals only due, Crowns were reserv'd to grace the Soldiers too. Now those that reach Parnassus ' lofty Crown, Employ their Pains to spurn some others down; And while Self-Love each jealous Writer rules, Contending Wits becomes the Sport of Fools : But still the Worst with most Regret commend, For each Ill Author is as bad a Friend . To what base Ends, and by what abject Ways , Are Mortals urg'd by Sacred Lust of Praise ? Ah ne'er so dire a Thirst of Glory boast, Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost! Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join; To err is Humane ; to Forgive, Divine . But if in Noble Minds some Dregs remain, Not yet purg'd off, of Spleen and sow'r Disdain, Discharge that Rage on more Provoking Crimes, Nor fear a Dearth in these Flagitious Times.

No Pardon vile Obscenity should find, Tho' Wit and Art conspire to move your Mind; But Dulness with Obscenity must prove As Shameful sure as Impotence in Love . In the fat Age of Pleasure, Wealth, and Ease, Sprung the rank Weed, and thriv'd with large Increase; When Love was all an easie Monarch's Care; Seldom at Council , never in a War : Jilts rul'd the State, and Statesmen Farces writ; Nay Wits had Pensions , and young Lords had Wit : The Fair sate panting at a Courtier's Play , And not a Mask went un-improv'd away: The modest Fan was lifted up no more, And Virgins smil'd at what they blush'd before —— The following Licence of a Foreign Reign Did all the Dregs of bold Socinus drain; Then first the Belgian Morals were extoll'd; We their Religion had, and they our Gold: Then Unbelieving Priests reform'd the Nation, And taught more Pleasant Methods of Salvation;

Where Heav'ns Free Subjects might their Rights dispute, Lest God himself shou'd seem too Absolute . Pulpits their Sacred Satire learn'd to spare, And Vice admir'd to find a Flatt'rer there! Encourag'd thus, Witt's Titans brav'd the Skies, And the Press groan'd with Licenc'd Blasphemies —— These Monsters, Criticks! with your Darts engage, Here point your Thunder, and exhaust your Rage! Yet shun their Fault, who, Scandalously nice , Will needs mistake an Author into Vice ; All seems Infected that th' Infected spy, As all looks yellow to the Jaundic'd Eye. ⁠ Learn then what Morals Criticks ought to show, For 'tis but half a Judge's Task , to Know . 'Tis not enough, Wit, Art, and Learning join; In all you speak, let Truth and Candor shine: That not alone what to your Judgment ' s due, All may allow; but seek your Friendship too.

⁠ Be silent always when you doubt your Sense; Speak when you're sure , yet speak with Diffidence ; Some positive persisting Fops we know, Who, if once wrong , will needs be always so ; But you, with Pleasure own your Errors past, And make each Day a Critick on the last. ⁠ 'Tis not enough your Counsel still be true , Blunt Truths more Mischief than nice Falshoods do; Men must be taught as if you taught them not ; And Things ne'er known propos'd as Things forgot : Without Good Breeding, Truth is not approv'd, That only makes Superior Sense belov'd . ⁠ Be Niggards of Advice on no Pretence; For the worst Avarice is that of Sense : With mean Complacence ne'er betray your Trust, Nor be so Civil as to prove Unjust ; Fear not the Anger of the Wise to raise; Those best can bear Reproof , who merit Praise .

⁠ 'Twere well, might Criticks still this Freedom take; But Appius reddens at each Word you speak, And stares, Tremendous ! with a threatning Eye , Like some fierce Tyrant in Old Tapestry ! Fear most to tax an Honourable Fool, Whose Right it is, uncensur'd to be dull; Such without Wit are Poets when they please, As without Learning they can take Degrees . Leave dang'rous Truths to unsuccessful Satyrs , And Flattery to fulsome Dedicators , Whom, when they Praise , the World believes no more, Than when they promise to give Scribling o'er. 'Tis best sometimes your Censure to restrain, And charitably let the Dull be vain : Your Silence there is better than your Spite , For who can rail so long as they can write ? Still humming on, their old dull Course they keep, And lash'd so long, like Tops , are lash'd asleep .

False Steps but help them to renew the Race, As after Stumbling , Jades will mend their Pace. What Crouds of these, impenitently bold, In Sounds and jingling Syllables grown old, Still run on Poets in a raging Vein, Ev'n to the Dregs and Squeezings of the Brain ; Strain out the last, dull droppings of their Sense, And Rhyme with all the Rage of Impotence ! ⁠ Such shameless Bards we have; and yet 'tis true, There are as mad, abandon'd Criticks too. [11] The Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read, With Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head, With his own Tongue still edifies his Ears, And always List'ning to Himself appears. All Books he reads, and all he reads assails, From Dryden ' s Fables down to D —— — y ' s Tales .

Tho' Learn'd well-bred; and tho' well-bred, sincere; Modestly bold, and Humanly severe? Who to a Friend his Faults can freely show, And gladly praise the Merit of a Foe ? Blest with a Taste exact, yet unconfin'd; A Knowledge both of Books and Humankind ; Gen'rous Converse ; a Soul exempt from Pride ; And Love to Praise , with Reason on his Side? ⁠ Such once were Criticks , such the Happy Few , Athens and Rome in better Ages knew. The mighty Stagyrite first left the Shore, Spread all his Sails, and durst the Deeps explore; He steer'd securely, and discover'd far, Led by the Light of the Mæonian Star . Not only Nature did his Laws obey, But Fancy's boundless Empire own'd his Sway. Poets, a Race long unconfin'd and free, Still fond and proud of Savage Liberty ,

