Literary Criticism
Throughout the literary world during any period of time, peer criticism has never ceased to exist. Sometimes the input of others is helpful to a writer in improving their workmanship; other times not so much. Thomas Hardy, Oscar Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson all endured their critics' comments, ultimately developing into literary masters.
Heavily criticized and highly affected by the criticism dealt by his peers, Thomas Hardy's writings challenged the Victorian customs of the day, which was common practice among his works. One of Hardy's treasured attributes is his pragmatic style of presenting ideas; his poems are filled with this unique style, which has a “lack of romanticism;... he does not sing... he talks—in the quiet voice of a modern man or woman” (Strachey 1). His strongest virtue does not lie within his style; however, it is in prose and verse. It is the backbone of his poetry since he always has something interesting to say in a “slow, twisted, and sometimes enigmatic manner,” without an overabundance of charisma (Symons 1). Many critics attacked his books, but one critic, Edmund Gosse, perceived Hardy's short story The Three Strangers as his most “brilliant” novel, comparing it to the works of the recognized Russian writer, Turgenev (Gosse 1). His novel, Far From the Madding Crown, has similarly been praised as one of his greatest accomplishments and the odds of another equal creation by him are “scarce.” Critics received The Return of the Native with similar enthusiasm (Ellis). Thomas Hardy's other strength lied within his characters; they are extremely well developed with a distinguishable, “delightful” humor as their “grand characteristic” (Ellis 1). Judicious reviewers proclaimed the West Country characters the most appealing aspect of The Mayor of Casterbridge and also “almost worthy of George Elliot” (Chew 1). Although Hardy's writing is criticized for being too sporadic, with instances of carelessness, he was able to compensate with wondrous, detailed landscapes, which was a way for him to set the desired mood for a scene (Elliot 1).
Along with a majority usually comes a minority. Hardy received such harsh criticism on a few of his novels that he ultimately abandoned writing novels to pursue poetry after the publication of Jude the Obscure. Hardy challenged Victorian customs by talking of love and sexuality in his works; consequently, one critic exclaimed they could not decipher the sex of the author in Desperate Remedies which very well could have come from “the pen of an English lady” (“Desperate” 1). Critics who opposed Hardy's works attacked his weakness of producing consistently fluent rhythm in his verse, claiming it had a “wooden” like demeanor. This bleakness compounded with a lack of proportion between unnecessary length and meaningful subject is the main premise for their criticism (Literature 1, James 1). Another aspect of Hardy's writing critics attempt to expose as a fault is his reliance on pessimistic outcomes; this “dismal” perception of life is seen as an “obsession” by critics and gives the reading an undesirable melancholic mood, full of “deliberate judgments on life” (Literature 1).
Oscar Wilde's accreditation comes largely from his hysterical comedies and literary personality. The concept of “sin” and “sinful pleasures” are prevalent in the majority of his works, which although a powerful subject to intervene on in Victorian England, was not Wilde's only method of gaining followers (Joyce 1). He relied naturally flamboyant style, unchallenged in respect to drama by any other author of the time, as a supplemental force to gain his supporters. An effective component of his flamboyant writing style was the peppered “intellectual and moral perversity,” which insured a large amount of feedback from critics (Nathan 1). When compared to Bernard Shaw, an eminent critic of Wilde's time, he was inferior in every respect of the word based on literary measures, expect in two areas: “sensitiveness of his taste,” and the “social [coherence] of dialogue” in his works. Although similar in several ways to Shaw, such as their mutual defiance, Wilde tended to present his information in a more whimsical, amusement oriented fashion while Shaw relied on an instructive method (Henderson 1). Characters in his plays typically lack development but his excellent manipulation of dialogue of comedies inserts more “verve” and “esprit” than all the comedies of the day combined (Henderson 1). With the creation The Importance of Being Earnest, Wilde is said to have invented a new type of play, which was also his greatest achievement of originality as a playwright (Hankin 1).
Oscar Wilde's works were criticized perhaps more than any other writer of his time; the Victorian era people were not accustomed to such perverse exclamations present in Wilde's writing. Highly concentrated in his book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde's blatant homosexual themes were not received well by the people. They were “confused” and “disturbed” since homosexuality was completely unacceptable and immoral; therefore, they were certain his views would one day destroy him—and they were correct (Hicks 1). Another fault lying in The Picture of Dorian Gray is that Wilde ofttimes interjected his aesthetic philosophies where they were not needed, adding unnecessary weight to the plot (Gassner 1). The “best critic of the day,” Bernard Shaw, labeled Wilde's farce as “stock mechanical fun,” which would have an extremely connotative damaging effect on a comedian, however Wilde seldom worried about what critics had to say of him. Shaw, a moralist like Wilde, accused him of “priggishness” since he “flit[ted]” around with his ideas instead of directly presenting them (Gassner 1). Other critics accused Wilde of being an imitator (Joyce 1), so his plays were deemed “old-fashioned,” for they were modeled from the “well-made play” of the time (Hankin 1). Some readers were disappointed with his writing; being the “inventor of drama of conversation,” Wilde was a much better speaker than writer and those who had listened to his speeches were not as impressed by his writing (Gide 1).
