The
Isolation of Literary Criticism
Anyone
who is interested in literary criticism may be suspicious of the meaning of
criticism. It is difficult not to think about the audience of the critics,
whether they are read, or those critics are meaningful in the societal life.
Nevertheless, does the whole knowledge that is in literary criticism, circulate
in a specific community? Moreover, one may feel isolated from the practical
life, and theories may lose their meaning outside of the community. Of course,
the humor of talking with the babysitter or the employee in the university
rooms, by such concepts that strongly stand on a deep literature - such as
discourse, text, dialogizm, defamiliarization, alienation etc. - is something
ineluctable. However, the stress - in a small conversation with your neighbor on
why a football team’s slogan is successful in postmodern views - raises a
concern of isolation from the daily life. It is relaxing to know that this is a
core debate in literary criticism, and we are not alone in asking such
questions. In fact not just in theories, but there are some activist practices
which emerges by the 1960s. The debate starts with the problematizing of the issue, and the
strategies to avoid the isolation, which reader find some examples of those
practices; yet by the late twentieth century, the isolation was a reality.
In
this essay, reader will find a new approach that ignores the content of the
criticism, and notice the effect of medium and public sphere. Because of the
range of this paper, I analyzed the medium of the literary criticism as books
and periodicals, and public sphere as libraries. It could be asked why
libraries have chosen rather than museum, universities, or bookshops. There is
more than one answer to that question. Firstly, libraries have certain
significance in the process of modernization in western. For Instance, Roger
Chartier tracks that signification in Middle Ages, with examining communities
of readers, figures of the author and libraries in The Order of Books. Peter Burke, explains how the history of
printing and the history of library goes together in A Social History of Knowledge:
from Gutenberg to Diderot. Secondly,
libraries in UK and USA
Problem
“By
the middle of the twentieth century, a number of writers and critics had come
to feel an acute sense of crisis at the isolation of literary culture”
(Atherton 79). The feeling of isolation caused some resistance practices such
as publishing periodicals, which aims wider audience, or debating on the
concept that is “public sphere”. Critical
Quarterly is a good example for such a resistance practice, since the
purpose of the periodical was to “mediate between some form of specialized
scholarly activity and the broader public sphere” (77) which has been declared
at the first issue by the founders, Cox and Dyson. In time, those resistances
turned and limited to theoretical arguments. The isolation itself had been
completed, and assumed not as the “feeling” but the reality by the time Eagleton
asked in Function of Criticism, “What
is the point of such a study?” (7). In summary, the argument was “criticism
today lacks all substantive social function” (7). Furthermore, according to Atherton,
Critical Quarterly appealed as the
“academic public sphere” after ten years of its foundation (75).
Foucault
saw the meaning of reality in discourse. Indeed, “he does not deny that things
can have a real, material existence in the world. What he does argue is that
‘nothing has any meaning outside of the discourse’” (Hall 45). Since Foucault
explains discourse not just as statements, but also rules and practices
especially within institutions (45), the debate of isolation of literary criticism
may be analyzed with transformation of institutions which aimed to be spaces
for public sphere. The discourse analysis may be enough for a basic analysis; however,
it neglects medium. According to Kittler “Nevertheless, as long as there was
history, it was indeed Foucault's ‘endless bleating of words’. More simply ...
writing functioned as the general medium. For that reason the term medium did
not exist.” (105). Taking no notice of medium shows itself in an article by Stein
Haugom Olsen who find a paradox on the isolation of literary criticism:
“There is in existence an apparently thriving
academic discipline of literary studies while it seems to be impossible for
literary criticism to be an academic discipline given the concept of literature
as a cultural practice potentially accessible to any non-specialist with
a certain intelligence, sensitivity, and experience of life.” (463).
Olsen says there
is a successful academic discipline of literary studies, but literary criticism
cannot be an academic discipline. This is a paradox, which stands on the
interpretation: “potentially accessible”. It really may be impossible for
literary criticism to be an academic discipline, because the books, which are
the main research material of literary studies, are potentially accessible to
everyone. However, the books, which hold the knowledge that literary criticism had
produced, may not be accessible to everyone. Therefore, the interpretation of
“potentially accessible” itself is a
strong clue for us to say there is no notice to medium in details. In Olsen’s
article, the assumption of “accessibility of knowledge to anyone”, omits the
prices and print numbers of books and periodicals, the classification,
translation availability, the construction of public spheres, and the distinctions,
which lay on public spheres. In summary, the medium and the public spaces are not
in consideration within the argumentation. Despite Olsen’s conceptual criticism,
Eagleton looks functions of criticism in historical base; however, like Olsen,
Eagleton does not see the medium and public spaces as an effect to the
isolation of criticism. He uses articles from literary magazines, media, such
as Tatler and Spectator, but do not look into how the circulation of those
periodicals was. There are some political aspects of the magazines, but the
argumentation is a content analysis (Eagleton 1984).