Receiv'd his Laws, and stood convinc'd 'twas fit Who conquer'd Nature , shou'd preside o'er Wit . ⁠ Horace still charms with graceful Negligence, And without Method talks us into Sense, Does like a Friend familiarly convey The truest Notions in the easiest way . He, who Supream in Judgment, as in Wit, Might boldly censure, as he boldly writ, Yet judg'd with Coolness tho' he sung with Fire ; His Precepts teach but what his Works inspire. Our Criticks take a contrary Extream, They judge with Fury , but they write with Fle'me: Nor suffers Horace more in wrong Translations By Wits , than Criticks in as wrong Quotations . ⁠ Fancy and Art in gay Petronius please, The Scholar's Learning , with the Courtier's Ease . ⁠ In grave Quintilian ' s copious Work we find The justest Rules , and clearest Method join'd;

Thus useful Arms in Magazines we place, All rang'd in Order , and dispos'd with Grace , Nor thus alone the Curious Eye to please, But to be found , when Need requires, with Ease. ⁠ The Muses sure Longinus did inspire, And blest their Critick with a Poet's Fire . An ardent Judge , that Zealous in his Trust, With Warmth gives Sentence, yet is always Just ; Whose own Example strengthens all his Laws, And Is himself that great Sublime he draws. ⁠ Thus long succeeding Criticks justly reign'd, Licence repress'd, and useful Laws ordain'd; Learning and Rome alike in Empire grew, And Arts still follow'd where her Eagles flew ; From the same Foes, at last, both felt their Doom, And the same Age saw Learning fall, and Rome . With Tyranny , then Superstition join'd, As that the Body , this enslav'd the Mind ;

All was Believ'd , but nothing understood , And to be dull was constru'd to be good ; A second Deluge Learning thus o'er-run, And the Monks finish'd what the Goths begun. ⁠ At length, Erasmus , that great, injur'd Name, (The Glory of the Priesthood, and the Shame !) Stemm'd the wild Torrent of a barb'rous Age , And drove those Holy Vandals off the Stage. ⁠ But see! each Muse , in Leo ' s Golden Days, Starts from her Trance, and trims her wither'd Bays! Rome ' s ancient Genius , o'er its Ruins spread, Shakes off the Dust , and rears his rev'rend Head! Then Sculpture and her Sister-Arts revive; Stones leap'd to Form , and Rocks began to live ; With sweeter Notes each rising Temple rung; A Raphael painted, and a [12] Vida sung!

Immortal Vida ! on whose honour'd Brow The Poet's Bays and Critick's Ivy grow: Cremona now shall ever boast thy Name, As next in Place to Mantua , next in Fame! ⁠ But soon by Impious Arms from Latium chas'd, Their ancient Bounds the banish'd Muses past: Thence Arts o'er all the Northern World advance, But Critic Learning flourish'd most in France . The Rules , a Nation born to serve, obeys, And Boileau still in Right of Horace sways. But we , brave Britains, Foreign Laws despis'd, And kept unconquer'd and unciviliz'd , Fierce for the Liberties of Wit , and bold, We still defy'd the Romans as of old . Yet some there were, among the sounder Few Of those who less presum'd , and better knew ,

Who durst assert the juster Ancient Cause , And here restor'd Wit's Fundamental Laws . Such was the Muse, whose Rules and Practice tell, Nature's chief Master-piece is writing well. Such was Roscomon —— not more learn'd than good , With Manners gen'rous as his Noble Blood; To him the Wit of Greece and Rome was known, And ev'ry Author's Merit , but his own. Such late was Walsh , —— the Muse's Judge and Friend, Who justly knew to blame or to commend; To Failings mild , but zealous for Desert; The clearest Head , and the sincerest Heart . This humble Praise, lamented Shade' ! receive, This Praise at least a grateful Muse may give! The Muse, whose early Voice you taught to Sing, Prescrib'd her Heights, and prun'd her tender Wing, (Her Guide now lost) no more attempts to rise , But in low Numbers short Excursions tries:

Content, if hence th' Unlearned their Wants may view, The Learn'd reflect on what before they knew: Careless of Censure , not too fond of Fame , Still pleas'd to praise , yet not afraid to blame , Averse alike to Flatter , or Offend , Not free from Faults, nor yet too vain to mend .

• ↑ —— De Pictore, Sculptore, Fictore, nisi Artifex judicare non potest . Pliny.
• ↑ Omnes tacito quodam sensu, sine ulla arte, aut ratione, quæ sint in artibus ac rationibus recta ac prava dijudicant. Cic. de Orat. lib.3.
• ↑ Neque tam sancta sunt ista Præcepta, sed quicquid est, Utilitas excogitavit; Non negabo autem sic utile esse plerunque; verum si eadem illa nobis aliud suadebit utilitas, hanc relictis magistrorum autoritatibus, sequemur. Quintil. l. 2. cap. 13.
• ↑ Diligenter legendum est, ac pœne ad scribendi sollicitudinem: Nec per partes modo scrutanda sunt omnia, sed perlectus liber utique ex Integro resumendus. Quintilian.
• ↑ Naturam intueamur, hanc sequamur; Id facillimè accipiunt animi quod agnoscunt. Quintil. lib. 8. c. 3.
• ↑ Abolita & abrogata retinere, insolentiæ cujusdam est, & frivolæ in parvis jactantiæ. Quint. lib. 1. c. 6. ⁠ Opus est ut Verba a vetustate repetita neque crebra sint, neque manifesta, quia nil est odiosius affectatione, nec utique ab ultimis repetita temporibus. Oratio, cujus summa virtus est perspicuitas, quam sit vitiosa si egeat interprete? Ergo ut novorum optima erunt maximè vetera, ita veterum maximè nova. Idem.
• ↑ Ben. Johnson ' s Every Man in his Humour .
• ↑ Quis populi sermo est? quis enim? nisi carmine molli Nunc demum numero fluere, ut per severos Effugit junctura ungues: scit tendere versum, Non secus ac si oculo rubricam dirigat uno . Persius , Sat. 1.
• ↑ Fugiemus crebras vocalium concursiones, quæ vastam atque hiantem orationem reddunt . Cic. ad Herenn. lib. 4. Vide etiam Quintil. lib. 9. c. 4.
• ↑ Alexander ' s Feast, or the Power of Musick; An Ode by Mr. Dryden.
• ↑ Nihil pejus est iis, qui paullum aliquid ultra primas litteras progressi, falsam sibi scientiæ persuasionem induerunt: Nam & cedere præcipiendi peritis indignantur, & velut jure quodam potestatis, quo ferè hoc hominum genus intumescit, imperiosi, atque interim sævientes, Stultitiam suam perdocent. Quintil. lib. I. ch. 1.
• ↑ M. Hieronymus Vida , an excellent Latin Poet, who writ an Art of Poetry in Verse .

