422
PARTISAN REVIEW
structuralist question into the kind of serious question which would
inhabit a universe in which Auschwitz would be an indisputable
fact? At that point, it seems to me, structuralism not only discloses its
limits, but we reach a tragic embarrassment, not knowing how
to
move from the kind of skills negotiated by structuralism and the
other skills which structuralism either ignores, or simply chooses
to
transcend.
PETER BROOKS:
If
you 're going to raise the question of Auschwitz,
you're not going to talk simply about the limitations of structural–
ism, but of literary criticism and of human discourse in general.
That seems to me not an example I would have called upon
to
deal
with in terms of justifying structuralism or justifying the activity of
literary criticism. But I don't disagree with what Denis Donoghue
said. Structuralism is clearly designed precisely to make the move–
ment from the world of words to the world of reality a difficult one,
and to explore the ramifications and the structures, the complica–
tions of the world of words , before one engages in the question of
reference. What it really comes down to, I think, and here the last
paragraph in Denis Donoghue's paper was very relevant, is the
different tasks of criticism. One thing that bothered me in your
question , and bothered me in William Phillips's talk this morning,
was the assumption that the goals of criticism have to be textual
exegesis and evaluation. I think criticism is called upon to do many
other things, and indeed textual exegesis and evaluation are only
rather recent roles that have fallen
to
criticism. The concept of
illuminating the language of literature, its rhetorical operations, is
really an older task for criticism, the grounds on which we read texts.
And it seems to me here structuralism makes a very strong claim. I
think a lot of the confusions of this morning came from the feeling
that the only kind of criticism is both exegetical and judgmental. I
don 't buy that. There's rhetoric, there's criticism that talks about
models of human understanding, for instance.
CLEMENT GREENBERG: That's not criticism, that's description.
PETER BROOKS:
It
seems
to
me it's a necessary part of literary criticism.
If
you're going to take that stance, you'll have to argue that Aristotle
is not a literary critic.
CLEMENT GREENBERG: That's quite true.
PETER BROOKS: You can say that, .but he's certainly more useful
to
literary criticism than most literary critics.
CLEMENT GREENBERG: Let's say structuralism is a preparation for
literary criticism, a means of seizing the object, of grasping the
object, one among many. But it's not criticism per se.
