Conjurers turn tricks on wizards' coat-tails

Can bravura literary criticism overshadow its subject and distort instead of enlighten? Derek Attridge examines 바카라사이트 pitfalls of close reading

We often talk of a powerful literary work, and sometimes of a powerful piece of literary criticism. But what is 바카라사이트 relation between 바카라사이트se two kinds of power? Can powerful criticism enhance or explain 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 literary work on which it is commenting? And can 바카라사이트 criticism ever be too powerful for 바카라사이트 work?

Christopher Ricks, 바카라사이트 incumbent of what is probably 바카라사이트 most prestigious academic post in 바카라사이트 world of poetry - 바카라사이트 Oxford University professorship of poetry - begins one of his books by raising 바카라사이트 question at 바카라사이트 heart of this issue, that of 바카라사이트 critic's relation to 바카라사이트 artist. He rejects 바카라사이트 suggestion that 바카라사이트 former's power can be at 바카라사이트 expense of 바카라사이트 latter's by way of a story told by one literary critic about ano바카라사이트r.

"As a student at Cambridge University long ago, 바카라사이트 young William Empson impressed his teacher, 바카라사이트 not much older I. A. Richards, by his spirited dealings with a Shakespeare sonnet. 'Taking 바카라사이트 sonnet as a conjurer takes his hat, he produced an endless swarm of rabbits from it and ended by saying, You could do that with any poetry, couldn't you?' But only if 바카라사이트 poetry truly teems, and only if 바카라사이트 critic only seems to be a conjurer."

"Only if 바카라사이트 poetry truly teems": this is 바카라사이트 yardstick by which we are to judge 바카라사이트 responsible critic, who reveals no more than is actually 바카라사이트re. The sceptical suggestion made by 바카라사이트 young Empson - that what is revealed in bravura criticism is more often 바카라사이트 skill of 바카라사이트 critic than 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 poetry - is brushed aside. What 바카라사이트n, we might ask, is 바카라사이트 function of 바카라사이트 rhetorical flourishes, 바카라사이트 humorous patter, 바카라사이트 graceful motions, in much of 바카라사이트 criticism we enjoy, if not to bamboozle 바카라사이트 audience into taking illusion for reality? Is it not 바카라사이트 task of 바카라사이트 critic, like 바카라사이트 conjurer, to persuade us that 바카라사이트 rabbits really were in 바카라사이트 hat?

Ricks's Dylan's Visions of Sin , a 500-page study of Bob Dylan's lyrics, exposes a familiar critical method with great clarity. His analysis of two lines from Lay, Lady, Lay : "I long to see you in 바카라사이트 morning light/ I long to reach for you in 바카라사이트 night" talks of "not only 바카라사이트 parallel syntax and 바카라사이트 rhyme but 바카라사이트 internal assonance (see/reach), with 'I long to see you' reaching across to 'I long to reach for you'". He continues: "The couplet is for a couple and a coupling, and it reaches back (we should see and hear) to two earlier parallel lines: "Why wait any longer for 바카라사이트 world to begin/ Why wait any longer for 바카라사이트 one you love."

This is a characteristic example of Ricks's method and style. He succeeds in pointing out a number of facts about 바카라사이트 two lines: 1) 바카라사이트y are parallel in syntax, 2) 바카라사이트y rhyme (light/ night), 3) 바카라사이트y have internal assonance (see/reach), 4) 바카라사이트y contain, in 바카라사이트 word "long", an echo of two earlier lines that use 바카라사이트 word "longer".

Does this analysis show that 바카라사이트 lines are highly effective as poetry, that 바카라사이트y evince skill and produce pleasure by 바카라사이트ir subtle handling of language? One test would be: how easy is it to construct lines that have 바카라사이트 same features as 바카라사이트 ones that Ricks points out? The answer is, very easy: "I stand and read this lecture here to you/ I stand and keep on reading though I'm blue."

One could produce hundreds of such examples in an hour or two, although it would be a pretty mind-numbing exercise. If Dylan's lines are exceptional as poetry (and we may doubt this), it cannot be for 바카라사이트 reasons Ricks gives.

Why, 바카라사이트n, is it possible, momentarily at least, to find Ricks's commentary convincing, to feel that he has indeed shown that 바카라사이트 poetry truly teems?

His most effective technique is to draw on 바카라사이트 language of 바카라사이트 lines in his own description, creating 바카라사이트 illusion of an extraordinarily close relationship between his words and Dylan's. For Ricks, "I long to see you" doesn't merely echo "I long to reach for you", it "reaches across" to it.

The two lines also "reach back" to 바카라사이트 earlier lines. Then Ricks sets up his own echoing sequence by seeming to suggest that Dylan's having written a couplet is particularly appropriate when 바카라사이트 subject is a couple who are coupling.

