A Christian View of Criticism

 

            Any theory involving the understanding, interpretation, and relating of a text to reality and Truth must first incorporate some model of language/communication, since without that foundation the text is in fact not a text but a mere repository of random, meaningless marks, and if the text is such a repository then there is no possibility of criticism.  Since it is with ones mind and not with ones eyes that one truly “sees” a text then it stands to reason that this model of language must involve the mind, for that is where the true discourse occurs.  The words on a page are not what one reads, scientifically, but rather reading is the process by which photons or light particles reflect off a page of paper and enter into the eyes of a human being.  Those photons are then transformed into electronic impulses which can then enter the brain and be transmitted along neurological pathways within the brain, which are then by some process transmitted to the human soul of which the mind and heart are each a part.  This is thus the end of the physical domain of literary criticism.

In the soul a text is interpreted and understood under criteria established by three chief means:  The guidance of the Holy Spirit, the person’s conscious and subconscious recollections memories and past experiences, and the nature of that human’s spirit.  Since “reading” is truly done within the soul, the nature of the relationship between the components of a text and their associated meanings must be psychological.  Ferdinand de Saussure summarizes this rather accurately when he says that “the linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image” (Norton 963).   This does not necessarily exclude the idea that a sign may bear reference to an actual physical or metaphysical thing or fact, but simply that the nature of language is psychological.  After all, the psychological imprints are the results of a priori knowledge given to all humans, and of noumena (things-in-themselves or as they exist in the world apart from the realm of human experience and consciousness (phenomenological)) experienced by sense.  The sound-image is of course the psychological imprint of the sound of a certain syllable or set of syllables, and the concept is psychological as well.  This then is the nature of the basic reading and understanding of a text.

After this point, however, the text must somehow be applied.  The application and even the application of every text may vary within certain degrees, but a Christian literary theory must contain certain criteria by which a text is applied.  Here I use the term “to apply” broadly, for application may involve enjoyment, understanding, the act of imagination that one does while reading a text, the acquisition of information pertaining to human nature, history, ones worldview, religion, et cetera, use of said knowledge and emotions gained from a text to further understand the universe and ones self, and use of said things to alter the universe through direct physical action.  Thus application is fruitful on many grounds, such as the moral, the philosophical, the physical, the emotive, the intellectual, and so on.  The nature of this application shall be addressed by the incorporation of certain theories of criticism whose tenets may in part adhere to a Christian critical theory.

            Any proper understanding of a text requires that one become intimate with the words and structures of which it is composed.  Quite simply, one cannot derive meaning from a text without examining the signs and the structures of the signs of which the text is composed.  In this area Formalism excels, for it is a search for the meaning that exists inherently within the text, for “the students of the future must be permitted to study literature, and not merely about literature” (1110).  With this method one can examine the text in all its richness by closely examining its words and devices.  Surely no text can truly convey meaning and significance if one does not take time to read the text.  It enlists the aid of the dictionary so that it can explore every nuance of the words contained in a text so that it can leave no meaning uncovered; at least no meaning that is inherently within the text-as-itself.  Any Christian theory of criticism must involve this rigor, passion, and depth so that it may explore the text to its fullest potential.  There is certainly much to gain from word-by-word (and line-by-line and stanza-by-stanza and so on) analysis.  However, it unfortunately neglects the historical context of a work which can also reveal much understanding, and at this point we turn to the historical method.

            As cultures change over the ages words come to carry different connotations and meanings.  Also, certain actions and thought processes may be interpreted differently by readers of different cultures and time periods.  The virtues of manly strength, honor, and heroism exemplified in Beowulf are very praiseworthy in Anglo-Saxon culture, but to a modern reader they may appear chauvinistic, brutal, ignorant and savage.  Such a shift in viewpoint can make a proper understanding of the events in Beowulf quite difficult to modern readers.  The beauty of the courtly love tradition in 16^th century literature and in some examples of Arthurian Legend is lost in an interpretation which is influenced by such forces as feminism and modern lack of courtesy.  This approach also involves to some extent the study of cultures, in which one comes to understand the values and ideals of the civilization and age in which a text was written.  Indeed through an understanding of such values and ideals one may broaden ones own values and ideals so that they incorporate in part those of another age, thus richening ones view of the universe.  Although it is not true that “the meaning of a text ‘is, and can be, nothing other than the author’s meaning’”, this is a significant aspect to understanding (one dimension of) the literary work.  Avoiding the study of history and cultures allows for at best a less rich understanding of the beauty as well as the moral and intellectual value of a text and at worst the serious detrimental possibility of moral and intellectual stagnation.

            The word “imagination” is very significant to the phenomenological criticism of literature, as it is defined as “the ability to represent in thought the features experienced in the sense perception of the external world” (Norton 505) for when reading a text one is not experiencing directly sense-experiences but is rather interpreting referents to them (signs), which point to certain thoughts and feelings associated by the text, so that one is in effect entering a new universe created by the text in which ones immediate experience becomes that of the text. 

