THE MAKING OF LITERATURE - SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM EXAMINED

Sep 21, 2026

A critical study on the principles of criticism, presenting how ancient and modern theory can be examined together. The author frames criticism as a reconstructive act: the critic must re-create in his own mind the mental vision formed by the artist, aligning his perception of life with the poet’s perception. The note to the new edition addresses reviewer hostility, the author’s purpose in discussing ideas about creative literature, and the debate on whether poetic creation and criticism are truly distinct faculties.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages399

Reading Time10 h 14 min

AccessFree to download

Note to the New Edition

Purpose and scope of the book

Criticism as reconstruction

Critic-poet relationship

Contemporary critical practice

TIGHT BINDING BOOK UNIVERSALLIBRARY OU_168376 人dVY8177VSy3ΛIN∩ # THE MAKING OFLITERATURE SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISMEXAMINED IN门THE LIGHT OFANCIENT AND MODERN THEORY BY R.A.SCOTT-JAMES IVEW AVJ LHBAPER EDITION This edition wa printed by photo-ithography and by an uufortunatemistake the title-page of an earlier cdition has been reproduced.Theerror passed unnoticed untl the books were bound.The substitution ofa correct title-page would have delayed the publication by several monthsowing to the labour shortage in the binding industry.The publisherstherefore decided to issue the book as it stands. The publishers'imprint should read:一 MARTIN SECKER &WARBURG LTD.,7 JoHN STHEET,LoNDON,W.C.1. PRINTKD IN GREAT BRITAINBY GREYCAINES, First pwhished r928Reprinted(Neu and Cheafer Edrtiom)1930 К«римеА тоза 1946 Note to the New Edition HE author of a book about criticism takes his life inhis hand,for the reviewers are lined up in position,ready to strike if they think themselves challenged.I have no reason to complain of rough treatment.I evenhave to admit that there were moments when my sym-pathies were with them rather than with the author,and Iwas ready to revile myself for having chosen“principlesof criticism"for my subject.When one writer objectedthat“the author tends to seek for confirmation from thegreat critics rather than illustrations in the great artists”Ifelt the deadly force of the blow. I had removed myselffrom actual contact with the Pierian waters,the“endlessfountain of immortal drink,"and was only now and againable to turn back to it for refreshment. It was the fault of my subject,or,rather,my fault forelecting to write on a theme which many may think parchedand barren.But there it was.I was writing,not about so-called creative literature,but about ideas about creativeliterature—ideas held by the writers concerning their ownart,ideas which critical readers have leld about literaturefrom age to age,and the growth and recurrence of suchideas;and it was my hope that in the accumulated opinionsof men“experienced in the arts”we might find enoughconsensus of evidence on which to base some conclusions. I have been blamed for quoting with (qualified)approvalBen Jonson's saying:“to judge of poets is only the facultyof poets "—“poets,"in this context,indicating writersproticient in any creative art.Mr Herbert Read has goneso far as to say:"The truth is rather that poetry andcriticism are entirely different faculties;they are estab-lished on different grounds and have a different point ofview.We might even venture the observation that theexcellent poet is almost always an indifferent or at anyrate an amatcur critic." In regard to the last sentenc,the pages of this book NOTE TO THE NEW EDITION furnish evidence to the contrary.In regard to the first,isnot Mr Read,by the emphasis of his assertion,reintroducingan old confusion,one which,indeed,I had been sanguineenough to believe was disposed of?Well,of course,thepoet writes poetry,and the critic writes criticism,andthose are two different things.But criticism (of poetry)which lives,moves and has its being in a different worldfrom that of poetry—and how much there has been of it!一is a miserable anaæmic thing born of pedantry or impertin-ence.When I say that“what the artist has been able toconstruct,the critic must be able to reconstruct,"I do notmean,as Mr Read seems to think,that the latter is tryingto find out"how the dish was cooked,"or even merelythe way in which the work of art“is created and pre-sented.”I mean that no critic can appreciate a work ofart till he has reconstructed in his own mind the mentalvision constructed by the artist. A perfect appreciation of a poem is only possible to areader who has adjusted his perception of life to the poet'sperception.The objective work of art should call up asfar as possible the same impressions which were in theartist's mind when he created it.The stuff of life itselfwhich the poet's imaginatio

FAQs

What problem does the author address in the book’s “Note to the New Edition”?

The author discusses how reviewers respond aggressively to “principles of criticism” and explains the intended focus on ideas about creative literature rather than creative literature itself.

How does the author define the critic’s task when reading poetry?

The critic must reconstruct in his own mind the mental vision constructed by the poet, matching impressions from the work of art with those held when it was created.

Why does the author argue that criticism should not be treated as a completely separate faculty from creation?

The author rejects the superstition that critics belong to a wholly different order from creators, arguing that this leads to propaganda, ignorance, and an unhelpful separation of roles.

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Evangeline