Robert Louis Stevenson was Thomas Hardy's counterpart in the preference of method. While Hardy preferred to adopt well-developed ideas as his medium for writing, Stevenson preferred the opposite route by utilizing his unique, captivating writing style to woo his audience. Critics have characterized Stevenson as having a “rare distinction of style;” “asympathetic intelligence” and a “whole-hearted courage” to top it off (Henley 1). While reading Robet Louis Stevenson, the notion of a “ stage manager skillfully directing his actors” comes to mind (Lathbury 1); his literary technique possesses qualities of “mere mastery of diction, phrase, and sentence” (Henley 1). Most well-known for his production of Treasure Island, critics believed that he is leaps and bounds beyond his competition, saying that the novels originality could have only come from a “vivid imagination” such as Stevenson (Archer 1). The profound success of Treasure Island has elevated Stevenson to the literary status of Edgar Allen Poe, a legendary Gothic horror composer, as well as Dickens, because of his ability to “give life and motion into the objects most inanimate” ( Butler 1, Archer 1).
Rarely ever plagued with harsh critics, Robert Louis Stevenson was generally well- respected and loved; however, there will always some skepticism in the literary world. Perhaps the most frequently criticized “evil habit” of Stevenson is his occasional “gibbering… emphatic passages.” William Archer, a critic of Stevenson’s, said, “[t]he current criticism of the day opposes to to its one saving grace a deadly sin called ‘emphasis’.” Stevenson’s reaction to this criticism was to cut out passages he felt were too emphatic in his essay on Walt Whitman, for fear of receiving more criticism on the same fault. Archer then accused Stevenson of being a coward for cutting out true passages simply because they were emphatic, so Stevenson was in a lose-lose situation even though he reacted accordingly to his criticism (Archer 1). Although he had few faults recognized by critics, they seemed to believe that he tended to “write too much” and that in some instances, it was as if he were writing “for the mere sake of writing” (Purcell 1, Stevenson 1).
From an artist's perspective, receiving peer criticism can be difficult: the critic does not always envision the intended picture. Negative criticism is almost inevitable, so the choice regarding how to manage it presents two options for the artist: quit, or use it as an incentive to do better. In the cases of Hardy, Stevenson, and Wilde, each writer chose the second option and continued with ambition.
Heavily criticized and highly affected by the criticism dealt by his peers, Thomas Hardy's writings challenged the Victorian customs of the day, which was common practice among his works. One of Hardy's treasured attributes is his pragmatic style of presenting ideas; his poems are filled with this unique style, which has a “lack of romanticism;... he does not sing... he talks—in the quiet voice of a modern man or woman” (Strachey 1). His strongest virtue does not lie within his style; however, it is in prose and verse. It is the backbone of his poetry since he always has something interesting to say in a “slow, twisted, and sometimes enigmatic manner,” without an overabundance of charisma (Symons 1). Many critics attacked his books, but one critic, Edmund Gosse, perceived Hardy's short story The Three Strangers as his most “brilliant” novel, comparing it to the works of the recognized Russian writer, Turgenev (Gosse 1). His novel, Far From the Madding Crown, has similarly been praised as one of his greatest accomplishments and the odds of another equal creation by him are “scarce.” Critics received The Return of the Native with similar enthusiasm (Ellis). Thomas Hardy's other strength lied within his characters; they are extremely well developed with a distinguishable, “delightful” humor as their “grand characteristic” (Ellis 1). Judicious reviewers proclaimed the West Country characters the most appealing aspect of The Mayor of Casterbridge and also “almost worthy of George Elliot” (Chew 1). Although Hardy's writing is criticized for being too sporadic, with instances of carelessness, he was able to compensate with wondrous, detailed landscapes, which was a way for him to set the desired mood for a scene (Elliot 1).
Along with a majority usually comes a minority. Hardy received such harsh criticism on a few of his novels that he ultimately abandoned writing novels to pursue poetry after the publication of Jude the Obscure. Hardy challenged Victorian customs by talking of love and sexuality in his works; consequently, one critic exclaimed they could not decipher the sex of the author in Desperate Remedies which very well could have come from “the pen of an English lady” (“Desperate” 1). Critics who opposed Hardy's works attacked his weakness of producing consistently fluent rhythm in his verse, claiming it had a “wooden” like demeanor. This bleakness compounded with a lack of proportion between unnecessary length and meaningful subject is the main premise for their criticism (Literature 1, James 1). Another aspect of Hardy's writing critics attempt to expose as a fault is his reliance on pessimistic outcomes; this “dismal” perception of life is seen as an “obsession” by critics and gives the reading an undesirable melancholic mood, full of “deliberate judgments on life” (Literature 1).
