28
PARTISAN REVIEW
Granville Hicks:
It seems to me that it is more useful, in approaching the discussions
that will take place at the Writers' Congress, to define issues rather than
try to settle them. Therefore, instead of commenting directly on the
theories presented by Rahv and Phelps, I shall describe, so far as I can,
the attitude of Marxist critics in general towards these theories.
1.
In discussing the function of criticism Rahv and Phelps have
placed great emphasis on the importance of resthetics. ·Personally I
should not quarrel with them on this ground. It is true, however, that
many of our critics are not entirely convinced of the all-importance of
formal resthetics, and I doubt if their position should be subjected to such
scorn as Rahv and Phelps employ. Experience shows that, in the discus–
sion of literary work, persons who cannot formulate resthetic theories
often perform notable services for their readers, and that, on the other
hand, the most ingenious elaborators of theoretical systems are sometimes
incapable of writing decent reviews. The explanation obviously is that
effective criticism depends on the quality of the critic's response to literary
work. The ideal critic combines a clear and comprehensive resthetic theory
with sensitivity, experience in literature and life, and the power to put
himself in the creator's place. But such a combination is actually rare,
and those whose chief concern it is to elaborate the theories have no right
to condemn the more empirical and impressionistic critics. Impression is
dangerous when it is made into a theory, but in practice it may be fruitful.
2. I think most Marxists will agree with Rahv and Phelps that the
effects of literature are subtle, varied, oft!!n imperceptible, usually unpre–
dictable. Although none of us is in a position to say precisely what the
effects of a work of art are, I think we know well enough that the presence
or absence of immediate, short-run effects such as find expression in overt
action is no criterion of literary excellence.
3. It is also true, I believe, that most Marxist critics, although they
may not accept the precise account of the relationship between form and
content that Rahv and Phelps offer, do agree with them that the relation–
ship is close and that form and content cannot fruitfully be considered
apart from each other.
4. There is much less agreement on the problem of tradition. That
proletarian authors can learn something from bourgeois authors presumably
all Marxist critics would affirm, but what it is they can learn is a question
to which there are many answers. I cannot feel that Rahv and Phelps
have helped to clear away the confusions and misunderstandings that sur–
round this problem, but at least they have called attention to its importance
and its difficulty.
