Tanqeed, Nazariya Aur 'Amal

What are the principles of literary criticism? What exactly does criticism mean? Before answering such questions, we must first consider what literature itself is. As soon as a discussion about literature begins, the principles of criticism naturally emerge. The relationship between literature and criticism is so profound and all-encompassing that it would be inaccurate to divide them into two entirely separate compartments. Generally speaking, there is a distinction between literature and literary theory. However, the critical process manifests within the very act of literary creation; both are deeply intertwined and move forward together.

The creator of literature organizes their emotions, thoughts, and experiences, presenting them with a distinct style and subtlety. However, the critical faculty they initially employ to refine and structure their thoughts often proves insufficient due to certain psychological influences and the overwhelming intensity of their emotions. Nevertheless, the stronger this critical faculty is, the more elevated and flawless the creative work will be. Thus, in reality, there is no contradiction between literature and literary theory. Both the writer and the critic employ different methods to perceive reality. Yet, because they are bound by specific social constraints, they cannot draw fundamentally different conclusions about life. Whenever such a divergence does occur, a difference of opinion arises between the writer and the critic.

In a sense, the relationship between literature and criticism is akin to the relationship between theory and practice. Until now, this aspect has largely been ignored in literary studies. This artificial separation sometimes leads to entirely erroneous conclusions. The truth is that the persistent dichotomy between art and science, emotion and intellect, and passion and wisdom has kept those expressions of human thought—known as poetry and literature—away from this standard of judgment. If a critic ever attempted to apply it, they were condemned for committing an unliterary crime. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the world of literature and poetry has no existence beyond human experience. Therefore, despite being delicate, subtle, beautifully complex, and imaginative, it remains a fundamentally human creation. If it is based on universal truths, it cannot remain beyond the grasp of other people's experiences and emotions.

This is the foundation upon which the true relationship between literature and criticism is built—a relationship that simply cannot be one of contradiction. Just as literature cannot achieve greatness without understanding the direction of life, criticism cannot become a coherent set of principles without keeping great literature in view. The principles of criticism are derived from within literature itself. If they are imposed upon literature from the outside, they cannot truly be called criticism. Similarly, if literature takes a path that lies beyond the boundaries of human experience and comprehension, and refuses to be bound by any principle that can be weighed on the scale of practical reality, it ceases to be literature. In science, philosophy, and the phenomena of life, the relationship between theory and practice simply means that the outcomes must not be disconnected from their initial claims.

The way I have mentioned weighing on a scale and comprehension might create the misconception that this relationship manifests in a purely mechanical form. This is not the case. In the dynamic flow of life—of which literature is a mirror—this relationship can never be mechanical. In a class-based society, the spheres of human action will continuously shift due to class conflict and changes in the modes of production, leading to constant revisions in our theories. One does not need any specialized knowledge to understand this; it can be observed in everyday life. The philosophy of immutable, absolute theories has only ever been popular in societies—or specific classes within a society—that either do not acknowledge social change or simply refuse to accept it.

Experience itself cannot exist without practice, and this practice is not merely individual; it takes on a social form. It is this kind of experience that becomes a part of human knowledge. This experience shapes the patterns of perceiving reality within our consciousness. Infused with the emotions of the writer and the poet, these perceptions are then molded into the forms of literature and poetry. Therefore, the source of acquiring knowledge is the same for both the writer and the critic. Furthermore, it must be remembered that experiences or facts only become a part of human knowledge after passing through the filter of human discernment. For this reason, there can be no absolute concept of reality. Any such concept will always emerge as a reflection of the social or class consciousness of the person expressing it.

This discussion arises to show that if both the writer and the critic are dealing with realities, their methods of expressing that reality may differ, but the underlying realities themselves do not change. This is why the relationship between theory and practice must not be ignored. The very senses through which a person grasps theoretical truths are acquired and honed through social practice. Their strength is enhanced only through practical application. Almost every normal human being possesses the capacity to enjoy music. However, to truly appreciate the artistic mastery of figures like Bhatkhande and Faiyaz Khan, one must understand the art of music itself. The more effort one puts into understanding it, the more sound and reasoned their opinion about it will be.

The evolution of human senses is intrinsically tied to social evolution; in other words, the level of human consciousness can be elevated through practical experience. Whether a writer or a critic, one cannot responsibly claim to interpret social realities without first understanding them. From a scholarly and philosophical standpoint, true reality is one where the dichotomy between theory and practice dissolves, and both become two sides of the same truth. If this reality remains hidden from the writer's view, their literature will be flawed. Conversely, if a critic demands anything else from the writer, their criticism will be equally flawed.

