On Monday, I had the privilege of hearing one of the world’s foremost literary critics speak on the incomparable American poet from my own hometown, T.S. Eliot. Sir Christopher Ricks of the University of Boston gave a speech on T.S. Eliot and his relationship with the South.
I’ll be the first to admit that my familiarity with T.S. Eliot is not an intimate one. I know him about as well as any student who enjoyed English classes in high school. While I did gain some new perspective on Eliot’s writing, specifically his religious treatment of the Mississippi River and his socio-political relationship with the agrarian-industrial divide, the primary piece of knowledge Sir Ricks proverbially dropped upon me was a newfound appreciation for the classical art of criticism.
While his qualifications certainly entitle him to it, Ricks does not consider himself primarily a scholar or professor. His primary self-identification is as a critic. He has had the opportunity to contemporaneously critique many giants of the Western canon: Housman, Tennyson, Keats, Eliot, Milton and even Beckett. Ricks’ style is distinguished by rejecting the use of postmodern critical theory in his critique of literature and poetry. He utilizes a classical style of empirical criticism, analyzing the objectives of texts without deconstructing them, as modern critical theorists are wont to do.
While I myself find deconstructive analytical techniques more interesting and relevant, there’s a refreshing appeal to such a thorough, disciplined approach to critique. This approach values the actual act of criticism itself, elevating it to what I would consider an art form.
This appreciation of the value of good criticism is something that is sorely needed in our society today.
Ricks was inspirational in that he was willing, in his talk, to highlight many of the problems in T.S. Eliot’s thinking. Ricks highlighted Eliot’s deeply misguided comments on the nature of the Jewish people, which bordered on blatant anti-Semitism. He also expressed the naïveté of a son of an urban landscape advocating for a return to localist agrarianism. Ricks was able to make these critiques while still advocating for Eliot as one of the greatest poets of all time.
This, truly, is the art of criticism – being able to analyze and pick out the flaws in something you love and value and use these flaws in contrast with many of the great things the author accomplishes.
It seems many people today have a problem striking this balance.
In the age of fandoms, where it is not enough simply to enjoy a piece of media, one must devote hours to creating fanworks and memes and endless appreciation blog posts about your media of choice.
If you’ve ever tried to criticize something and had a super-fan jump down your throat, you’ll know what I mean.
Refusing to critically engage with your media indicates a lack of desire to truly understand and appreciate it. Do not buy into the false paradigm that one must unconditionally defend every element of a piece of media in order to enjoy it.
You don’t have to defend the unabashed male gaze to be a comic book fan. You don’t have to go out on a limb to justify Doctor Who’s awful writing and cut-rate storytelling to enjoy Doctor Who (well, maybe you do). You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to appreciate T.S. Eliot.
Take the advice of Sir Ricks.
Engage in the art of criticism with everything you consume. If you do not, you are doing a disservice to literature and media. If you love it, critique it.
Robert McAuliffe is a junior international studies major from St. Louis.