Not only does ones immediate experience become that of the text, but one interprets the world in terms of that text after reading it.  For example, after reading a text of Arthurian Legend, one is filled with ideas of knighthood, adventure, betrayal, ideal love, Anglo-Saxon warfare, chivalry, and holy ideals, and if one has truly read the text and if one accepts the statements that it (indirectly at times) makes about reality, then they become a part of ones worldview, or simply of ones perception of the world, whether consciously or subconsciously.  This association takes place on (at least) two dimensions:  The moral and the imaginative.  The moral association occurs when one assimilates the moral values of a text into ones worldview.  It should be noted that the chief difference between the two is that the former involves to a greater part than the other ones perception by association of thoughts and feelings from the text, and the latter is reactionary, involving to a greater extent ones behavior, or the change that one makes in ones behavior as a result of reading the text.  An example of this is a reader who reads a text on Arthurian Legend and is impressed by the examples of courtesy and honour among the knights, and decides that he should adhere to those same concepts by being more respectful and courteous towards others, by being less selfish and more honest, and to maintain a sense of honour by also being more honest and trustworthy.

Another aspect of the text is aesthetic and even romantic in that it pertains to human emotions and human passions.  Cleanth Brooks states, “it is highly important that we know what we are doing and that we see plainly that the paraphrase is not the real core of meaning which constitutes the essence of the poem [or text]” (Norton 1356), and TS Eliot furthers this idea, saying “the effect of a work of art upon the person who enjoys it is an experience different in kind from any experience not of art.  It may be formed out of one emotion, or may be a combination of several; and various feelings.”  A text is not a simple statement such as “thou shalt not steal,” and to treat it as such would deny the richness and depth of experience, joy, pleasure, and beauty of which one can be conscious and experience by the reading of a text, for it is not a mere container out of which we must pour the liquid so that we may evaporate the inessential parts and thus have its purpose or meaning.  This is what many literature students do, unfortunately.  They take a poem or a novel or an essay and attempt to understand it in terms of a mere paraphrase.  A commonly read poem in English literature classes is “Corrina’s Going a-Maying,” of which students may ask, “What does this poem mean?”  The professor or a student in the class may reply, “It is saying that since we won’t be young forever let’s enjoy physical pleasures while we can.”  But that is not the meaning or essence of the poem.  It is one particular application or statement that one may gain from the poem to apply to reality, but it is only one among many.  Many images within the poem exist for ones pleasure.  There is the “blooming morn” with its milky light shining over the meadows, as the world itself is both yawning and flowering, springing to life, and “the dew bespangled herb and tree,” in which the dew represents life and vitality, for it is water, of which life is composed.  To apply a simple paraphrase would deny the beauty of these images and impressions (Norton 1356).  So then the criticism of literature cannot be confined to a simple approach of extracting a basic meaning from a text, but it must also involve a depthful analysis in which every word is brought to life and viewed in its full vibrancy.  This is not to deny, however, the necessity of the understanding of the moral or philosophical application of a text.  A text must be viewed as several things, among them being an impression full of images and sensations, and also full of meaning and significance.

            Jean-Paul Sartre writes that human consciousness organizes relationships among things in the universe.  Before human consciousness acts upon a scene there is merely the sun, the hill, the grass, and the sky, each one existing independently and without reference or relation to each other.  Once consciousness surveys the scene, however, all these things become one; they take on meaning, and one can find the contrast between the colours, and the overall beauty of these things.  Once humans cease to observe, it will fade, or “if we turn away from this landscape, it will sink back into its dark permanence.”  That is not to mean that it will cease to exist.  But it will lose its significance; humans are “revealers” who bring meaning, significance, understand and coherence to the universe.  Sartre’s logic has one fallacy, of course, which is the absence of God.  God’s consciousness is active upon all things, so that they never fade into “dark permanence” and never lose their meaning and coherence.  In fact He is the meaning and coherence.  Regardless of this fallacy Sartre’s position holds true in that through coherence all things (meaning the universe in which humans exist, other possible universes, and God and all other things apart from these universes) are interrelated; the sun, though millions of miles from the earth, warms it, and its dazzling brilliance can be framed in beautiful contrast to the green of the hill and the azure sky.  Thus all things within the universe are interrelated through God’s holistic nature.

Not only are all simple physical objects interrelated in this manner, but texts themselves relate to all things.  The meaning of a text can be related and applied to the universe in which it exists.  An obvious example is the Bible in which is written: “Thou shalt not steal.”  While it is true that the text creates a universe of its own in which for the reader to dwell both during and after the reading, the text also applies to the objective reality which God has created.  God has created subjective reality as well, and both are certainly significant for the objective is purposeless without the subjective, and the subjective is baseless and without foundation without the objective.  Every conscious being creates his or her own subjective reality, while altering objective reality by his or her own God-endowed means.  The text is a window to a subjective universe, which the reader may compare and apply to the objective universe, so that by a proper Biblical understanding of reality and morality the reader may apply the positive and negative attributes and significants of the text to objective reality.  This involves a moral approach to literary criticism, in which the reader finds within the text certain morals and statements whether direct or indirect of the way that reality should be, and then upon coming to a proper understanding of these principles and to their deficiency in objective reality he or she may apply them to said reality.  The Bible contains the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” which one may apply to reality by refraining from thievery.  A reader of Arthurian Legend may appreciate the sense of honour, duty, reverence to authority and to things holy, and kindness to ladies and enact such principles in his or her own life.

Therefore it is necessary that a Christian theory of literary criticism must involve certain aspects of seeking meaning within a text such as the deep and rigorous study of words and structures within a text, the historical situation under which the text was written, the deep emotive processes of which the text is comprised, the universe it creates within the subjective mind, and its application to the objective world.  This is certainly not the whole of a Christian theory of criticism, but is at least part of the puzzle, pieces strewn about to be found valuable as they may.  Any Christian endeavor to understand literature should involve seeking truth and beauty to its greatest measure and then learning to apply that truth and beauty to the universe God created, and also to ones own self.