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.

Public domain Public domain false false

• Early modern poetry
• 18th century works
• Pages using pixel widths (border)
• Dropinitials with image
• Headers applying DefaultSort key
• Page breaks with a label

Navigation menu

Essay on Criticism for Students and Children

500+ words essay on criticism .

It is tough for anyone to criticism well. For some, criticism is a good thing while others disagree. Criticism in itself is one of those words that looks like negative. Thus, it gives a feeling of unwilling to accept or making a massive disagreement or being pessimistic. But to everyone’s surprise, it is not the case. Criticism is often different than what people perceive. The essay on criticism gives you an insight into the pros and cons of the criticism. 

Criticism is expressing the disagreement for something or someone that is generally based on perceived faults, beliefs, and mistakes. So, the main point here is whether to consider criticism as good or bad. Also, if we go by the meaning of the word criticism then criticizing someone is bad. Also, simultaneously this might lead to improving the person who is being criticized. So, he/she is becoming a better person and does not repeat the mistakes is considered as providing criticism to be good. Thus, this depends entirely on the perceived value that is hidden behind the criticism. 

A Good Part of the Criticism

Scope for improvements .

Constructive criticism will lead to locating the fault or mistakes that are made by the people. So, the people can work upon it and thereby improve their activities so a heedful and better life can be lived. Criticism calls for improvement on one plane and thereby avoiding the issues unwanted on the other side. 

Expert and Credible Status

When the criticism is constructive it always makes the criticizer a central figure among the people. Thus, more honors and credibility is given and so criticism would rather be considered as expert advice. Thus, it will add to the status quo of the person that is criticizing. 

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

The Bad Side of Criticism

Leads to a feeling of demotivation.

A person that is being constantly criticized may feel at tines demotivated. So, this is because of the fact that his/her efforts have not been justifiably and rightfully appreciated. Thus, it may further lead to increase in hesitation in moving forward.

The Danger of Creating a Destructive and False Image

There are many times that it can occur that the people that criticize are seen as the villain of the society. Thus his/her image gets automatically shattered as well as abruptly changed. So, doing criticism may lead adversely to the criticizer as well. 

So, we can understand that if the criticism is done in a constructive and positive way that this may lead to a good and fair outcome. Also, if it is done destructively than it may lead to adverse effects on both society as well as personal level. 

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: The Foundations of New Criticism: An Overview

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 14773

John Donne (1572–1631), the great metaphysical poet, provides a metaphor that is useful for close reading. In “The Canonization” (1633) he writes:

We’ll build sonnets pretty rooms;

As well a well-wrought urn becomes

The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs,

And by these hymns, all shall approve

Us canonized for Love.John Donne, “The Canonization,” Poetry Foundation, http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173353 .

Another poet returns to the same metaphor 118 years later. Thomas Gray, in “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” (1751), writes:

Can storied urn or animated bust

Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?Thomas Gray, “Elegy Written in a Country Courtyard,” Poetry Foundation, http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173564 .

Both Donne and Gray use the image of the urn in their poetry. An urn , according to the Oxford English Dictionary ( OED ), is “an earthenware or metal vessel or vase of a rounded or ovaloid form and with a circular base, used by various peoples especially in former times…to preserve the ashes of the dead. Hence vaguely used (esp. poet .) for ‘a tomb or sepulchre, the grave.’” Oxford English Dictionary , s.v. “urn.” Donne and Gray use the urn poetically, or metaphorically, for the urn is an image, a container to hold poetic meaning. To Donne, the poet can “build sonnets pretty rooms; / As well a well-wrought urn becomes”; to Gray the urn becomes “storied” or an “animated bust” capable of containing stories and meaning. As an image, then, the urn becomes symbolic: poets argue that a poem is like an urn, a container for artistic meaning.

Let’s add one final component to our urn image. Jump ahead another sixty-nine years from Gray’s poem and read John Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” (1820). At the end of this poem, Keats writes:

When old age shall this generation waste,

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,

‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’John Keats, “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” in The Oxford Book of English Verse , ed. Sir Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1919; Bartleby.com, 1999), http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html .

Donne’s “ well-wrought urn ” became the title of a book by Cleanth Brooks— The Well-Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry (1947)Cleanth Brooks, The Well-Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry (San Diego: Harcourt Brace, 1956).—a central manifesto of the New Criticism. New Criticism is synonymous with close reading, so the urn becomes an important symbol for the New Critics: the urn as artistic container of beauty and meaning represents the New Critical enterprise. A poem, a play, a novel, a short story is like a “storied urn” or “well-wrought urn,” capable of conveying poetic beauty and truth. Even if the poem is “Jabberwocky”!

In all likelihood, you have already practiced New Criticism , the close reading of a poem, short story, or longer narrative that focuses on the unity of that work. When you examine a short story for its character development, a drama for its plot construction, or a poem for its imagery, you are reading as a New Critic, looking at the literary work through the lens of close reading. In a sense, New Critical close reading is at the heart of every form of literary analysis you do, regardless of the theoretical approach taken. Thus it becomes essential that you become proficient in close readings of texts, for this skill is the foundation of all forms of literary criticism. If you cannot read a text closely and analyze it, you will have difficulty reading from any critical perspective.

Your Process

• List the papers, if any, you have written in high school or college using the close reading approach.
• Describe your experience writing such papers.
• What challenges or questions do you remember having as you were working on these papers?
• On which literary work have you decided to write your paper?
• What are the fundamental questions you have about this work?

