What is the role of a literary critic?

I'm not sure.[1]

The tentative--and not irrefutable--starting point of my question is to suggest that literary studies are generally divided into two methods of account: historicization and contemporization. (I am also going to presume here that literary criticism is conducted towards a particular type of community, which I will discuss below.) To my view, this division between methods is a temporal one. The community toward which literary criticism is directed exists within a specific, determinant frame of time.

Historicization is a matter of excavation; it unearths evidences in order to show what a work of literature meant in the past for audiences of the past. In doing so, it is a study that separates itself out from present conditions. In discussing the ways in which Chaucer's characters represent the social changes occurring in his contemporary circumstances, it does not matter that there might be an ebola epidemic, a terrible Toronto mayor, or a seemingly never ending documentation of police brutalities throughout North America.

In this way, that line which is drawn between present and past seems to become a hurdle if one would wish to reapply the historical meanings of a work of literature to whatever kind of presence it may have today. Still, perhaps that is not absolute. Perhaps there is no real necessity which relinquishes literary works from long into the past to be subjected to a separative historicization.

(This all points to an additional question, an aside, of whether or not a long past work of literature bears the possibility of renewing a political capacity within the present.)

Contemporization is a method of literary criticism which actively seeks to connect the work of literature to the conditions of the present. Of course, it is certainly easier to make this account concerning a recent work of literature, since the ripples sent out from its production may yet be lapping at our understanding. Consequent to a method of contemporization in literary criticism is a recognition of the politicization of a work of literature--that is, that a work of literature can be active within a community, to change and resituate certain understandings that may be held by a community. The key terms and technologies of various fields of critical and literary theories (critical studies of race, gender, class, age, ability, language, media) are most ready to construct a bridge between the work of literature and "the now."

This is why I am situating the division of methods as a temporal matter, since the politicization of a work of literature encounters the continuing struggle over its meaning in a way that is directly connected to broad, contemporary social concerns. The technologies of a certain theoretical perspective lay within every activity of literary criticism. They may certainly be applied to a study of Shakespeare or Wollstonecraft, but in such instances the "bridge" being constructed is there a matter of historicization, of connecting a work of literature to the circumstances of its time. They may also be applied to a study of Junot Díaz or Jennifer Egan where, simply due to the recentness of a work, the potential for the politics of literature is given recognition.

I am not taking a determined stance between these two methods based upon the capability of each to engage politically within present circumstances; it is a tentative distinction, which has led me into the question I want to approach here.

The question proposed in the title is to wonder whether the literary critic[2] is meant to act in accordance with one of three approaches: as one who either reveals through their very own reading (to act upon); one who enhances through their emboldening interpretation (to act with) [3]; or, one whose is as a conduit who channels the (politics of a) work of literature (to act for). Just as before, I am not taking any kind of ethical stance among these three approaches--although, of course, behind that question there is a personal sense of conundrum with how I would situate my own approach.

From these three approaches, my sense is that the method of historicization is a practice of "acting upon" a work of literature, to provide evidences that would allow for new understandings of what that literary work meant. This may be a ready explanation for the role of a literary critic, but the very reason for my writing at the moment is because I do not feel content to leave off with such a solution. If historicization "acts upon" literature (a description with which I can be comfortable, I think), then it is left to wonder how contemporization/politicization relates to the approaches of "acting with" and "acting for."

Let us first consider the latter. The approach of "acting for" the politics of a work of literature does not seem to have a great amount of weight to it. The literary critic does, after all, engage critically, and there is no criticism in portraying or reproducing the meaning or politics in a work of literature. There is little criticism in an article or book whose own pages are simply nodding in agreement with the literature it is studying. On the other hand, "acting with" a work of literature is an approach that I find difficult to grasp, at least for the moment. It seems to necessarily situate both the critic and the work of literature among their broader circumstances, situated both together and apart.

Nonetheless, it is between these that I come to ask, what is a literary critic? Tucked within the question given in the title are some preceding questions that might first need an answer: "How do I read literature? How do I write about literature?" And, further still: "How do I define literature?--an historical document? An imaginative commentary? An authorial representation?"

I should add one last note, which is perhaps the most important since it preceded the process of these reflections. Wondering about the "role" of a literary critic refers to a primary question: "For whom am I writing?" Whatever the answer to this question, it will determine the comfort of one's method and approach to literature. Based upon what one chooses to write about, they are quietly, if not unknowingly, choosing their intended audience. A literary scholar has their own interests, though they also exist within several communities at once--public, private, cultural, and academic--and it is towards one or all of these communities that they work. As a scholar whose criticism is written to be read, the choice of audience leads to the choices of method and approach.

--

[1] This little piece is a follow up to my MA thesis and the loose ends that came from it. But, you know, you don't have to read that.

[2] The image of the "literary critic" I have in mind here is, simply, my own, along with my graduate student colleagues. A person who reads and writes about literature, and does so while negotiating and developing a method of study within academia.

[3] Eagleton describes uses the term "explain" when defining Marxist criticism: "it is not merely a 'sociology of literature', concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully; and this means a sensitive attention to its forms, styles and meanings. But it also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the product of a particular history."

The state of things.

A video of a lecture by Ranciere that is actually very close to what I have been intending to write about his ideas.

http://www.oca.no/programme/audiovisual/the-state-of-things-jacques-ranci-re

Much of Ranciere's earlier writings have neglected to think about time, or of the effects that the passing of time has on politics. I'll be emphasizing how time affects his ideas, and so underlining the importance that "the state of things" has on one's experience--and I'll also be pointing towards the ways that thinking only of a "state" neglects its surrounding temporal contexts. I will be going through this in bits and pieces here as I progress.

Start here.

Well, so. This blog will give housing to my doctoral research progress, and will be a place where I turn over ideas that I may not be entirely sure about. Probably what I will do is give short summaries of texts that I have read, and how they might relate to others. And, most (self-importantly) of all, I'll be spending some time thinking about how the texts I am writing about might bear some application to my project.

When you read so much, and especially when you spend so much time around people who are endlessly interesting and smart and challenging, ones who have their own research projects going on, you inevitably come across odds and ends that might not fit into the shape of your own project. This will also be a place where I write small bits about things like that, and maybe post some videos and images of things that are neat.

In a way, this blog will be serving as my own bookmark, but you are so warmly invited to comment on anything yourself. I would love to hear your thoughts.