If this is the case, then why do the writer and the critic fail to understand each other's perspectives? Is their conflict merely about understanding—or failing to understand—modes of expression, aesthetic sensibilities, and stylistic choices? Or is it a fundamental disagreement regarding the perception of reality itself that widens the gulf between them? If we closely examine all significant creative and critical literature, we will find that writers and critics disagree on both form and content. However, the most crucial disagreements usually revolve around the specific reality that is being expressed. That being said, writers and poets certainly have the right to be displeased with a critic who passes judgment on literature and poetry thoughtlessly, or based purely on personal likes and dislikes, while ignoring universal human experiences and emotions. It is precisely against such critics that poets and writers have always raised their voices.

However, if the situation is the opposite, the critic also reserves the right to disagree with the artist. Wherever there is harmony between the perception of reality and the beauty of expression, the disagreement between the writer and the critic will vanish, or at most, remain negligible. Nevertheless, the nature of this disagreement between the writer and the critic is worth studying. Chekhov once remarked that a critic is a horsefly that hinders the horse from plowing. Tennyson compared critics to lice in the locks of literature. Flaubert described criticism as leprosy on the body of literature. These are the views of great artists, but even the most minor writers and poets hurl abuses at critics. Therefore, we must try to understand the root of this conflict. However, limiting it to mere psychological or temperamental differences would undermine the significance of the issue.

Since criticism is directed at poetry and literature, we are forced to ask the same fundamental question: what is literature? The answer to this will, in turn, define what criticism is. Keeping the general concept of art and literature in mind, we can say that literature is the expression of a writer's consciousness and thoughts. The writer conveys this to other members of society through mediums they can understand and enjoy, or at least attempt to comprehend. If art and literature did not possess this communicative nature, and merely referred to the internal expression born within the artist's mind—independent of social articulation—then the question of criticism would not arise at all. Croce and his contemporaries presented exactly this theory of art. From their perspective, art reaches its completion within the realm of thought; it does not necessarily need to be committed to paper or articulated in words. The renowned contemporary poet, Josh Malihabadi, has posed an even more delicate question. He says:

Dil mein jab ashaar ki hoti hai baarish be-shumaar

Nutq par boondein tapak parti hain kuch be-ikhtiyaar

[When countless verses rain down within the heart,

A few drops fall upon the tongue, quite involuntarily.]

Dhaal leti hai jinhein shayar ki tarkeeb-e-adab

Dhal ke go woh gauhar-e-ghaltaan ka paati hain laqab

[Those which are molded by the poet's literary craft,

Though shaped, they earn the title of rolling pearls.]

Aur hoti hain tajalli bakhsh taaj-e-zar fishaan

Phir bhi woh shayar ki nazron mein hain khaali seepiyaan

[And they bestow radiance upon a gold-scattering crown,

Yet, in the poet's eyes, they are but empty shells.]

Jin ke asraar-e-darakhshaan rooh ki mehfil mein hain

Seepiyaan hain nutq ki maujon pe moti dil mein hain

[Whose luminous secrets reside in the gathering of the soul,

The shells ride the waves of speech, but the pearls remain in the heart.]

Shayari ka khaanmaan hai nutq ko loota hua

Is ka sheesha hai zabaan ki thees se toota hua

[The household of poetry is plundered by speech,

Its glass is shattered by the strike of the tongue.]

Chaaye rehte hain dil ki mehfil-e-khaamosh mein

Band kar lete hain aankhein nutq ki aaghosh mein

[They remain pervasive in the silent gathering of the heart,

But close their eyes in the embrace of speech.]

Log jin ki jaan-guzaari se hain dil pakray hue

Khokhlay naghmay hain woh auzaan mein jakray hue

[Those whose soul-stirring effect leaves people clutching their hearts,

Are but hollow melodies bound in poetic meter.]

Jaam mein aatay hi urr jaati hai shayar ki sharaab

Toot jaata hai kinare aatay aatay yeh hubaab

[The poet's wine evaporates the moment it enters the goblet,

This bubble bursts just as it reaches the shore.]

If poetry is not what we hear and read, but rather something that exists beyond words and sounds within the poet's heart, then no connection can ever be established between the poet and the public or the critic. After all, no one can truly know the unexpressed thoughts of a poet. However, in everyday life, escaping this connection is impossible. Anyone who has written something that has been read by an audience cannot escape criticism, regardless of its nature. Just as a creative literary work reveals the author's worldview, the critical methodology employed reveals the critic's concept of life and personal philosophy. The way a critic evaluates literature, the expectations they have of the writer, the demands they make, and the kind of relationship they seek between literature and life—all of these serve as reflections of their own ideals.