Focus on New Critical Strategies

The New Critics, as we discussed, regard a literary work as an urn —a well-wrought, storied urn, or a Grecian urn. As Keats writes, this urn contains not only beauty but also truth: a work of literature has some objective meaning that is integral to its artistic design. In other words, literature is the art of conveying truth about the world. Thus the New Critics view the study of literature as an inherently valuable enterprise; literary criticism, it follows, is fruitful because it clarifies art by assigning a truth value to this art. To quote the nineteenth-century poet and critic Matthew Arnold, as he writes in The Function of Criticism at the Present Time (1865), literature reflects “the best that is known and thought in the world.”Matthew Arnold, Function of Criticism in the Present Time (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2010) . To the New Critics, as you can see, literature—in particular the analysis of it—was a profound activity.

A central concern of the New Critics is to understand how meaning and form interweave into a total artistic effect, the well-wrought urn. A New Critical reading assumes that the literary work has an organic structure that leads to unity or harmony in the work. An important concern for New Critics, consequently, is to show how meaning is achieved or dependent on the organic structure—the form—of the work. A New Critical reading, then, focuses on the various elements of literature that complement and create the theme.

Basic Philosophy of Close Reading

A New Critic’s toolbox will hold those elements of literature that allow for the discussion of form and technique as it applies to meaning. Since New Critics perform a close reading of the text to illustrate how structure and theme are inseparable, they are eager to tell us both how to read and how not to read. They identify various fallacies of reading that must be avoided:

The Intentional Fallacy

The intentional fallacy occurs when readers claim to understand an author’s intended meaning for a work of literature. The New Critics believed that a literary work belongs to the readers, to the public, which suggests that we should read the work isolated from what the author may have said about the work. In other words, the critic never knows specifically what the author intended. Indeed, an author may have conveyed meanings he or she did not intend at all, but those meanings are still present in their work. The literary critic, then, must concentrate solely on the extrinsic formal qualities of the poem, play, short story, or novel.

The Biographical Fallacy

Related to the intentional fallacy is the biographical fallacy , which, as you might suspect, is committed when you use an author’s life as a frame of reference to interpret a work of art. The New Critics took painstaking measures to keep the focus on the work of art itself.

The Affective Fallacy

The affective fallacy is produced when the critic brings in his or her personal feelings about how a literary work moves them. While New Critics were aware that many readers found meaning in the emotional impact of literature, they were careful to distinguish between subjective emotional responses and objective critical statements about a literary work. Critics, then, should stick closely to the work of art, eliminating the author’s intention from consideration, and they should also eliminate their emotional involvement in the reading experience. We discover later in our study that many critical theories—psychoanalytic and reader-response theories, in particular—are diametrically opposed to New Criticism: both psychoanalytic and reader-response theories highlight the way a literary work affects a reader’s emotional and intellectual responses.

The Heresy of Paraphrase

Finally, the New Critics warned against the heresy of paraphrase , which happens when readers artificially separate meaning from structure or form. You have probably fallen into this trap once or twice when you concentrated on summarizing a work’s plot rather than analyzing its meaning. New Criticism teaches us not to assign a meaning to a literary work unless that meaning can be supported by a close examination of the artistic elements of the text. To say that Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is about the death of a migrant worker fails to acknowledge that the poem does not support such a reading. Humpty Dumpty, in fact, could be accused of the heresy of paraphrase, as Amy Chisnell explores in her student paper later in the chapter.

In review, a close reading, as defined by the New Critics, focuses narrowly on the literary work as a well-wrought urn. All we need for our interpretation is the literary work itself, where we examine how the artistry of the work leads to a larger theme that reflects the truth value of the work. Easy to state, more difficult to do! So let’s now turn to see how a close reading can be connected to the writing process itself.

• How do you react to such rules that define the philosophy of New Critical close reading?
• What do you see as the strengths to such an approach?
• What do you see as some of the limits to this approach?

The Writing Process and the Protocols of Close Reading

If New Critics provide us with so many strategies for not reading a text, they should present us with strategies for reading texts. And they do. They suggest protocols of reading that are the heart of traditional close readings of texts. In a nutshell, a close reading exposes a problem or issue that needs examination to bring unity to the work; a close reading demonstrates how a literary work’s meaning is unified, balanced, and harmonized by its aesthetic—or literary—structure. Your close reading, then, often identifies a tension or ambiguity —the issue or problem—that can be resolved by showing that the literary work achieves unity even in the apparent tension or ambiguity. Consequently, the critic can often examine how language creates tension through paradox or irony . Paradox (when something appears contradictory or discordant, but finally proves to be actually true) and irony (when a perceived meaning or intention is eventually found not to be accurate) are a result of a writer’s use of language in a metaphorical way.

• Read Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” ( http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html ).
• Examine the last two lines of the poem (49–50).
• Do you think the urn is speaking the lines at the end? Does it matter?
• Read Cleanth Brooks’s interpretation of the ending lines ( www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html ).
• Then read the following overview.

There is no more famous example of a professional critical reading than Cleanth Brooks’s “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes.”Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html . You can access the essay at www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html .

Brooks’s reading of Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” begins by disagreeing with T. S. Eliot, who believed the concluding lines of the poem—“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”—constituted a major flaw in the poem, for, as Brooks relates, “the troubling assertion is apparently an intrusion upon the poem—does not grow out of it—is not dramatically accommodated to it.”Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html . Eliot feels the urn’s speech doesn’t make much sense—and that the statement simply isn’t true. Brooks sets out to counter Eliot and prove that the poem is unified around the central paradox of the poem: “What is the relation of the beauty (the goodness, the perfection) of a poem to the truth or falsity of what it seems to assert?”