Circulation of Knowledge
Graph
1, 2 and 3 demonstrates the isolation of literary criticism in numbers,
approximately between 1850 and1990 (Appendix 1). Those graphs show the jobs of
known literary critics who were born between 1800-1949. The sample size is 411
and the research used Wikipedia for the sample. The job criterion is simple: anyone
who has a PhD and lectures in a university is an academic, no matter if s/he
has any other interests. For instance, Nabokov was lecturing in universities,
but did not have a PhD, in that criterion he is a teacher, not an academic. The
survey was on British and American critics who worked, or still works in the UK or USA
The
graphs tell us, after 1960s, the number of academics has increased enormously
in the basket of known literary critics. Either, that is to say, there are some
non-academic literary critics that we do not know, or literary critics are mostly
academics. In both ways, the fact is that the knowledge that academic literary
critics has produced are in circulation more than any other knowledge, which
non-academic literary critics has produced.
The main medium for the spread of
knowledge is book, but when it comes to the academic knowledge, serials have a
more crucial role. For readers and writers, the main institution to access these
mediums are public and university libraries, as we understand now, is a
construction based on philosophical, historical and economical aspects. In fact
after 1800s public libraries has been shaped in a very specific context which
has concerned the spread and selection of literary works and theories;
development of identities, demands and supplies of writers, readers and
literary critics.
Libraries, Enlightenment and
Public Sphere
“The
public library was quintessentially a product of the age of enlightenment”
(Greenhalg, 19). The early public libraries embodied the themes of enlightenment,
learning, knowledge and classification. These themes were also reflected in the
design and architecture of buildings (58). The public library, therefore,
embodies a principle of rights of access to knowledge and the power that the
acquisition of knowledge implies (59).
Over
time, public libraries evolved and responded to new needs and interests in
wider society (31). The main concepts of today’s public libraries, reshaped as
public sphere, public space, civil society, cultural diversity, life-long
learning, the right to know, which all argued in a consideration of redistribution,
social justice and general interest. The founding era from 1850’s to the end of
nineteenth century, public libraries regarded as key instrument of working
class literacy and self-education. Social change would come through education.
Until the World War II, libraries main purpose was still education of working
class. Post war decades were social democratic settlements days, and libraries
were the avatar of universal democracy (32). By the beginning of 1970s, public
libraries turned their ways to the disadvantaged communities (33). After 1980s, growing technological
improvements, helped libraries for behind desk works, cataloging, searching,
issuing, yet the cost of reformation of the catalog through the impact of new
technology addressed the librarians to “reinvent” the library.
Today,
modernist and enlightened structure of libraries may found in their ethical
codes and the way that they have organized. For instance the first of American
Library Association codes of ethics is:
“We provide the highest level of service to all
library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable
service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased and courteous
responses to all requests.” (Wilkinson 232)
With the first
one, for all ethical codes, the main emphasizes are on the “classification of
materials”, “equity of all” and “neutrality to all”. Those are the heritage of
the enlightenment.
Libraries and Literature
Institutionalization
of libraries created a public sphere where the readers affect the circulation
of knowledge by their reading choices. In addition, public libraries became an
actor in economic relations of the publishing sector. Those aspects give us the
right to examine the effect of libraries on the isolation of literary criticism
with two dimensions: the consumption of those literary works and the production
and circulation of literary works - both fiction and nonfiction. “While the
library market for books represents approximately 10 percent of overall
publishers’ revenues, it can account for 50 to 90 percent of the sales of
nonfiction, poetry, children’s books, and reference books” (Wilkinson 38). That is, fiction market does not depend on library
market for books, yet it does not mean that libraries do not have any relationship
with the readers of fictions, since the biggest part of library loans are
fictions. “In 1990-1, 561 million books were issued by public libraries in United Kingdom
Greenhalg
also quotes Sumsion: “[ ] now at the Library and Information Statistics Unit
Loughborough University of Technology, none of the top 100 novels borrowed,
according to Public Lending Right statistics, were ‘literary novels’ ” (130). Because
of the enlightenment role that insists on self-education of people and “the
right to know”, the demand for “popular novels” has been always an unwanted
situation by librarians. John Sutherland says
“The paperback revolution of the late 1950s and
1960s gained much of its energy from fiction that the public library could be
expected to disapprove of: Woman of Rome,
The Ginger Man, Lolita, Lady Chatterley’s
Lover, The Naked and the Dead, Catch 222, Candy. Anyone who wanted to keep up with the moving frontiers of
permissive fiction was forced out of the libraries; paperbacks often had the
glamour, as it were, of an informal Index
Librorum Prohibitrorum.” (132).
It
is interesting that problematizing of isolation of literary studies and succession
of paperback revolution are in the same decades: 1960s. Books have released
from neutrality of libraries and education role of enlightenment after 1960s.
