T. S. Eliot Cover Image

T. S. Eliot

Start Free Trial

Discussion Topic

The summary and main function of criticism in T.S. Eliot's "The Function of Criticism."

Summary:

In "The Function of Criticism," T.S. Eliot argues that the main function of criticism is to elucidate and interpret literary works, facilitating a deeper understanding and appreciation. He emphasizes that criticism should be an objective analysis, not influenced by personal bias, and should serve to connect literature to broader cultural and intellectual contexts.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

What are the tools and main function of criticism according to Eliot's essay "The Function of Criticism"?

T. S. Eliot's "The Function of Criticism" puts forth the thesis that effective critics should shun interpretation as a tool of criticism, because interpretation is always from the critic's imagination. Eliot argues that the only tools a critic should use are comparison and analysis, because effective criticism does not try to augment the work with subjective interpretations. He compares the tools of analysis and comparison to a cadaver; a fixed and self-contained entity. He mocks interpretive approaches as never-ending constructions of the imagination, "producing parts of the body from its pockets."

Eliot says the most important function of a critic is the "elucidation of works of art and the correction of taste"—in sum, clarifying the more obscure concepts of a work for a wide audience and evaluating whether the work is good or bad based on a common understanding of aesthetics.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

What is the summary of T.S. Eliot's "The Function of Criticism"?

One must begin with the position of Eliot...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

regarding "literature," which was that it was not simply a product of individual authors and artists but products that were combined into cohesive bodies of work: the literature of Europe or the literature of a particular time period, for example. He felt very strongly about this and indicated in "The Function of Criticism" that authors of a certain locale or a certain time period were actually bound to adhere to certain standards or trends that made their contribution to the body of work coherent.

Because of this, the work of a critic, according to Eliot, is to examine various books and other works to "classify" them and to look at them in concert in order to determine whether one can "establish any principles for deciding what kinds of book should be preserved, and what aims and methods of criticism should be followed."

Eliot makes it clear that artists themselves are not to be bound so carefully to the principles of criticism but that they cannot be entirely immune to it as they do the creative work in producing books and other works of art. He argues not that artists are driven by criticism but that they are likely aware of it—and that the best ones are even quite good at it. He also suggests that a good critic of a particular art need not necessarily be a good practitioner of that same art.

It is only by understanding the art itself as well as a particular work's place in the larger body that it inhabits that the "chief tools of the critic," namely comparison and analysis, can be put to use by the critic. Having placed works of art within the appropriate realm, one can then examine them in the way that Eliot deems most useful, which is to elucidate the works of art that are examined by the critic.

He emphasizes at the close of the essay, of course, that all these efforts must be grounded in fact, in the works being criticized. He decries those who have "a vicious taste for reading about works of art instead of reading the works themselves."

Approved by eNotes Editorial