The problem with journalistic critics lies in their focus on what the text did not address, and this space is much larger than the space occupied by the text itself. The intersection between this space and the critic’s accumulated knowledge is greater than the intersection between the critic and the text itself. This indicates that the critic or reader has not yet surrendered themselves to the text, nor do they share the authority of meaning with it. Instead, they work on the opposite of what the text itself says. The creator of the artistic work, whether a novelist, a film director, a playwright, or otherwise, is not responsible for the reader’s accumulated knowledge or their previous artistic and aesthetic experiences. Additionally, the journalistic critic has a fondness for the image of the stern and decisive critic who does not let a text pass without attacking it, so as not to be accused of being an indulgent and lenient critic.
The reader should not read the text from a distance or stand at its doorstep eavesdropping. Rather, the reader should feel comfortable invading the text and entering it to interrogate it, and to write a parallel text that fills its gaps, enriching it rather than judging or dismissing it. Criticism should also be based on a philosophical approach, not necessarily complex, but a method that lends legitimacy to the critic’s reading of the artwork. This is particularly true in the case of novels, as many novelists have written critical or contemplative books regarding their concept of the novel as a literary form. These books are considered valuable entry points for the novel and its criticism, surpassing what some critics have offered in their impressionistic readings. These approaches may be subject to differences and debates, which is not detrimental, as we are navigating in a flexible and fluid field of knowledge, unlike the empirical scientific method. When discussing literary criticism –or cultural criticism– it feels like we’re swimming in an expansive cognitive territory that occasionally spills over into the social sciences and humanities, and at other times dips its toes into history, linguistics, and philosophy.
The problem of the critic’s failure to truly engage with the text is evident at times when they limit themselves to commenting on certain narrative techniques, such as the role and position of the narrator in relation to the events and characters in the novel. They may also comment on the complete transformation of a character as portrayed in the novel without adding a new layer of meaning. Even worse is when the critic becomes a social commentator based on the social and political events depicted in the novel, thereby disregarding the artistic uniqueness of the novel in terms of plot and characters. Take, for example, the novel “Al-Talyani” by Shukri Mabkhout, and observe what has been written about it; you will find political analyses of post-revolution Tunisia, and the discussion may even veer towards comparisons between the Arab Spring revolutions, independent of the novel itself.
The problem may lie in both the novel and the reader themselves, as our novels often delve into social and political criticism, compelling the reader to also deviate in this direction. The problem is dual, oscillating between the novel and its reader, resulting in a repetitive production for both.
We can simplify the problem into two main points: issues related to the academic critic and those related to the journalistic critic. Both share a common problem, albeit in different ways, while differing in other issues. The common problem between the academic and the journalistic critic is their reliance on non-knowledge authority in presenting their critical readings. Even if they reject this authority, it exists as a social and artistic actor within the cultural sphere. It acts as a negative force that hinders constructive discussion and cuts it off from the very beginning, as all readings end with an article written by one of them without any feedback from others.
The authority of the academic critic stems from their extensive knowledge of the history of Western literary criticism, its schools, and the theoretical ideas that these schools espouse. These theories are based on works that originated in a cultural context different from the Arab world, a context that aligns with Europe’s political, social, and philosophical history, as Milan Kundera explained in his book “The Art of the Novel” to establish the European origins and spirit of the novel. The academic critic also possesses knowledge of the emergence and development of other ideas within the same cultural context, such as semiotics and its relationship to structuralism, and the latter’s connection to linguistics, as developed by de Saussure, leading to the contributions of Umberto Eco in understanding symbols and Roland Barthes in understanding second-order semiotics and its link to discourses as active forces in society. However, this academic critic still struggles to engage with the embryonic art form known as the Arab novel in a manner that establishes a theory or a reconciliatory approach between these Western theories and the culture of the Arab world, its political, social, and “philosophical” contexts. At the very least, there is a need to adapt these theories, some of which are objective, and rely on commonalities like language (in the linguistic sense), but they require contextualization. The final problem, which is linked to or a result of the issues, is that this critic often finds themselves confined to their office, writing research papers that are disconnected from the cultural scene and labeled as difficult and elitist, created within an ivory tower.
As for the journalistic critic, they are an effusive critic who gains their authority by proving that they read and stay informed extensively, considering this sufficient to pass value judgments on a text—this is a well-known fallacy called the appeal to authority. The journalistic critic, at best, relies on their wide range of reading and encyclopedic knowledge to write nothing more than impressions. Typically, the quality of these impressions is classified based on the harshness of the language used, rather than on technical or artistic criteria that would facilitate a more objective direction for the discussion. Consequently, this critic is akin to what is known as a hipster, an American archetype characterized by deliberately defying the mainstream and the popular to assert self-superiority and legitimacy in their opinions.