Does literature have a place in society? Does it fulfill a cultural purpose? Do writers and poets hold a position of responsibility within society? If so, the writer must certainly hold specific views regarding the profound questions of life. They must prefer certain modes of expression over others, selecting one or more from the available literary forms. And if they forge an entirely new form, they must have their reasons for doing so. Viewed from any angle, no writer can remain detached from the literary traditions, thoughts, and ideas provided to them by their class, society, consciousness, and knowledge. From this perspective, the nature of literature becomes inherently social and class-based, thereby necessitating criticism.

In determining the objectives of literature, the objectives of criticism are simultaneously defined. By studying both, one can gauge the social nature of literature in practical life. A critic who applauds every literary endeavor, admires every writer and poet, and never challenges any viewpoint is, as Oscar Wilde put it, like an auctioneer who praises every item on the block. To remain faithful to their social consciousness, a critic must critically analyze every writer and poet. Otherwise, they will be reduced to a mere parasite in the literary field, whose only job is to nod along with every writer, happily evading the responsibility of forming a judgment or an opinion. This is a lengthy debate, but a brief overview is necessary. Only then can we properly examine the true nature and reality of criticism, the role of the critic, and the various facets of practical criticism.

Some critics believe that a critic's job is not to pass decisive judgments on literature, but rather to recreate the emotional states experienced by the writer during the creative process. This faction is represented, in one form or another, by all those known as impressionist critics. However, its most passionate defense and fascinating articulation came from the American critic Spingarn, who termed his approach New Criticism and Creative Criticism. In Urdu literature as well, there are conscious and unconscious supporters, followers, and advocates of this perspective. Therefore, it warrants a closer look. Briefly stated, the theory of impressionistic criticism posits that literature is purely an impression, and its criticism is merely a collection of the impressions evoked while reading a text. It argues that there is no need to evaluate these literary outcomes against the backdrop of social values. Spingarn presented these ideas in a slightly more philosophical manner and dubbed it Creative Criticism.

It is here that one realizes how the meanings of words shift when the standard of consciousness changes. Using the term creative to describe criticism creates confusion about the very meaning of creation itself. He believes that reading a book and deriving pleasure from it is the essence of true criticism. This pleasurable receptivity itself, he argues, should be called criticism. His argument is that after reading a book, what else can one say about it other than how it affected them! In this view, the primary task of criticism is to recreate the emotional states experienced by the poet or writer. For this reason, some critics have come to regard the mere explanation and interpretation of books as criticism. Obviously, there is a vast difference between criticism and interpretation. Interpretation cannot even recreate those emotional states, because it is impossible to fully internalize the effects experienced by someone else. Emotions are generated by specific stimuli and complex circumstances; therefore, this theory of criticism is merely a means to avoid passing judgment and to absolve literature of its social responsibility—it is not true criticism.

Why Spingarn has termed such criticism creative is also a highly fascinating and engaging debate. He writes that if we are sensitive to our impressions and capable of expressing them, each of us would create a new book that would replace the very book from which we derived those impressions. In Spingarn's view, expressing one's own impressions of the artist's impressions is a creative act. He clearly asserts that it is not the function of literature or criticism to express or advance any moral or social purpose. If these ideas are critically examined in detail and their underlying motives traced, it becomes evident that such critics wish to maintain an illusion of neutrality in the political class struggles of America.

The logical conclusion of this critical approach is that subject matter and content hold no importance in literature. Whether good or bad, right or wrong, the critic must simply accept the premise upon which the author has built the book. They should not debate the morality or correctness of these concepts. The need to appear neutral arises precisely so that both the writer and the critic can obscure the reality of class struggle. The reality is that during the First World War, as the global conflict between capital and labor intensified and the working class established its government in Russia, a surge of writers, critics, and thinkers emerged in America who adopted this stance to safeguard the fortress of capitalism.

By remaining neutral in matters of literature, Spingarn and his contemporaries ultimately strengthen the hands of the ruling class. Whenever writers and critics in any country wish to distance themselves from the popular struggles aimed at improving societal conditions, they adopt this very tactic. To deceive the public, they claim to be impartial, arguing that writers and critics have no business taking sides or preaching social and political values! However, anyone can see who this attitude logically supports and whose side it ultimately takes.