Anymore, books could be popular and could have a representation in mass media,
without any consent from library or university. Moreover, the gap between the
choice of readers and the choice of literary critics was visible.
Although
libraries helped the paperback revolution by disapproving genre fictions, the
fact survived: libraries continued to store all sorts of fiction. In libraries
fiction cataloging does not have an unclear distinction such as “literary
novels” and “genre fictions”, or “literary writers” and “popular writers”. Both
in LC and Dewey classification systems, the main distinction between fictions
are the original language of the novel. In LC and Dewey, the sorting is either
by the period, or by the author surname. The neutrality to authors and literary
views as ethical codes demand, have given a chance for the survival of the reader’s
active role in literature, a concept, which has been dealt with by the post-war
literary critics. In fact, in a historical view, effect of libraries on
paperback revolution has helped the survival chance for the active role of
reader too, as bookseller and publisher were in great opposition of paperback
editions (132).
The
care of librarians to service all needs of users and neutrality to literary or
political views, created a gap between nonfiction literary works and the majority
of the readers. As mentioned above,
libraries in USA and UK Britain and USA
Critical
Quarterly
Now,
we may return to the case of Critical
Quarterly. The founders of Critical
Quarterly, Cox and Dyson, refuses to see the criticism in specialist terms,
“Literature described as ‘one of the major pleasures of life’, an activity that
should be available to ‘everyman’, rather than being reserved for academic debate”
(Atherton 81). But Critical Quarterly is now in the ‘academic public sphere’ - “as
described by Collini, came into existence as a result of the expansion of
higher education and the diversification of disciplines of knowledge, making
the universities ‘a natural base from which to engage in cultural criticism’ ”
(92). Based on a survey of the Critical
Quarterly content through time, Atherton suggests the periodical is now in
the academic public sphere. If the annual price of the periodical is considered,
it is more obvious that Critical
Quarterly is circulating in institutions, and more importantly, it depends
on institutional purchases. Annual price of the Quarterly Critical for institutions is $440, approximately eight
times to the personal price, which is $54.
Result
At
the end, we had a different survey for the isolation of literary isolation
within the academic discipline. One clear observation was “a sense of
isolation” with some writers in 1960s while the paperback revolution was
succeeding in the market. The second observation was 1978 economic crisis and budget
cuts of public libraries. The third one, the different continuation and
cancellation process of serials after crisis within university libraries and
public libraries as a respond to the increase of prices of scholarly serials.
Finally, we have a discipline of literary studies, which is highly academic and
is not in circulation in broader spheres. All those observations conclude the
reason of the condition of Quarterly
Critical, which was our main example.
Of
course, it still is hard to say, the medium and public spaces are the main
factors in isolation, but we may be open in thinking. The content of literary
studies and the language of literary studies are very important factors for every
argument. Furthermore political aspects, law, censorships can help us to
understand that feeling of isolation. My intention is not to focus all
attention to the medium of knowledge that literary studies has produced.
Therefore, this work has only a simple message: literary studies are not
outside of the social conditions of world, and the future of criticism is
connected with public spaces, books and serials. Nowadays blogs, forums, and
other internet tools may affect positively, or negatively the work of critics. To
get a positive effect, we should start to consider, where we write and where
our works stand. As a result, exiting the isolated spaces will not depend just
on our works. The story of books and periodicals and libraries have a strong
power on survival chance of our ideas.
Cited Works
Atherton, Carol.
“Public Intellectuals and the Schoolteacher Audience: The First Ten Years of
The
Critical Quarterly.” English: The Journal
of the English Association 58.220 (2009)
75–94.
Battles,
Matthew. Library, Unquiet History. New York
Bentley, Stella and David
Farrel. “Beyond Retrenchment: The Reallocation of a Library
Materials
Budget” Journal of Academic Librarianship 10.6
(1985) 321-25.
Burke, Peter. A Social History of Knowledge: from Gutenberg
to Diderot. Cambridge
Press,
2000.
Charter, Roger. The order of Book. Cambridge
Conaway,
James. America's Library, The story of
the Library Congress. New Haven
Eagleton,
Terry. The Function of Criticism.
1984. London
Greenhalgh,
Liz and Ken Worpole. Libraries in World
of Cultural Change. London
2003.
Signifying Practices.
London
Kittler,
Friedrich. “Gramophone, Film, Typewriter.” Trans. Dorothea von Mücke and
Philippe L.
Similon.
October 41 (1987): 101-10.
Olsen,
Stein Haugom. “Criticism of Literature and Criticism of Culture.” Ratio (new series) 22.4
(2009):
439-63.
Pascarelli, Anne
M. “Coping strategies for libraries facing the serials crisis.”
Serials Review 16.1
(1990)
75-81.
Wilkinson,
Frances C. and Linda K. Lewis. The
Complete Guide to Acquisitons Management.
Appendix
1
