Literary criticism is not about trashing other people's intellectual effort

Literary appreciation, in simple terms, is the art of ‘tasting’ or ‘judging’ a novel, a play, a short story, a poem or any other work that artistically deploys language. [iStockphoto]

We live in interesting times, a period in which almost everything in political and national discourse is reduced to low-level biases, ranging from tribe to personal weaknesses, amplified to put down, embarrass or belittle one’s perceived adversaries. It is unfortunate that this fallacious streak has percolated into the arts, where writers are now trashed through low-brow lenses rather than through careful analysis or close reading of their texts.

Today, if you review a book and cast it in a positive light, you risk being gaslighted for doing public relations, perhaps on grounds unrelated to the merits of the work. By the same unfortunate token, those who write trashy things about great writers are lionised as quintessential literary critics.

This may stem from the fact that many of us — especially those who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s — were weaned on what we called ‘diss tracks’, where hip-hop artistes were ranked according to how devastatingly they trashed their rivals. These putdowns were not confined to the works their interlocutors produced. Rather, they functioned like the handshake, and, with apologies to Achebe — that went beyond the elbow.

So today, even those who should know better will invade a great writer’s privacy, including family matters, and hold them up to the world as evidence that these are not great writers after all, as if being a great writer implies perfection or moral rectitude. Beyond mirroring the ethos of diss-track culture, our proclivity for the fallacy of ad hominem — attacking the person rather than their ideas or art — reveals ignorance of some of the most basic aspects of literary studies, namely literary appreciation and criticism.

Literary appreciation, in simple terms, is the art of ‘tasting’ or ‘judging’ a novel, a play, a short story, a poem or any other work that artistically deploys language. Appreciation here, unlike in everyday lingo, does not necessarily mean finding a work great or viewing it positively. Sometimes you read a work of art and come away feeling as though you were chewing stones.

Literary appreciation therefore means responding to a work of art — finding it great or otherwise. It is what you think or feel after engaging with the work. The crucial point is that authentic literary appreciation must arise from close reading rather than extraneous considerations.

True, there are various theories, including sociological approaches that analyse how the environment a writer grew up in shapes their work, but even these are anchored in the text itself rather than in what writers do when night falls, so to speak. True also, once a work of art is published it no longer belongs solely to its creator, and anyone has a right to judge it as they please. But this freedom comes with philosophical boundaries: those who read your judgement must be able to see clearly where you are coming from.

True appreciation

Which brings me to literary criticism — the art of systematically analysing a work of art, or unpacking it to determine what makes it great or otherwise. True appreciation must be grounded in the principles of criticism. Sadly, many interpret the word ‘criticism’ in its narrow, denotative sense, assuming that literary criticism means fault-finding or trashing works of art. According to this school of uncritical thought, perfected in market and bar talks, any literary critic worth their salt must find something to tear apart in whatever they review.

These are not merely academic concerns. They govern the literary industry itself. Anyone appointed as a judge for a literary prize must adhere to these rules. If they select a writer for the Nobel Prize in Literature, the Pulitzer, the Commonwealth, the Jomo Kenyatta or any other literary award, they must go beyond stating that they found the work to be the best (literary appreciation) and provide reasons rooted in the text itself (literary criticism) to support their verdict.

The same principles guide the assessment of manuscripts by literary agents and editors. In legacy publishing, editors either rely on trusted agents to source manuscripts or take it upon themselves to seek out the best work. It is never a one-person whim. Faced with a pile of submissions, preliminary assessment is inevitable: those that lead nowhere are set aside, leaving a shortlist of manuscripts that show genuine promise.

At this stage, many editors and publishing houses commission critics to analyse texts and provide reports detailing each manuscript’s strengths, weaknesses and potential for improvement. For the final shortlist, as many as three reports may be required, so that after reading them and engaging the readers in discussion, it is abundantly clear why, from 10 shortlisted scripts, only three were selected.

When conducted thoroughly — and in a way that ensures no better manuscripts remain undiscovered — this rigorous process has been known to yield prize-winning work. Anyone who has walked this tried-and-tested path finds it abhorrent that a single individual can wake up and casually trash another’s intellectual labour. 

Writers and creatives are not only human; they are among the most sensitive barometers in society. If you have ever sat with writers to explain why their scripts have been rejected, you will know the importance of tact — of offering guidance that helps them improve rather than demoralising them or making them feel unworthy of consideration.

If a work can be improved, you must show how your recommendations will make the writer a better artist, not through know-it-all posturing or mystical authority that only you can conjure up, but through an evidential process that leaves no trace of bias. So while I have no problem with anyone dismissing a work of art as they see fit, at the very least let us be assured that they are not punching below the navel.

The writer is an editorial and publishing consultant