Introduction: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
“What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Norman Friedman, first appeared in The Antioch Review in its Autumn 1960 issue, published by Antioch Review Inc. The article, digitized by JSTOR, addresses the purpose and value of literary criticism amidst growing skepticism from various quarters, including poets, scholars, and lay readers. Friedman explores criticism’s necessity as a bridge between the reader and the deeper layers of literature, countering the notion that it over-intellectualizes or diminishes the pleasure of literary experience. He argues for a balanced approach, where reasoning and systematic inquiry coexist with emotional and imaginative engagement. Highlighting the utility of criticism in cultivating taste, extending understanding, and enhancing aesthetic appreciation, the article situates literary criticism as essential to both appreciating and challenging the complexities of creative works. It further underscores the importance of reasoning and theory in navigating the subjective and often ambiguous terrain of literary interpretation. Friedman’s work remains a cornerstone in discussions about the role of criticism in literary theory, advocating for an informed yet flexible approach to understanding literature.
Summary of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
- The Age of Criticism and Growing Skepticism
Friedman opens by identifying the contemporary era as an “age of criticism,” marked by the proliferation of analytical works and theoretical discussions in literature. However, this growth has been met with skepticism from poets, scholars, and lay readers, who view criticism as excessive, overly intellectual, and at times harmful to the creative process (“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)). - Criticism vs. Creation: A Necessary Tension
A recurring concern in the article is the perceived tension between literary creation and criticism. Critics such as John Crowe Ransom and T.S. Eliot lament that excessive criticism risks overshadowing creative impulses. Friedman acknowledges this tension but maintains that criticism, when properly applied, complements creativity rather than stifling it (“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)). - Hostility Towards Intellectual Inquiry in Literature
Friedman identifies a broader cultural hostility towards intellectualism, tracing its roots to historical, psychological, and philosophical objections. He critiques the belief that reasoning about literature diminishes its enjoyment, arguing instead that intellectual engagement enhances rather than detracts from aesthetic pleasure (“But do we really think that our pleasures are so frail as to disappear under analysis? Or that the powers of literature are so weak as to be so easily crushed?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 319)). - The Role of Theory and Systematic Inquiry
The article emphasizes the inevitability and utility of theoretical frameworks in literary analysis. Friedman argues that no interpretation occurs in a vacuum; even the most intuitive responses are shaped by implicit assumptions (“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading” (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)). - Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Criticism
Friedman elaborates on the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in criticism, countering the notion that these methods are antithetical to the literary experience. He asserts that both are essential to forming meaningful interpretations (“Most questions of literary interpretation … are of this second type … making inferences, and it is that process of making inferences which is … dependent upon the principles of reasoning” (Friedman, 1960, p. 322)). - Multiple Dimensions of Literary Criticism
Friedman outlines the multifaceted nature of literary criticism, encompassing inquiries into the poet’s life, the poem’s structure, its effects on the reader, and its connection to the broader world. He emphasizes that no single approach can capture the entirety of a work’s significance (“No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do and not what any other approach can do” (Friedman, 1960, p. 325)). - Criticism as a Path to Discovery
The ultimate purpose of criticism, according to Friedman, is to enable deeper understanding and appreciation of literature. By examining our assumptions and engaging rigorously with texts, critics can transcend personal biases and uncover new dimensions of meaning (“In this way only can we do justice to the poet. How else can we get outside ourselves and enter the world he took such pains to make for us?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 330)). - Criticism and Progress in Literary Knowledge
Friedman asserts that criticism is not an idle exercise but a progressive endeavor. Through systematic inquiry and theoretical exploration, critics contribute to the collective understanding of literature (“Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations unless the issue is first joined, this doesn’t mean … that one interpretation is as good as the other” (Friedman, 1960, p. 328)).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Explanation/Definition | References from the Text |
| Criticism vs. Creation | The tension between the act of literary creation and the critical analysis that follows, often seen as potentially stifling creativity. | “Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316). |
| Inductive Reasoning | A form of reasoning that begins with specific observations and builds general conclusions or theories. | “Induction … provides us instead with a rational method for testing its results” (p. 323). |
| Deductive Reasoning | A logical process that starts with a general statement or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a specific conclusion. | “Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown” (p. 322). |
| Subordination of Criticism | The idea that criticism should serve creative literature, not dominate it. | “Critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316). |