Brooks contends that the poem is “a parable on the nature of poetry, and of art in general” and that the concluding lines must be taken in the “total context of the poem.”Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html . When read in this manner, the urn’s speech was “‘in character,’ was dramatically appropriate, [and] was properly prepared for.”Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html . To support his contention, Brooks provides a stanza-by-stanza close reading in which he suggests that the paradox of the speaking urn is naturally part of each stanza and related to a key thematic concept: the poem highlights the tension between bustling life depicted on the urn and the frozen vignettes of the “Cold Pastoral.” Brooks concludes, “If the urn has been properly dramatized, if we have followed the development of the metaphors, if we have been alive to the paradoxes which work throughout the poem, perhaps then, we shall be prepared for the enigmatic, final paradox which the ‘silent form’ utters.’”Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html . In concluding his essay, Brooks warns readers not to fall into the trap of paraphrase, for we must ultimately focus on “the world-view, or ‘philosophy,’ or ‘truth’ of the poem as a whole in terms of its dramatic wholeness” (Brooks’s emphasis).Cleanth Brooks, “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes,” Mr. Bauld’s English, www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html .

Brooks’s reading of Keats’s ode is an exemplar of New Critical reading. Remember, a close reading will examine a literary work and find some objective meaning (a theme) that is harmonized with structure, thus balancing theme and form.

Implementing the Reading Protocols: A Strategy

To perform a close reading, use the following strategy:

• Identify a tension or ambiguity in the literary work, the “problem” that needs to be solved by a close reading. In other words, your interpretation will highlight a theme or meaning that resides in the work.
• point of view
• language use (i.e., denotation, connotation, metaphor, simile, personification, rhythm)

Of course, the principle of composition is determined by the literary genre you are analyzing (i.e., short story, poetry, drama, novel). By showing that #1 is dependent on #2, you present a New Critical interpretation reflecting how meaning is integral to theme.

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Eco Criticism › Ecocriticism: An Essay

Ecocriticism: An Essay

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on November 27, 2016 • ( 3 )

Ecocriticism is the study of literature and environment from an interdisciplinary point of view where all sciences come together to analyze the environment and brainstorm possible solutions for the correction of the contemporary environmental situation. Ecocriticism was officially heralded by the publication of two seminal works, both published in the mid-1990s: The Ecocriticism Reader , edited by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm , and The Environmental Imagination, by Lawrence Buell.

Ecocriticism investigates the relation between humans and the natural world in literature. It deals with how environmental issues, cultural issues concerning the environment and attitudes towards nature are presented and analyzed. One of the main goals in ecocriticism is to study how individuals in society behave and react in relation to nature and ecological aspects. This form of criticism has gained a lot of attention during recent years due to higher social emphasis on environmental destruction and increased technology. It is hence a fresh way of analyzing and interpreting literary texts, which brings new dimensions to the field of literary and theoritical studies. Ecocriticism is an intentionally broad approach that is known by a number of other designations, including “green (cultural) studies”, “ecopoetics”, and “environmental literary criticism.”

Western thought has often held a more or less utilitarian attitude to nature —nature is for serving human needs. However, after the eighteenth century, there emerged many voices that demanded a revaluation of the relationship between man and environment, and man’s view of nature. Arne Naess , a Norwegian philosopher, developed the notion of “Deep Ecology” which emphasizes the basic interconnectedness of all life forms and natural features, and presents a symbiotic and holistic world-view rather than an anthropocentric one.

Earlier theories in literary and cultural studies focussed on issue of class, race, gender, region are criteria and “subjects”of critical analysis. The late twentieth century has woken up to a new threat: ecological disaster. The most important environmental problems that humankind faces as a whole are: nuclear war, depletion of valuable natural resources, population explosion, proliferation of exploitative technologies, conquest of space preliminary to using it as a garbage dump, pollution, extinction of species (though not a human problem) among others. In such a context, literary and cultural theory has begun to address the issue as a part of academic discourse. Numerous green movements have sprung up all over the world, and some have even gained representations in the governments.

Large scale debates over “dumping,” North versus South environmentalism (the necessary differences between the en-vironmentalism of the developed and technologically advanced richer nations—the North, and the poorer, subsistence environmentalism of the developing or “Third World”—the South). Donald Worster ‘s Nature’s Economy (1977) became a textbook for the study of ecological thought down the ages. The historian Arnold Toynbee recorded the effect of human civilisation upon the land and nature in his monumental, Mankind and Mother Earth (1976). Environmental issues and landscape use were also the concern of the Annales School of historians , especially Braudel and Febvre. The work of environmental historians has been pathbreaking too. Rich-ard Grove et al’s massive Nature and the Orient (1998), David Arnold and Ramachandra Guha’s Nature, Culture, Imperialism (1995) have been significant work in the environmental history of India and Southeast Asia. Ramachandra Guha is of course the most important environmental historian writing from India today.

Various versions of environmentalism developed.Deep ecology and ecofeminism were two important developments. These new ideas questioned the notion of “development” and “modernity,” and argued that all Western notions in science, philosophy, politics were “anthropocentric” (human-centred) and “androcentric”(Man/male-centred). Technology, medical science with its animal testing, the cosmetic and fashion industry all came in for scrutiny from environmentalists. Deep ecology, for instance, stressed on a “biocentric” view (as seen in the name of the environmentalist group, “ Earth First! !”).

Ecocriticism is the result of this new consciousness: that very soon, there will be nothing beautiful (or safe) in nature to discourse about, unless we are very careful.

Ecocritics ask questions such as: (1) How is nature represented in the novel/poem/play ? (2) What role does the physical-geographical setting play in the structure of the novel? (3) How do our metaphors of the land influence the way we treat it? That is, what is the link between pedagogic or creative practice and actual political, sociocultural and ethical behaviour towards the land and other non-human life forms? (4) How is science —in the form of genetic engineering, technologies of reproduction, sexualities—open to critical scrutiny terms of the effects of science upon the land?

The essential assumptions, ideas and methods of ecocritics may be summed up as follows. (1) Ecocritics believe that human culture is related to the physical world. (2) Ecocriticism assumes that all life forms are interlinked. Ecocriticism expands the notion of “the world” to include the entire ecosphere. (3) Moreover, there is a definite link between nature and culture, where the literary treatment, representation and “thematisation” of land and nature influence actions on the land. (4) Joseph Meeker in an early work, The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology (1972) used the term “literary ecology” to refer to “the study of biological themes and relationships which appear in literary works. It is simultaneously an attempt to discover what roles have been played by literature in the ecology of the human species.” (5) William Rueckert is believed to have coined the term “ecocriticism” in 1978, which he defines as “the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature.”

