No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #criticism
A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, and in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man's distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones. They all said: 'This tower is most interesting.' But they also said (after pushing it over): 'What a muddle it is in!' And even the man's own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: 'He is such an odd fellow! Imagine using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did not he restore the old house? he had no sense of proportion.' But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea. ↗
Tolkien, who created this marvellous vehicle, doesn't go anywhere in it. He just sits where he is. What I mean by that is that he always seems to be looking backwards, to a greater and more golden past; and what's more he doesn't allow girls or women any important part in the story at all. Life is bigger and more interesting than The Lord of the Rings thinks it is. ↗
There’s one kind of writing that’s always easy: Picking out something obviously stupid and reiterating how stupid it obviously is. This is the lowest form of criticism, easily accomplished by anyone. And for most of my life, I have tried to avoid this. In fact, I’ve spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the underrated value in ostensibly stupid things. I understand Turtle’s motivation and I would have watched Medelin in the theater. I read Mary Worth every day for a decade. I’ve seen Korn in concert three times and liked them once. I went to The Day After Tomorrow on opening night. I own a very expensive robot that doesn’t do anything. I am open to the possibility that everyting has metaphorical merit, and I see no point in sardonically attacking the most predictable failures within any culture. ↗
At first Christ was a man – nothing more. Mary was his mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father, Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David. Then the claim was made that he was the son of God, and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a virgin until her death. The claim was made that Christ rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven. It required many years for these absurdities to take possession of the minds of men. If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret, in a corner? Is Christ our example? He never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor. Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music – nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity. He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms. All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect. At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: “My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me? We have found that man must depend on himself. He must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plow and plant; he must invent; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world. ↗
He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash. (writing about US President Warren G. Harding) ↗
The Restoration did not so much restore as replace. In restoring the monarchy with King Charles II, it replaced Cromwell's Commonwealth and its Puritan ethos with an almost powerless monarch whose tastes had been formed in France. It replaced the power of the monarchy with the power of a parliamentary system - which was to develop into the two parties, Whigs and Tories - with most of the executive power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Both parties benefited from a system which encouraged social stability rather than opposition. Above all, in systems of thought, the Restoration replaced the probing, exploring, risk-taking intellectual values of the Renaissance. It relied on reason and on facts rather than on speculation. So, in the decades between 1660 and 1700, the basis was set for the growth of a new kind of society. This society was Protestant (apart from the brief reign of the Catholic King James II, 1685-88), middle class, and unthreatened by any repetition of the huge and traumatic upheavals of the first part of the seventeenth century. It is symptomatic that the overthrow of James II in 1688 was called The 'Glorious' or 'Bloodless' Revolution. The 'fever in the blood' which the Renaissance had allowed was now to be contained, subject to reason, and kept under control. With only the brief outburst of Jacobin revolutionary sentiment at the time of the Romantic poets, this was to be the political context in the United Kingdom for two centuries or more. In this context, the concentration of society was on commerce, on respectability, and on institutions. The 'genius of the nation' led to the founding of the Royal Society in 1662 - 'for the improving of Natural Knowledge'. The Royal Society represents the trend towards the institutionalisation of scientific investigation and research in this period. The other highly significant institution, one which was to have considerably more importance in the future, was the Bank of England, founded in 1694. ↗