| Multiplicity of Approaches | The acknowledgment that different works demand different theoretical and methodological approaches to interpretation. | “No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do” (p. 325). |
| Reason in Literary Criticism | Advocacy for rational inquiry and reasoning as necessary tools for deeper understanding of literature. | “There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one” (p. 326). |
| Hostility to Intellectual Inquiry | The resistance from some quarters to analyzing literature systematically, often tied to fears of over-intellectualization. | “Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical” (p. 316). |
| Role of Theoretical Frameworks | The necessity of explicit or implicit frameworks in guiding interpretation and criticism. | “We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience” (p. 326). |
| Progress in Literary Knowledge | The idea that criticism contributes to the accumulation of understanding and knowledge about literature. | “Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations … one interpretation is as good as another” (p. 328). |
| Educational Function of Criticism | The role of criticism in extending and cultivating a reader’s taste, understanding, and appreciation of literature. | “How does such an argument allow for us to develop and extend our natural responses and tastes?” (p. 327). |
Contribution of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman to Literary Theory/Theories
| Theory/Approach | Contribution | References from the Article |
| New Criticism | Advocates for close reading and systematic analysis of texts, emphasizing internal coherence, paradox, and tension as critical tools for interpretation. | “We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like, in an attempt to define the total meaning” (p. 324). |
| Reader-Response Theory | Highlights the interaction between the text and the reader, considering the subjective experience and interpretative engagement of the audience. | “How it affects him or what good or harm it will do to him” as a basis for critical inquiry (p. 325). |
| Formalism | Emphasizes the study of the artistic structure of literature, analyzing how the parts of a literary work relate to the whole. | “If we want to study the poem as an artistic product, then we must ask how the parts are related to the whole” (p. 324). |
| Historical-Biographical Criticism | Discusses how the poet’s life, historical context, and creative process influence the composition and interpretation of a literary work. | “How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document” (p. 324). |
| Psychological Criticism | Introduces psychological theories, including Freudian analysis, to understand the creative process and character motivations within literary texts. | “The various psychological theories which by now have gained currency” as tools for interpretation (p. 324). |
| Critical Pluralism | Advocates for a multiplicity of approaches to literary analysis, recognizing that no single method can provide a complete understanding of a text. | “No one approach gives us the whole truth; each evolves out of a reasonable process of inference” (p. 325). |
| Ontology of Literature | Explores the metaphysical nature of literary works, questioning their relationship to reality and their role in representing or shaping the human experience. | “The mode of being of poetry—whether it has any significant connection with reality or whether it is simply a fictive device” (p. 325). |
| Educational Philosophy in Criticism | Asserts the role of criticism in enhancing a reader’s aesthetic and intellectual engagement with literature, fostering growth in understanding and taste. | “Criticism contributes to a liberal and enlarged area of aesthetic awareness, bounded only by our capacity for new experience” (p. 330). |
| Ethical Criticism | Discusses the moral implications of literature and its influence on readers, engaging with the ethical dimensions of literary texts. | “What good or harm it will do to him” as part of the critical inquiry into the poem-reader relationship (p. 325). |
| Theory of Induction and Deduction | Integrates philosophical reasoning methods into literary criticism, demonstrating how systematic inquiry can enrich interpretation and understanding. | “Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown … Induction helps us to test the adequacy of our conclusions” (pp. 322–323). |
Examples of Critiques Through “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
- Critique of Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” (Explication Approach)
Using Friedman’s defense of systematic analysis, critics might revisit John Ciardi’s controversial explication of Frost’s poem. A focus on paradox and tension, as Friedman suggests, could reveal the conflict between the speaker’s duty and the allure of nature’s stillness (**”We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 324)). - Critique of T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (New Criticism)
Applying Friedman’s emphasis on internal coherence, Eliot’s work could be analyzed for its paradoxes and ambiguities, examining how the fragmentation reflects the spiritual disarray of modernity (**”If poetry is, as they say, organized around a reconciliation of opposing views … then we look in poems for conflicts and tensions”* (p. 324)). - Critique of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (Historical-Biographical Criticism)
Following Friedman’s approach to considering an author’s life and historical context, Fitzgerald’s novel could be critiqued as a reflection of Jazz Age decadence and disillusionment (**”How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document”* (p. 324)). - Critique of Emily Dickinson’s Poetry (Psychological Criticism)
Through psychological theories, Dickinson’s use of imagery and themes of death and isolation could be explored as expressions of her introspective and reclusive personality (**”The various psychological theories … allow us to infer the nature of that process from the characteristics of the results”* (p. 324)).
