THE STATE OF CRITICISM
373
o ther, the wide-rang ing critics, the pro fess iona l ama teurs. The theo–
retica l critics have usua ll y gone in for philosophica l, historic, esthetic,
and lingui stic a na lys is; the less doc trinaire ones usually have been
more concerned with contemporary experience, with va lues and
judgments, and have been more eclectic, more casua l, more free–
wheeling, a nd have leaned toward the litera ry essay. The experts have
fill ed the more academic magazines; the men o f letters have written
for the qua rterli es, but have a lso invaded the la rger circula ti on
magaz ines and newspapers.
Clearl y, thi s split indica tes some thing is wrong. Practical criti–
cism has become mo re impress ionistic and jo urna listic, and theoreti–
cal criti cism more technica l. The academy and the ma rketplace have
moved furth er a pa rt.
In
1970, Pa ul de Man spoke o f the crisis of
cr iticism , bo th here and a broad, thoug h de Man indica ted some
sympa thy with structura lism . Since then there have been many signs,
if no t of crisis, a t leas t o f fl oundering and confusion . On one side, the
authority o f criticism has been cha llenged by va rious libera tion
movements, and by the widespread fee ling tha t traditio na l standards
no lo nger applied to the ferment of new ideas and forms. Of course,
wha t some people ta ke to be a crisis, o thers see a's a release from
bondage to the pas t and a renascence of crea tive energy and
orig ina lity-in a new world, without boundaries, witho ut limits. But,
however we dd ine wha t is ha ppening in po pular criticism today, the
fact is tha t critical theory has ta ken a new turn , moving even further
away from the common p rac tice of cr iticism . Indeed , the new criti–
cism has captured the spo tlight in France, and has been racing
through Ameri can universities. But tha t is an o ld story: teachers and
gradua te students, pa rticul arl y in this country, have never been
reticent in p icking up the la tes t critica l fashion .
As for the o ld style pragma tic critics, they represent a variety of
gifts and o pinions, each with his own intell ectua l bias and sensibility,
and his own blind spo ts.
If
we ca n genera lize a t a ll a bout them, it
might be sa id tha t the bes t prac ticing criti cs have brought a strong
historica l sense, an awa reness o f the soc ia l context, and a distinct tas te
and style, to their examina tions of writers, movements, and trends,
and to immed ia te litera ry iss ues. On the who le, they have not been
forma lists o r textua lists. T he bes t o f them, however, have no t been
ignorant o f recent litera ry theori es, nor have they been guilty of the
crud ities o f ea rli er und isc iplined cr itics.
T he development o f modern literary theory is a more complica ted
story, but its chi d movements have been the New Criticism, Marxism,