Source: Literary Theory Today,Pramod K Nair

Share this:

Categories: Eco Criticism

Tags: Annales School , Arne Naess , Arnold Toynbee , Cheryll Glotfelty , Deep Ecology , Earth First! , Ecocriticism , green studies , Harold Fromm , Literary Theory , Mankind and Mother Earth , Nature and the Orient , Nature's Economy , The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology , The Ecocriticism Reader , The Environmental Imagination

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

An Essay on Criticism

Criticism is often viewed as a negative aspect of life, but in reality, it is a valuable tool that can lead to personal growth, improvement, and excellence. In this essay, we will explore the importance and benefits of criticism, how it can help us learn, and why it should be embraced rather than feared.

Understanding Criticism

Criticism is the process of evaluating, analyzing, and providing feedback on someone’s work, behavior, or ideas. It can come from teachers, peers, mentors, or even ourselves. Criticism is not about finding fault; it’s about identifying areas for improvement.

Constructive Criticism

Constructive criticism is a form of feedback that aims to help the person being criticized by providing specific and actionable suggestions for improvement. It is focused on building skills and enhancing performance, rather than tearing someone down.

The Role of Criticism in Learning

Criticism plays a crucial role in the learning process. In schools, teachers use feedback and assessments to help students understand their strengths and weaknesses. By identifying areas for improvement, students can work on them and excel in their studies.

Criticism and Personal Growth

Criticism extends beyond the classroom. In our personal lives, feedback from friends, family, and mentors can guide us toward personal growth and self-improvement. Embracing constructive criticism helps us become better individuals.

Criticism in the Workplace

In the professional world, feedback and evaluations are essential for career development. Employees receive performance reviews that highlight their accomplishments and areas that need improvement. This process fosters growth and excellence in the workplace.

Encouraging Creativity

Criticism also plays a role in the arts and creative fields. Artists, writers, musicians, and inventors benefit from feedback that helps refine their creations. Constructive criticism can spark innovation and lead to groundbreaking work.

The Value of Peer Review

In academic and scientific research, peer review is a critical step. Experts in the field provide feedback on research papers and studies, ensuring accuracy and reliability. Peer review enhances the quality of knowledge.

Expert Opinions

Experts in various fields emphasize the importance of criticism for improvement. For example, renowned author J.K. Rowling once said, “The most important thing is to read as much as you can, like I did. It will give you an understanding of what makes good writing, and it will enlarge your vocabulary.”

Overcoming Fear of Criticism

While criticism can be constructive, it can also be challenging to accept. However, it is essential to overcome the fear of criticism to reap its full benefits. Embracing feedback as a tool for growth is a mindset shift.

Striking a Balance

While criticism is valuable, it’s essential to strike a balance. Excessive or overly negative criticism can be harmful, leading to stress and low self-esteem. Constructive feedback should be delivered with empathy and kindness.

Conclusion of An Essay on Criticism

In conclusion, criticism is not something to be feared but embraced as a path to improvement and excellence. Whether in education, personal growth, the workplace, or the world of creativity, criticism provides valuable insights that guide us toward becoming our best selves. Let us remember that the power of criticism lies not in finding fault but in uncovering opportunities for growth. By welcoming constructive criticism with an open heart and mind, we can achieve remarkable progress and reach new heights of success and achievement.

Also check: List of 500+ Topics for Writing Essay

• Essay On Criticism

Essay on Criticism

500 words on criticism.

The word criticism can mean different things. It can be an expression of disapproval or condemnation based on the perceived faults or mistakes of a person. It can also be a judgement passed on the merits and faults of someone’s work after thorough research and analysis. Often, people don’t understand what criticism means, and they perceive it to be something negative. So, people have a misconception about the word criticism. When we criticise someone, that doesn’t mean we are saying something wrong to them. Criticism can be positive, too, it can be a way to assess and improve our faults. Learning to take criticism positively is extremely important. It is an essential skill that helps develop our personality. This essay on criticism will give you an idea about the correct definition of criticism.

What Is Criticism?

Criticism can be defined as an expression of disagreement with something or someone based on perceived mistakes, faults and beliefs. It can also be a judgement passed after analysing a person’s work. While most people don’t like being criticised, criticism can give us pointers to better ourselves and our work. It helps us learn from our mistakes and never repeat the same mistakes. Taking criticism positively not only helps us improve ourselves but also reduces stress and improves our mindset. But, this depends entirely on the perceived value hidden behind the criticism.

Constructive and Destructive Criticism

Criticism is of two kinds: constructive and destructive criticism. We can differentiate between constructive and destructive criticism by how comments are delivered.

Destructive criticism doesn’t achieve anything as it doesn’t seek to honestly bring about any positive change in the person involved. Sometimes people deliberately do so to hurt the other person and demoralise them. In some cases, it can lead to anger and aggression. When you receive destructive criticism from other people, it lowers your self-confidence and hurts your pride. Destructive criticism challenges your character, ideas and ability.

On the contrary, constructive criticism offers guidelines and pointers to improve on our faults without demoralising anyone. It highlights our mistakes and shows the path to improvement. So, individuals also welcome this kind of criticism and, hopefully, try to bring about positive changes in their personalities.

Positivity in Criticism

Human beings are likely to make mistakes. It is human nature to err occasionally. As life goes on, we get opportunities to work on our mistakes to better ourselves. We find it hard to digest when some people criticise us, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore their words. So, we should try to learn to take criticism positively and analyse it to see where we need to improve. For example, when we receive any criticism or feedback at work, we should take it positively, as it will help us improve.