Criticism Against “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
- Overemphasis on Rationality
Critics might argue that Friedman places excessive emphasis on logical reasoning and systematic inquiry, potentially marginalizing the emotional and intuitive responses that many believe are central to experiencing literature (**”There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)). - Dismissal of Anti-Critical Perspectives
While Friedman acknowledges skepticism toward criticism, he largely dismisses it as hostility to intellectual inquiry. Critics could challenge this as oversimplifying valid concerns about over-intellectualization of literature (**”The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself”* (p. 317)). - Limited Consideration of Cultural and Social Factors
The essay focuses heavily on individual works and theoretical frameworks but provides limited discussion of broader cultural or societal influences on literature and its interpretation, which are vital in contemporary literary studies. - Neglect of Reader’s Agency in Interpretation
Although Friedman addresses reader-response aspects, his approach could be critiqued for insufficiently emphasizing the role of individual readers’ diverse contexts, experiences, and subjective interpretations. - Insufficient Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
The essay operates predominantly within a Western literary tradition and critical frameworks, leaving non-Western literary theories and perspectives unexamined, thus limiting its inclusivity. - Overgeneralization of Critical Pluralism
While Friedman advocates for multiple approaches, critics might argue that his emphasis on critical pluralism lacks specificity, as it does not fully address how competing interpretations should be prioritized or reconciled (**”No one approach gives us the whole truth”* (p. 325)). - Perceived Elitism in Literary Study
Friedman’s argument for intellectual rigor and systematic approaches might be criticized as catering to an academic elite, alienating casual readers and undermining literature’s accessibility.
Representative Quotations from “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa.” (p. 316) | Friedman highlights that criticism serves creative literature, ensuring that it complements rather than stifles the artistic process. |
| “Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative.” (p. 316) | This acknowledges valid critiques of literary criticism, stressing that poorly executed criticism can harm the appreciation of literature. |
| “The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself.” (p. 317) | Friedman defends intellectual inquiry against those who dismiss it outright, asserting the importance of reasoning in understanding literature. |
| “No one critical theory as to the nature and function of literature should dominate the field, for artists must be allowed to work out their own visions and revisions.” (p. 316) | He advocates for diversity in critical approaches, warning against rigid adherence to a single critical framework. |
| “We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326) | This emphasizes the inescapable influence of personal and cultural contexts in interpreting literary works. |
| “Logic merely formulates what happens whenever we think effectively, just as grammar merely formulates what happens whenever we speak or write effectively.” (p. 323) | Friedman underscores that reasoning is a natural part of critical thought, comparable to how grammar structures language. |
| “If you can’t feel it, then I can’t explain it to you” … undercuts the entire teaching profession at its roots.” (p. 327) | He critiques the anti-intellectual stance that denies the role of teaching and systematic inquiry in fostering deeper literary appreciation. |
| “There are systems and there are systems—some are closed in that they limit our experience of a poem … some are open in that they widen our experience by suggesting ways of asking questions.” (p. 329) | Friedman distinguishes between restrictive and expansive critical methods, advocating for those that enhance exploration and understanding. |
| “The poem does not interpret itself for us, and we cannot interpret it … without bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326) | He asserts that interpretation requires active engagement and is shaped by the reader’s experiences and knowledge. |
| “We are all critics, then, whether we know it or not.” (p. 329) | Friedman democratizes the concept of criticism, suggesting that forming opinions and judgments is an inherent human activity. |
Suggested Readings: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman
- Friedman, Norman. “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” The Antioch Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 1960, pp. 315–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4610268. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
- Butler, Christopher. “What Is a Literary Work?” New Literary History, vol. 5, no. 1, 1973, pp. 17–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468405. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
- Fleming, Bruce E. “What Is the Value of Literary Studies?” New Literary History, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, pp. 459–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057615. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
- Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.