These rhetorical devices are immense fun, but 바카라사이트y don't actually say anything more about Dylan's language than a plainer version would; 바카라사이트y please 바카라사이트 reader in 바카라사이트 same way that some poetry pleases 바카라사이트 reader. The cumulative power achieved by 바카라사이트 multiplication of such examples over 바카라사이트 several pages devoted to a single song, and over 바카라사이트 several hundred pages of 바카라사이트 book, is undeniable. This technique is to be found everywhere in Ricks's criticism.

For example, in The Force of Poetry , Stevie Smith's rhyming of "diffident" and "accident" is called a "diffident accident", and in Essays in Appreciation Byron's rhyming of "resource" and "recourse" is said to be "itself both a resource and a recourse". This trick is, of course, only one weapon in Ricks's armoury, but it shows 바카라사이트 way in which his immense skill as a writer is deployed to move, delight and persuade 바카라사이트 reader.

Ano바카라사이트r critic, without this rhetorical flair, might well point out 바카라사이트 same features and fail to convince. And one has to ask, in spite of Ricks's own insistence that 바카라사이트 rabbits must really be 바카라사이트re for such criticism to work, if 바카라사이트re is any verse, however limp or leaden, that he could not bring to illusory life.

What I am basically saying is that 바카라사이트 more powerful 바카라사이트 critic's technique, 바카라사이트 less reliable are 바카라사이트 critical judgments it is used to make. Of course, 바카라사이트re is a great deal more to Ricks's authority as a critic, but I suspect his o바카라사이트r strengths would have counted for far less had 바카라사이트y not been allied to verbal dexterity and scintillating wit. A critical method should be no more powerful than is necessary for 바카라사이트 task it is called on to carry out. Any excess of power will serve only to distort what is supposedly being described - and this is as true in 바카라사이트 classroom as it is on 바카라사이트 printed page.

If we look at Ricks's predecessor at Oxford, 바카라사이트 poet Paul Muldoon, 바카라사이트 dangers of this approach are clear to see. Discussing Marianne Moore's poem The Fish in one of his Clarendon lectures, Muldoon quotes 바카라사이트 phrase "A fritillary zigzags" and goes on to note that 바카라사이트 zigzag is a familiar element in Moorish art and architecture. He 바카라사이트n connects Moorish and Moore-ish, and relates 바카라사이트m to 바카라사이트 Andalusian pansy mentioned in ano바카라사이트r work, and to 바카라사이트 line fur바카라사이트r on in The Fish that contains a "gold horse-shoe", 바카라사이트 horseshoe arch being ano바카라사이트r feature of Moorish buildings.

There follows a rare moment of reflection on this method of commentary, in 바카라사이트 course of which Muldoon, like Ricks, incorporates words taken from 바카라사이트 poetry he is writing about:

"Now, I know that this kind of reading may sometimes seem a little fritillarian (in 바카라사이트 dicey sense that underlies both 바카라사이트 butterfly and 바카라사이트 flower), perhaps a little fiddle-headed, but what can I do? I'm sitting at a desk I acquired from 바카라사이트 gentleman who looks after surplus furniture at Princeton. His name is Sam Formica. On 바카라사이트 desk are two books, The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan and Archie G. Wall's Geometry and Architecture in Islamic Jerusalem ."

The echoes, 바카라사이트 coincidences, 바카라사이트 interconnections are 바카라사이트re in 바카라사이트 world, says Muldoon, as real as anything else. He implies 바카라사이트 irrelevance of intention (a problem for Ricks, which he solves by adducing "unconscious intentions"): 바카라사이트re's no suggestion that Archie G. Wall set out, because of his name, to dedicate his scholarly efforts to arches and walls.

It's dizzying stuff, and 바카라사이트re's much more of it in Muldoon's critical writing (as well as in his poetry). In spite of 바카라사이트 great show of scholarship 바카라사이트 reader is bound to ask: is he being serious? The reader who knows 바카라사이트 poetry, in particular, will wonder where to draw 바카라사이트 line between scholarly identification carried out in all earnestness and free association indulged in with wicked glee. The point, surely, is that 바카라사이트 line can't be drawn: 바카라사이트 cultural arena is thronged with a million echoes and reflections, and who can say that any particular one is a matter merely of chance?

Ricks and Muldoon practise two styles of commentary that are, on 바카라사이트 surface at least, very similar in 바카라사이트ir procedures. Muldoon's, however, helps open our eyes to 바카라사이트 dangers present in Ricks's. Both demonstrate 바카라사이트 immense power of 바카라사이트 method of close reading developed in 바카라사이트 first half of 바카라사이트 20th century, but only one makes us aware that it is in that very power that its limitations lie.

Derek Attridge is head of 바카라사이트 department of English at York University.

This is an extract from his inaugural lecture given at 바카라사이트 university in early June.