CRITICISM
Wallace PheJps and Philip Rahv
The function of Maxian criticism has been defined as the relating of
the problems of art and literature to the body of Marxian theory and
to
the daily events which it illuminates. Consequently this criticism covers a
wide range: at one end there is the day by day practical evaluation of
trends and individual works; at the other the elaboration of general
esthetic principles in relation to the history of literature as a whole. The
latter function finds its concrete application in the former, although the
general principles are constantly tested, modified and enriched by current
literary 'practice. Hence this division of functions is relative, and often
one of emphasis.
It is difficult to have a consistent and accurate practical criticism
when it is not based on a considerable body of esthetic theory. And this
is one of the reasons why so many Marxian essays and reviews are given
over to empirical observations, inverted estheticism, vulgar applications of
political ideas to literature, and a host of obvious truths that are defended
with great gusto. Such essays and ·reviews distort the function of criticism
by isolating the political equivalents of books from their total contexts,
and by judging these equivalents chiefly on the basis of immediate tactics.
Another cause of this condition is the fact that a good deal of what is
presented as Marxian criticism is not being written by recognized Marxian
critics but by people who lack both the critical temperament and a know!·
edge of Marxism. Yet all the weaknesses of our
criticis~
are ascribed
to the handful of "critics." There is too little recognition of what has
already been achieved: many writers, upon accepting the revolutionary view–
point, rush into print to re-discover at length postulates long since estab–
lished. Further development of Marxians criticism is thus hampered by
the tedium of endless repetition. A common characteristic of this repeti–
tion is its exclusively agitational character, its insistence on elementary
political lessons that should be taken for granted by this time. Despite
the literary trimmings, the net result of such criticism is that the reader
cannot distinguish, and is trained not to distinguish, between a novel and
a pamphlet. When watery political journalism tinged with some literary
phras~ology
usurps the place of criticism, an anti-esthetic soon gets mistaken
for a new esthetic.
16