So, what are the consequences of this stagnant cultural process?
The most significant negative consequence of this stagnant cultural process is the transformation of healthy cultural discourse in the field of art and literature into a consecration process involving everyone, including authors, critics, publishers, and media centers. In this process, literature shifts from artistic experiences for the recipient, where they interact with it in an aesthetically or even intellectually receptive manner related to the themes of these works, into a social conflict.
There is a well-known triad called the “Triad of Meaning,” consisting of the author, the text, and the reader. The theories of literary knowledge vary in assigning authority over meaning to one of these components, and thus, these critical approaches also differ in their interpretation and reception of literary texts. However, this triad focuses primarily on the pure artistic aspect, neglecting the fact that art and its production are also intertwined with social practice. Since we have mentioned the “authority” held by the academic and journalistic critics, it is worth noting that there is another triad that can be attributed to the French philosopher Michel Foucault, which pertains to the production of knowledge and its relationship to power and discourse. Here, discourse refers to the use of specific language or literary forms to talk about a particular subject, which results in the production of knowledge about that subject within a specific temporal and historical context.
In this case, we are discussing knowledge that is derived from these two critics using specific language and literary forms. These forms have acquired credibility because they originate from individuals with knowledge authority, even if that authority is illusory. This process transforms discourse into an institution in which anyone using this language and literary forms participates, to belong to the club of authority that contributes to producing knowledge related to that specific field of knowledge. In other words, there is a power or force, according to Foucault’s expressions, that arises through the acceptance of cognitive templates that shape a pre-established and fixed discourse within this cultural field of knowledge.
If we take the simple scenario of the process of reading a literary work, starting from someone going to purchase a novel, reading it, and then critiquing it or providing an interpretation of it, we find that this individual is influenced by forces or authorities shared among the actors in the cultural scene, such as the publisher and the bookseller or library, as well as the critic. The publisher decides to publish a novel because its author has a cultural reputation, whether academic or award-winning, or because it is a translated work by a reputable author. All of this is done to promote and sell the novel. This also applies to the bookseller and the exhibitor. As for the critic, sometimes they try to position themselves among these forces/authorities so as not to come out as a loser in this balance. The rest of the readers, however, lack these powers/authorities when participating in this cognitive process.
There are other manifestations that reinforce the idea of this discourse turning into an institution that consecrates specific names and topics. When watching several programs related to literary and artistic works, you can often complete many sentences and anticipate numerous ideas because there is a dedication to certain personalities, statements, and opinions. For example, when the presenter says, “The great Algerian novelist…” you can complete it with “Assia Djebar” or perhaps “Rachid Boudjedra.” If they say, “The Sudanese novelist…” the completion would be “Tayeb Salih” or “Amir Taj Al-Sir.” And if they say, “The Egyptian novelist…” well, you all know him. The high ability to anticipate in this manner certainly indicates a significant problem. It is not reasonable to believe that Algeria, with all its novelists, is unworthy of attention except for Assia, or that Lebanon is only represented by a few names here and there. Rather, this points to the immense number of lost, excellent works that we missed due to this consecration. These unhealthy categorizations are a major factor in the decline of novels and the writers’ eagerness to join this club that holds onto power/authority.
This also applies to the institutions of the book market in the West, even though the formations of power/authority differ. In our society, they have a social and political character, while in the West, they exist where wealth accumulates. They are influenced by everything that contributes to supply and demand, popular culture, and populism.
So, what is the solution?
Confronting this problem must be cultural, meaning it should be based on raising awareness and shedding light on the balance of these forces in the cultural process before dismantling and criticizing them. It is necessary to crystallize and clarify this issue before attempting to solve it. Then, the focus should be on developing reader tools and improving the art of reading and reception by emphasizing literary knowledge theories that make the reader a contributor to meaning creation in the text rather than just evaluating it. All of this is aimed at dismantling the critical idols who have become guardians of meaning in novels and their evaluation, without giving the opportunity for readers in general to contribute to the critique of literary works beyond their boundaries. This would balance the powers/authorities and equalize the scale between “critics” and readers on one hand, and between them and the writers on the other hand, ultimately creating a healthier cultural space and fostering a more enriching reading experience.
T1627