We all are aware that criticism speaks truth instead of bitterness. When we receive any kind of criticism, at that point, we find it baseless. But, later, when we think calmly, we realise that the person was right. We all are aware that criticism speaks truth instead of bitterness. One should see themselves from the other person’s perspective to take criticism positively. By doing so, they can improve their interpersonal skills. Any kind of criticism should be used as a learning experience.

Ways to Handle Criticism

Take criticism positively.

Many people get defensive about the possibility of negative feedback. It’s okay to think about strengths and weaknesses. No one’s perfect. When you’re about to receive both types of feedback, approach the situation with an open mind to understand the difference.

Decide if feedback is constructive or destructive

Think about whether the feedback comes from someone who cares about you, references an area you want to improve, or specifies how to get better.

Some people criticise others for no reason and often try to hurt to boost their own ego. You’ll usually be able to recognise this if the criticism is baseless and hurtful.

It’s essential to take stock of the people in your life who want the best for you. These are people who’ll offer constructive criticism to help you improve. They also involve you in conversation and offer criticism that won’t hurt or demoralise you.

Avoid harmful people

If you notice that certain people around you are often negative and criticise you for no reason, it may be time to cut them off. You should distance yourself from them even if they’re the people closest to you. If they cannot contribute to your growth and development, they’re not the people you should pay attention to.

Standing your ground against these people is vital for building an identity and developing flexibility. You’ll find it hard to show grace to the well-purposed criticisms when letting those with bad intentions walk all over you.

Flushing toxic people from your life will help you lead a happier, more successful and stress-free life. You might find that these people have been behind your combative responses to criticisms.

Criticism is not as bad as people think. It entirely depends on people and how they take it. People should take it positively as it will provide space for improvement. But, some people take criticism negatively, which affects their lives.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

Lauren Oyler thinks she’s better than you

The provocative critic’s new collection, ‘no judgment,’ features an uneasy mix of joking and bragging.

Against the odds, Lauren Oyler is a phenomenon. Although she is a member of that endangered and increasingly irrelevant species, literary critic, she is famed and feared for her scathing reviews of books that everyone else is too afraid to admit to hating. The attacks in question have appeared in the New Yorker and the London Review of Books, among other publications, and they are faithfully circulated and remarked upon on X (formerly Twitter). Love her or hate her, you have to read her, at least if you hail from a milieu no less real for being rarefied, interbred and roiled by internecine disputes. In the literary world, a new Oyler essay is an event.

“ No Judgment ,” Oyler’s debut collection, contains six essays, therefore six events, and it begins by loudly proclaiming its own title to be a joke. “There is never no judgment,” Oyler writes in the introduction, “and certainly not in this book.” By “judgment,” she appears to mean something that contrasts with opinion: A judgment, Oyler suggests, is not a flimsy feeling or a personal preference, but a fortress buttressed by arguments. Critics make judgments by marshaling evidence, while everyone else seethes with inarticulate, pre-rational affinities.

It is fairly obvious where the kind of person who sketches such a hierarchy would place herself in it. Oyler assures us that she is no lowly opinion-haver, but her book’s title is more accurate than she thinks. Her essays contain not arguments or judgments so much as advertisements for a conspicuously edgy personality. She is beloved for her unrepentantly implacable persona, but a persona is always at risk of calcifying into a shtick.

The essays in “No Judgment” are nominally about gossip (Oyler happily indulges in it), literary criticism in the age of Goodreads (Oyler fears it may be doomed), Berlin (Oyler has lived there on and off for more than a decade but brags that she cannot be bothered to master the German language), the strand of contemporary writing known as autofiction (Oyler likes it), vulnerability (“yuck”) and anxiety (Oyler suffers from it but writes about it so acerbically that she cannot be accused of mushy self-exposure).

In reality, all the essays are about Oyler, which is not necessarily a problem. The truth is that she is her own best subject, and when she is not too busy straining for profundity, she can be bitingly funny. “I do not know how I could go on if I couldn’t justify all bad or even inconvenient things that happen to me as possible future material,” she writes in one piece. In her essay on anxiety, by far the best in the collection, she recalls that she took a “Jaw Release Workshop” designed to combat her teeth-grinding and privately called it “jaw yoga.”

There are plenty of quips in “No Judgment,” and many of them land, but are there any judgments? Oyler acts as if there are (she often refers to various flourishes as “my argument” or “the argument”), but they are difficult to locate even with the aid of her irksomely condescending signposting. Instead, there is an atmosphere of ambient disapproval. The critic Lionel Trilling once wrote that conservatives make “irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas”; Oyler makes suggestive motions that seek to resemble arguments. The general thesis, transmitted by osmosis, seems to be that we are awash in consumerism and cowardice, that our culture is hostile to rigorous assessments of artistic merit and hospitable to the mindless assertions of personal predilections, and that we are generally worshipful of the mediocre and crowd-pleasing artifacts that the mid-century critic Dwight Macdonald (whom Oyler does not mention) called “midcult.” These are all claims that I happen to agree with, but not for any of the reasons Oyler offers on the few occasions when she offers reasons at all.

The occasional judgments that can be found in this book-length apologia for judgment are predictable and facile. All of the fruit that Oyler picks is so low-hanging that she would do better to leave it rotting on the ground. “My women friends and colleagues are not angels,” she writes in a section on #MeToo, as if the unimpeachability of all women were a premise of the #MeToo movement, or something any reasonable person would ever defend. She thinks Marvel movies are bogus, as do most of her peers (including me) and one Martin Scorsese, hardly a marginal figure in American culture. About TED Talks she is especially eloquent. “Yuck, and I mean that,” she writes. Not for a moment does she display any interest in discovering why the things she scorns are so wildly popular. She does not mention a single Marvel movie by name, even if only to eviscerate it.