Oscar Wilde's accreditation comes largely from his hysterical comedies and literary personality. The concept of “sin” and “sinful pleasures” are prevalent in the majority of his works, which although a powerful subject to intervene on in Victorian England, was not Wilde's only method of gaining followers (Joyce 1). He relied naturally flamboyant style, unchallenged in respect to drama by any other author of the time, as a supplemental force to gain his supporters. An effective component of his flamboyant writing style was the peppered “intellectual and moral perversity,” which insured a large amount of feedback from critics (Nathan 1). When compared to Bernard Shaw, an eminent critic of Wilde's time, he was inferior in every respect of the word based on literary measures, expect in two areas: “sensitiveness of his taste,” and the “social [coherence] of dialogue” in his works. Although similar in several ways to Shaw, such as their mutual defiance, Wilde tended to present his information in a more whimsical, amusement oriented fashion while Shaw relied on an instructive method (Henderson 1). Characters in his plays typically lack development but his excellent manipulation of dialogue of comedies inserts more “verve” and “esprit” than all the comedies of the day combined (Henderson 1). With the creation The Importance of Being Earnest, Wilde is said to have invented a new type of play, which was also his greatest achievement of originality as a playwright (Hankin 1).
Oscar Wilde's works were criticized perhaps more than any other writer of his time; the Victorian era people were not accustomed to such perverse exclamations present in Wilde's writing. Highly concentrated in his book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde's blatant homosexual themes were not received well by the people. They were “confused” and “disturbed” since homosexuality was completely unacceptable and immoral; therefore, they were certain his views would one day destroy him—and they were correct (Hicks 1). Another fault lying in The Picture of Dorian Gray is that Wilde ofttimes interjected his aesthetic philosophies where they were not needed, adding unnecessary weight to the plot (Gassner 1). The “best critic of the day,” Bernard Shaw, labeled Wilde's farce as “stock mechanical fun,” which would have an extremely connotative damaging effect on a comedian, however Wilde seldom worried about what critics had to say of him. Shaw, a moralist like Wilde, accused him of “priggishness” since he “flit[ted]” around with his ideas instead of directly presenting them (Gassner 1). Other critics accused Wilde of being an imitator (Joyce 1), so his plays were deemed “old-fashioned,” for they were modeled from the “well-made play” of the time (Hankin 1). Some readers were disappointed with his writing; being the “inventor of drama of conversation,” Wilde was a much better speaker than writer and those who had listened to his speeches were not as impressed by his writing (Gide 1).
Robert Louis Stevenson was Thomas Hardy's counterpart in the preference of method. While Hardy preferred to adopt well-developed ideas as his medium for writing, Stevenson preferred the opposite route by utilizing his unique, captivating writing style to woo his audience. Critics have characterized Stevenson as having a “rare distinction of style;” “asympathetic intelligence” and a “whole-hearted courage” to top it off (Henley 1). While reading Robet Louis Stevenson, the notion of a “ stage manager skillfully directing his actors” comes to mind (Lathbury 1); his literary technique possesses qualities of “mere mastery of diction, phrase, and sentence” (Henley 1). Most well-known for his production of Treasure Island, critics believed that he is leaps and bounds beyond his competition, saying that the novels originality could have only come from a “vivid imagination” such as Stevenson (Archer 1). The profound success of Treasure Island has elevated Stevenson to the literary status of Edgar Allen Poe, a legendary Gothic horror composer, as well as Dickens, because of his ability to “give life and motion into the objects most inanimate” ( Butler 1, Archer 1).
Rarely ever plagued with harsh critics, Robert Louis Stevenson was generally well- respected and loved; however, there will always some skepticism in the literary world. Perhaps the most frequently criticized “evil habit” of Stevenson is his occasional “gibbering… emphatic passages.” William Archer, a critic of Stevenson’s, said, “[t]he current criticism of the day opposes to to its one saving grace a deadly sin called ‘emphasis’.” Stevenson’s reaction to this criticism was to cut out passages he felt were too emphatic in his essay on Walt Whitman, for fear of receiving more criticism on the same fault. Archer then accused Stevenson of being a coward for cutting out true passages simply because they were emphatic, so Stevenson was in a lose-lose situation even though he reacted accordingly to his criticism (Archer 1). Although he had few faults recognized by critics, they seemed to believe that he tended to “write too much” and that in some instances, it was as if he were writing “for the mere sake of writing” (Purcell 1, Stevenson 1).
From an artist's perspective, receiving peer criticism can be difficult: the critic does not always envision the intended picture. Negative criticism is almost inevitable, so the choice regarding how to manage it presents two options for the artist: quit, or use it as an incentive to do better. In the cases of Hardy, Stevenson, and Wilde, each writer chose the second option and continued with ambition.
No comments:
Post a Comment