Skip to main content

The Irony of Professional Criticism

So there's been a paradox I've noticed over the years that has become even more apparent to me the past couple of weeks. 

As a Master's student I have been expected to write professional-level critical essays, which is all fine and good. But what I find absolutely ironic is the conundrum the world of professional criticism has established for itself in recent decades.

Anymore, in order for a professional critical essay to be accepted for publication, its topic must be "new." In other words, you cannot just summarize what everyone else has said. You have to say your own thing, even if you are talking about something similar and just taking a different perspective from someone else.

Particularly when it comes to certain authors or works, sometimes it can become downright impossible to find something no one else has said yet. Like for example, what else can we say about Shakespeare that hasn't already been addressed? Especially when there are several journals dedicated solely to Shakespearian studies. So, one recent trend has been to find some obscure line, scene, character, etc. and focus an entire essay around "proving" something about that. Or apply a completely bizarre and unrelated style of criticism. Or talk about how an author's most obscure work ever published is really his/her most important one. Or even find an unknown author and prove how he/she should be included in every literary canon. Basically, saying a lot about something nobody really cares about - except the critical journal editors.

Now here's where the real kicker comes in -- you have to say something totally new and fresh, but unless you have someone to back you up and support what you're saying, then your argument is completely invalid.

What?!?

Well, I guess to be fair, you can actually refute what someone else has said and that can be just as effective as agreeing with them (provided you have textual support also for your own).

I have come across this particular paradox in my most recent paper. I am writing about one of Virginia Woolf's novels. She is one of the more highly criticized authors. In fact she has at least one entire journal dedicated to the studies of her works (Woolf Studies Annual). Well, in looking at some of the criticism out there, I found that basically everyone interpreted this novel the exact opposite way I did.

What a perfect paper topic, right?  Wrong.

I wrote my paper and provided lots of primary textual support for my thesis. Then I tried to find other works of criticism to support (refute) my argument. Two problems presented themselves:, first no one addressed my topic, so there goes any support; second, no one addressed my topic, so there goes any refutation. In other words, the other authors were trying so hard to have original topics that they were all obscure (like how quantum physics is discussed throughout her novel).

After skimming/reading through about 50 articles, I found five (yes, count them, five) articles that had one sentence embedded somewhere in their essay that I could take for either support or argument. And most of those sentences were an aside to the author's primary argument.

So in my essay of 16 pages, I have five sentences from other sources. And that pretty much invalidates my entire paper despite the fact that I have actual textual support about every two or three sentences throughout the entire essay.

Now to be fair, if I read every single thing out there about Woolf and/or this novel, I'd probably find some more similar criticism that I could draw from. But frankly, I don't care that much about it. My reasons are valid (I think), but I still don't care: first, I am writing this for a class, not publication; second, it's a class final paper, not a doctoral thesis, or life's work; third, I'm not a huge fan of Woolf or this novel. In fact, I am writing this essay topic because of how much I disliked a character in her book.

So, here's the real question that maybe the literati should consider: What's really important? A functional summary of ideas or something new? Textual proof of argument or predecessory writing?  Originality or conformity? Or maybe the literati could accept that all approaches are equally beneficial?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

K12 Teaching in 2020

Today I drove home from work with my rock music blasting at higher decibels than, I'm sure, was healthy. But I needed a heavy beat loud enough to feel it vibrate in my chest. I'm not a drinker, but if I were, today would be a three-glasses-of-wine day. And there's no specific reason. Except that I'm only a month into the school year, and I'm already exhausted. And I'm not alone. All you parents out there who are concerned about the style, quality, amount or any other qualifier of education your child is receiving this year, I can guarantee you that an entire team of teachers, administrators, and support staff is just as worried. We're doing our damnedest to meet your (and our!) expectations. Right now, I'm barely keeping my head above the water line. I am the kind of personality who plans things out. I visualize my dive into the deep end, consider all possible complications, and then perform a smooth breaststroke from one side to the next before any of t

Superfriends

This story intentionally follows comic book canon only loosely.                  The doorbell chimed throughout the mansion. A tall, white-haired butler clicked across the tiled floor to the doorway. As he opened the door, a dark-haired man stood in the pouring rain.                 “Welcome, Mr. Kent,” said the butler.                 “Alfred,” the man replied as he handed the butler a pair of glasses. “I’m always glad when I can take those off. Especially toward the end of the day, they really hurt my eyes.”                 “Indeed, sir.” Alfred carefully set the glasses next to a potted plant on the entryway table. “You are the last to arrive. The others are in the den.”                 Mr. Kent strode across the entryway toward a door spilling light into the foyer. As he entered the room, a hexagonal table stood in the middle with five chairs pulled up to it. A man with a firm, square jaw met him at the door with a handshake. He wore a black cape and mask that looked lik

Top Eight Things I *Love* About Writing

http://www.123rf.com/ Why do writers write?  It's certainly not for the money. The major success stories are all we hear about, but they are actually so rare as to be laughable.  So why do writers write? I think the answers are individual for each writer, but similar across many writers.  In honor of Valentine's Day, here are the top eight (8) reasons why I write: 1.      The creative process.   I love when I have a new idea in my head and I get excited about it.  I love to express those stories and put them on the paper for someone else to enjoy. The mental process of figuring out how to make a story work is fascinating and exciting. 2.      The escape.  When I write, I get to create the world and events.  It allows me to be in control of how good (or bad) things are.  It rejuvenates me to face my own reality again.  Writing is one of my outlets of stress relief; I can always make things worse for my character than whatever is going on in my life.  Whether directly