When Critics Have a Hidden Agenda

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 2 September 2024 "Sadly, no one cares for the criticisms of my critics. Readers don't even know the names of those people. But they read my books." Sir V S Naipaul to a journalist at Jaipur Literature Festival, Diggy Palace, 2015 Have you heard the names of J G Lockhart and J W Croker? I bet you never heard their names. The first devastating blows to Keats's reputation were delivered in the late summer of 1818 by J. G. Lockhart in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine and J. W. Croker in the Quarterly Review. The latter placed Keats in the ‘Cockney’ school, ‘which may be defined to consist of the most incongruous ideas in the most uncouth language’. The former recommended him to abandon his ‘poetic mania’ and return to his apothecary’s shop. Although he put a brave face on these attacks, claiming that ‘my own domestic criticism has given me pain without comparison beyond what Blackwood or the Quarterly could possibly inflict’ (letter to J. A. Hessey, 8 October 1818), there is no doubt that Keats was hurt, financially at least, by such vitriolic condemnation. He may not have been, as Byron affirmed, ‘snuffed out by an article’, for such reviews were not the physiological cause of his tuberculosis. But they did put the public on its guard against Keats, thereby curtailing demand for his books and, because of his consequent inability to redeem his debts, frustrating his hopes of marriage to Fanny. Keats went to his death not knowing whether poetic recognition would ever be accorded him or whether his name was simply ‘writ in water’. The world knows the great John Keats for his sublime poetry. He died at the age of 26! His rabid and jealous critics must have desecrated the earth for many years by spewing venom. No one remembers them but Keats is immortal. Many insignificant critics panned the Bard of Avon's works. I'm not talking about Harold Bloom and John Drakakis. They were scholars who wrote critical essays about Shakespeare's contributions to Western culture. I'm talking about the small fries who dared criticise Shakespearean works and eventually fell flat. Frustrated by a swarm of nagging and niggling critics, Mirza Asadullah Khan 'Ghalib' wrote, "Na Sataish Ki Tamanna Na Sile Ke Parva/ Gar Nahin Hain Mere Asha'ar Mein Ma'ani Na Sahi" (Neither I care for praise nor am I concerned about the response/ Let my couplets be forlorn of sense and substance). I'm no Ghalib or Keats. I'm an ordinary writer who has been appreciated by many over the years and also criticised by a few steadfast ' well-wishers.' Here the point is: Critics often have a hidden agenda. I'm not alluding to a particular person or a critic. Unless critics are like Dr Matthew Arnold, William Hazlitt, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, Khaleel-Ur-Rehman Azmi, among others, they'll often be unethical in their criticisms. Why? Because the names I've mentioned were themselves great literary figures who happened to be critics. Arnold, Hazlitt, Faruqi and Khaleel-Ur-Rahman wrote magnificent poetry and prose and when they critically analysed a work of literature, they didn't do that with a negative mind-set or any prejudice whatsoever. But generally critics aren't like these greats. Most of the critics are often failed writers and poets. There's an adage in Turkish. I'm translating it into English: Those who fail to create something original, become critics. Very true. A critic is a person who has no legs but he teaches how to run! Critics are like grammarians. They play with dry and dead bones whereas a writer or a poet produces the meat and the pulp. Just the way, grammar, excessive grammar, is a graveyard of a language, soulless and often vindictive criticisms are also the killers of good literature. Remember, literature is not logic just like life is not mathematics. Applying meaningless logic to analyse every article is monomania. You're killing the essence of a piece of art and literature. This is not just unfair but also gives an inkling of sadism. Critics fallaciously think that they're the custodians of (good and great) literature. Who has given them this right to act as guardian angels? When criticism or feedback starts smacking of condescension and pontification, it becomes mildly ad hominem and soon degenerates into something outright personal. Naushad Ali criticised Kishore Kumar and never used his voice. Did that dwarf the greatness of Kishore Kumar? Anil Biswas refused to call Rafi a singer! Who cares for Anil Biswas' opinion? Do you care? Those who criticise your works may not always be revengeful. But oftentimes, they're. I reiterate, I've no ill-will and I say only the good things about those out to oust me from this forum and site. I've just stated the truth. Let me quote T S Eliot from his poem, 'Burnt Norton,‘“Humankind cannot bear very much reality." Humans indeed can't. Despite that, I salute my critics because when you're being criticised, you're being noticed! ------ A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/critics-hidden-agenda/d/133100 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism