THE STATE OF CRITICISM
385
specialist. As John Gross put it in
The Rise and Fall of the Man of
Letters,
"Instead of men of letters, there are academic experts, mass
media pundits, cultural functionaries."
Lawrence Graver
Since William Phillips sees a major split and some minor
rifts as dominant features of the critical scene, I suppose I am at least
being consistent if I offer a split response to his paper. With one
important part of what he says, I am in strong agreement: the high
regard for the criticism of Leavis, Wilson, Trilling, Pritchett, Howe,
and Kazin-criticism that William Phillips justly praises (despite
individual differences) as uncommonly sensitive to historical and to
contemporary issues; subtly argued from tough-minded, complex
moral and political perspectives; distinct in voice; and alive to the
challenges of ana lyzing and judging new writing as it has appeared
week by week for nearly half a century.
The first book of criticism I read as a student at City College was
On Native Grounds;
and one of my most vivid undergraduate
memories is of a fascinating, seemingly end less quarrel about whether
Lionel Trilling was right to insist that the greatness of
Huckleberry
Finn
rests in its power of telling the truth about the virtues and
depravities of the human heart. (Just recalling this now makes those
seem like the days before the flood.) And I am not exaggerating when
I say that hardly a week has gone by in the thirty years since without
my having read with pleasure and benefit, a book, an essay, or a
review by one of the critics who serve as touchstones for William
Phillips in his paper. So on some vital matters of value (and about
one kind of criticism we would like to see more of) we are in accord;
and I hope we have a chance to talk later on about the nature of the
accomplishments of these critics.
If
the objections I have to William Phillips's paper were as easy
to formulate as the area of sympathetic agreement, the rest of my
commentary would be as amiable and relaxed as the opening. But
they are not, for they involve tangled matters of fact, interpretation,
and emphasis. Let me isolate a few difficulties.
My first problem has
to
do with William Phillips's account of the
history of criticism in the past forty years; and the second with his