The degree of rigidity is a matter of profound interest in the study of literary fictions. As an extreme case you will find some novel, probably contemporary with yourself, in which the departure from a basic paradigm, the peripeteia in the sense I am now giving it, seems to begin with the first sentence. The schematic expectations of the reader are discouraged immediately. Since by definition one seeks the maximum peripeteia (in this extended sense) in the fiction of one's own time, the best instance I can give is from Alain Robbe-Grillet. He refuses to speak of his 'theory' of the novel; it is the old ones who talk about the need for plot, character, and so forth, who have the theories. And without them one can achieve a new realism, and a narrative in which 'le temps se trouve coupé de la temporalité. Il ne coule plus.' And so we have a novel in which,. the reader will find none of the gratification to be had from sham temporality, sham causality, falsely certain description, clear story. The new novel 'repeats itself, bisects itself, modifies itself, contradicts itself, without even accumulating enough bulk to constitute a past--and thus a "story," in the traditional sense of the word.' The reader is not offered easy satisfactions, but a challenge to creative co-operation. ↗
Герой интересует Достоевского не как явление действительности, обладающее определёнными и твёрдыми социально-типическими и индивидуально-характерологическими признаками, не как определённый облик, слагающийся из черт односмысленных и объективных, в своей совокупности отвечающих на вопрос «кто он?». Нет, герой интересует Достоевского как особая точка зрения на мир и на себя самого, как смысловая и оценивающая позиция человека по отношению к себе самому и по отношению к окружающей действительности. Достоевскому важно не то, чем его герой является в мире, а прежде всего то, чем является для героя мир и чем является он сам для себя самого. Это очень важная и принципиальная особенность восприятия героя. Герой как точка зрения, как взгляд на мир и на себя самого требует совершенно особых методов раскрытия и художественной характеристики. Ведь то, что должно быть раскрыто и охарактеризовано, является не определённым бытием героя, не его твёрдым образом, но последним итогом его сознания и самосознания, в конце концов последним словом героя о себе самом и о своём мире. Следовательно, теми элементами, из которых слагается образ героя, служат не черты действительности – самого героя и его бытового окружения, – но значение этих черт для него самого, для его самосознания. Все устойчивые объективные качества героя, его социальное положение, его социологическая и характерологическая типичность, его habitus, его душевный облик и даже самая его наружность, то есть все то, что обычно служит автору для создания твёрдого и устойчивого образа героя – «кто он», у Достоевского становится объектом рефлексии самого героя, предметом его самосознания; предметом же авторского видения и изображения оказывается самая функция этого самосознания. В то время как обычно самосознание героя является лишь элементом его действительности, лишь одною из черт его целостного образа, здесь, напротив, вся действительность становится элементом его самосознания. Автор не оставляет для себя, то есть только в своём кругозоре, ни одного существенного определения, ни одного признака, ни одной чёрточки героя: он все вводит в кругозор самого героя, бросает в тигель его самосознания. В кругозоре ↗
Возвращение «Земную жизнь пройдя до половины», остановился я. И повернулся спиною к будущему: «там не ждут меня» - и пройденным уже путем пошел. Я вышел вон из ряда тех, кто испокон веков, обманываясь, ожидает, что выпадет счастливый случай, ключ повернется, истина откроется – откроются врата веков, и кто-то молвит: «Нет ни врат и ни веков». Я позади оставил улицы, и площади, и греческие статуи – в холодном свете утра, и только ветер был живым среди могил. За городом – поля, а за полями – ночь и пустыня: то сердце одинокое мое – ночь и пустыня. И в свете солнца камнем стал я, зеркалом и камнем. Затем – осталась позади пустыня – стал морем и над морем – черным небом, огромным камнем с полустертыми словами: «Нет звезд во мне». И вот – пришел. Врата разрушены, и ангел мирно дремлет. А за вратами – сад: густые кроны, дыхание камней, почти живых, магнолий сон глубокий, и свет – нагой среди стволов нарядных. Вода потоками-руками обнимает цветущий луг. И в центре – дерево и девочка-дитя; о, солнечный огонь ее волос! И нагота меня не тяготила: я был в воде и воздуху подобен. Укрытая сиянием зеленым древа, уснувшая в траве, она была – оставленное ветром белое перо. Ее поцеловать хотел я, но воды журчанье вдруг пробудило жажду, я склонился над зеркалом воды и на себя взглянул. И я увидел: рот, искаженный жаждой, мертвым был; о, старец алчущий, о, виноградная лоза, агония огня! Я наготу свою прикрыл. И тихо вышел. Смеялся ангел. И поднялся ветер, и мне глаза песком засыпал ветер. Песок и ветер – то мои слова; не мы живем, нас создает живыми время. ↗