Few of her drive-by insults are substantiated by evidence or examples. Contemporary critics, she insists, “avoid more difficult fare by devilishly advocating for pop culture.” Which critics? The reason she concludes that “vulnerability is the triumphant value in cultural criticism” (is it?) is that the word appears often in certain publications. “Between May 14, 2021, and May 14, 2022, the word ‘vulnerable’ appeared in 3,494 articles on the New York Times website,” she writes without providing any further analysis of the articles in question, at least some of which were about “evacuating the vulnerable amid the terror of war” in Ukraine and offering coronavirus vaccines to “vulnerable” populations — and not in the least about soppy personal disclosures. If we applied her methods to her own writing, we might conclude that vulnerability is an ascendant value for her, too: In the course of sloppily denigrating the concept in her book, she uses the word upward of 40 times.

“No Judgment” is full of lines with the cadence, but not the content, of zingers. “I despise a happy ending” sounds daring until you realize that it means Oyler despises Jane Austen and all of Shakespeare’s comedies. It is not a serious pronouncement: It is just an accessory, designed to present the person who wears it as a provocateur.

Oyler is fond of casual, conversational locutions. I can imagine “I find the concept of plot oppressive” printed on a T-shirt or tote bag, an irreverent alternative to “Well-behaved women rarely make history,” and it is the kind of throwaway claim that often appears in “No Judgment.”

For the most part, the prose in the book sweats to be chatty, with the result that it often has the slightly plaintive quality of a text message from an older parent intent on using outdated slang. Oyler employs the phrase “totally whack” without apparent embarrassment; a piece of salacious gossip is “truly like Christmas.” Attempts at more lyrical writing are unmusical, assonant, sometimes even lightly ungrammatical. In the winter in Berlin, the apparently undigestible “daytime is only fibrous for a few hours” (and perhaps packed with protein for the rest?). At one point, Oyler suggests that writing should strive for “aesthetic beauty,” as if there were any other kind, and later she writes of a “deep dark depth,” as if there were shallow ones.

How do we square her suggestion that “the natural voice of a writer should be a bit more literary, a bit more refined, than your average person” with her juvenile description of a photograph of street lamps as “striking, because, well, lights,” or her assurance that “it sucks” to experience unpleasant emotions? How can we reconcile her repeated professions of passion for “difficult” art with her tendency to anatomize her essays for her readers as if we were grade school students? “Here’s the interesting part, historically,” she interjects in the middle of a long aside about the origins of rating systems. When a literary device looms up ahead, she warns us so that we can steel ourselves like drivers preparing for a pothole. “Okay, so here’s the metaphor,” she tells us, before embarking on an extended analogical slog.

Is she serious? As she herself says in one cloying passage, she is “just kidding. Sort of.” In her polemical essay against champions of vulnerability, she complains of their “argument’s classically maddening structure, through which all objections to it, no matter how elegant or meticulously reasoned, can be funneled into its rock-bottom logic: my rejection can only prove its point.” Setting aside the rather vexing question of how an argument can be “funneled” into a “rock-bottom logic” (or what “rock-bottom logic” even is) — this mixed metaphor, too, should have come with a warning — “No Judgment” is outfitted with a similarly all-purpose excuse. Oyler is constantly retreating into sarcasm, interrupting herself to remind us of her wry distance from everything she says, squirming in the face of commitment or conviction. Any ugly sentence, jumbled argument or exhausted platitude can be passed off as a bit and thereby disavowed.

But how satisfying is it to have to resort to claiming that vast swaths of your book are forgivable because they are presented in jest? And do Oyler’s many infelicities even succeed as parody? Who, exactly, is she mocking when she tags a metaphor as such? She is so desperate to demonstrate that she is in on the joke that she neglects to ask if the joke is even funny.

Another joke that isn’t really a joke (and isn’t really funny) is the title of her essay about Goodreads, “My Perfect Opinions.” As far as I can tell, the tacit ambition of “No Judgment” is in fact to establish that Oyler is a sophisticate with opinions that are, if not perfect, at least enviably elevated.

In the essay in question, she characterizes herself as “a snob, highbrow, elitist” who enjoys “an unfamiliar vocabulary word.” “At the movies, I prefer subtitles,” she writes. “At the museum, I can probably identify a decent percentage of the permanent collection by sight.” Of course, she is sort of joking — she is always sort of joking, if also often sort of bragging — but it is revealing that she does not name any of the movies with subtitles or any of the artworks she can supposedly identify by sight. This joke or not-quite-joke could easily be mistaken for the parts of the essays she really means (if she has ever “really meant” anything), because it is certainly no joke that she does not discuss any particular creative work at any appreciable length until halfway through the book. When she does comment on specific writers, her remarks are glancing and generic. She stresses that critics are distinguished from everyone else insofar as they engage in a “careful consideration of [a work’s] qualities rather than yelling about how it’s soooo good,” but she herself characterizes Elizabeth Hardwick’s ornate prose, with its fabulous embroidery of verbs, as “good” and “clear.”

“I would like to say that dedicating any time or energy to criticism comes from a belief in the importance of art,” Oyler writes in the one passage when she approaches sincerity, albeit from the safe outpost of the conditional tense. She would like to say so — so why doesn’t she? All she can bring herself to say instead is that, “for my money, there are few things as fulfilling as encountering a difficult text, film, or work of art and then spending some time thinking about it, discussing it, and uncovering the meaning in it.”

The best she can come up with in her manifesto on behalf of criticism and judgment is yet another appeal to personal fulfillment, a piece of therapeutic pabulum at least as vapid as any exhortation to vulnerability. But what passes for criticism in “No Judgment” has little to do with art — which is terribly important, by the way, even when it is not “fulfilling” — and everything to do with self-styling.

There really is no judgment here. Instead, there is something like Goodreads, the website Oyler reviles, in reverse: Instead of listing likes and interests, these essays list dislikes and tediums. They may deviate from the substance of social media, but they retain its forms, insofar as they, too, collect and display a series of tastes without grounds in an effort to flatter their author. This is not criticism as a practice; it is criticism as a lifestyle brand.

Becca Rothfeld is the nonfiction critic for The Washington Post.

No Judgment

By Lauren Oyler

HarperOne. 275 pp. $28.99

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.