f
BOOKS
51
among whom I fQr one am to be included It would b 'd'
I
disc
.
Chin
.
.
e n ICU ous to
~ss
a
p~e~
In
ese If we did not know Chinese It is onl less
obviously ndlculous to
dis~uss
a poem or play or
nov~l
if we
d~
not
understand at least somethmg of the method of th
t d
.
n rtf h .
.
e poe, ramatIst or
ove IS,
0
t elr techmcal devices, their imagery their allusions the'
structural
~~o<:uve,rs.
A critic who has more tm:e, intelli ence
know~~
ed~e,
or
dlsc~lmma~IOn,
can do part of this work for us
(~he r~cord
of
which work IS,.
b~sldes,
pleasurable for its own sake) . why should w
not welcome his aid?
,e
a
~his
kind of
criticis~
has an additional importance, Whatever else
,wor of
ar~
may mean, It communicates solely through a specific tech–
ruque operative upon a specific medium-whether pigments or stone or
sounds or. words. An adequate comprehension of the other meanin s
~~e~re,
IS
~ardly
to be expected if we do not comprehend the
techniq~~
t e medIUm. In new or complex works of art th"
t
A
IS IS no easy.
second group of significant statements among these essa s not
always
~harply
differentiat<:d from the first, deals with the
"app~~ach"
t~
the, hterary works or wnters under discussion from the point of view
o various fields such as sociology psychology anthropology Th'
b f th
b"
.' ,
.
IS group
~
e ur er suo
-di~lded
mto one type which treats the literary works
as , ata .for assertIOns I? these fields; and a second type which examines
socIOlogical,
psycholo~lcal,
.anthropological material insofar as this, in
~ne
way or another,
IS
or IS alleged to be incorporated into the uiven
lIterary work.
c·
.The first type is illustrated by Robert Cantwell's essay on Sinclair
LewIs, Robert Penn Warren on T. S. Stribling, or John Crowe RanSOID
on "The Esthetic of Regionalism," and by sections of almost all the essays.
Such writings are, of course, in actuality minor treatises in sociology,
psychology, anthropology. There is certainly no reason why such treatises
should not be written. Literary works are undoubtedly important data
in
these three fields, and in other fields. Unfortunately, few "literary
critics" are competent sociologists, psychologists, or anthropologists; and
consequently the minor treatises which they turn out in these fields are
quite uniformly mediocre. Unfortunately, also, few sociologists, psychol–
ogists or anthropologists are intimately acquainted with literary data;
and their excursions towards this branch of their subject matter are
scarcely less mediocre.
The second type is less unequivocally defined. When can we say
that sociological, psychological, anthropological . . . material is "incor–
porated" in literary works and that analysis from such points of view is
thus legitimate? This sort of analysis is undoubtedly
possible,
Whether
or not we judge it to be
relevant
to the task of the critic will depend as
much upon the set of interests which we ourselves accept as upon the
abstracted character of the work considered apart from its historical
context where it enters into relationships with an audience. Assuming
relevance, we can truthfully make statements about the psychoanalytic
oddities in
Hamlet,
or the Grail Legend and the Adonis myth in
The
Wasteland,
or the class angle of Sinclair Lewis or Kenneth Fearing.