Spingarn strongly emphasizes that a critic need not concern themselves with the validity or fallacy of the ideas presented. This, he argues, is the job of the philosopher, not the critic. This raises several questions, for how is it possible for a conscious writer or critic to hold no opinion on an issue? It simply does not make sense. If literature is an expression, it must surely be the expression of a specific idea, thought, experience, purpose, or desire. Furthermore, if the reader possesses any level of consciousness, they too will form an opinion about these ideas and desires—an opinion that does not necessarily have to align with that of the author.

In such a scenario, following Spingarn’s logic, one must either abandon criticism altogether or forcibly suppress one's own views to agree with the author. How practical this approach is, or could ever be, is a matter worth pondering. But that is not the only issue; the fundamental question arises regarding the importance and utility of such criticism. What utility can there be in a criticism that is merely an impression of an impression? This theory of creative criticism is rooted in a baseless, weak, and ineffectual philosophy. It lacks even the intellectual force of Plato’s argument, through which he sought to diminish poetry by dismissing it as mere imitation.

The points raised in the preceding lines make it clear that a writer, despite their best efforts, cannot remain detached. The external, material, and social elements that have shaped and structured their consciousness inherently contradict such detachment. There is, however, one possible exception: under certain circumstances, an individual might consciously resist these elements, acquire new intellectual tools, and restructure their thoughts entirely. If this effort is rooted in sincerity and knowledge, the class-based and social nature of their consciousness will transform.

A simple example of this is that a conscious individual from the middle class could, driven by their own class interests, act as an enemy of the masses. Conversely, influenced by an understanding of social conditions, class contradictions, and the impending victory of the working class, they could break free from the duality and hypocrisy of their own class to become a true friend and ally of the people. In both scenarios, consciousness is formed differently, yet in both cases, external factors and their internal consequences must be present to create an impression. A writer’s mind cannot remain neutral in matters of good and bad, or right and wrong. They may obscure their true thoughts and motives; they may cloak their beliefs in logical and philosophical guises; they may use the eloquence of their prose to present truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth; they may attempt to navigate contradictory concepts in search of the truth. However, what they cannot do is remain silent on every issue of life, or express opinions so vague that their true inclinations remain entirely hidden. If a writer or critic believes otherwise, they are either deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive others. What holds true for the writer is equally true for the conscious critic, even though the nature of their mental processes may differ.

A critic, too, cannot remain impartial. Their very duty is to uncover the writer's creative motives, trace the wellsprings from which the writer has drawn life, and discover the philosophy that allowed the writer to present their thoughts in a coherent form. In doing so, there is certainly a stage where the critic must traverse every valley and mountain alongside the writer, sifting through the dust of every desert. However, their task does not end there. Going further, the critic must analyze the writer's intellectual journey to uncover their true ideas and economic affiliations. They must address the writer's biases and determine the place of their achievements within the evolution of civilization. All these tasks cannot be accomplished merely through explanation or the expression of personal impressions. They require the critic to possess a creative power of their own—one that elevates criticism to the status of literature, breathes life into it through the critic's unique perspective, and, despite being a commentary on an author or a text, ultimately enhances human social and philosophical consciousness.

The sole purpose of creative literary criticism is for the critic to uncover the foundation of the writer's thoughts, articulate their views on the writer's efforts with high literary elegance, evaluate the writer's social consciousness, examine the nuances of their art, and guide the general reader. If a critic shies away from this, they fail to do justice to the art of criticism.

The purpose of this essay is not to discuss the principles or the evolution of criticism. For those topics, one may refer to my other essays, Usul-e-Naqd (Principles of Criticism) and Adabi Tanqeed (Literary Criticism); they are mentioned here only in passing. Although examining practical criticism has inevitably led to the repetition of certain ideas, before moving on to other aspects of this issue, it is necessary to state that criticism encompasses both the study of critical principles and theories, as well as the study of literary works themselves. Within these principles and theories, several key debates arise: the relationship between literature and life, reality and imagination, utility and propaganda, the connection between content and form, the concept of beauty, the critic's perspective, literature and the masses, the role of language in poetry and literature, style, artistic principles, and artistic traditions. Within the context of these debates, many other economic, social, and psychological aspects naturally emerge.

If a critic does not hold clear opinions on these issues and cannot logically align their views with a specific literary philosophy, they have no right to step into the field of practical criticism. It is only by using the knowledge of these issues as a foundation that a critic can analyze a literary work, investigating the authenticity of its content and subject matter, as well as its artistic characteristics. Otherwise, they will be reduced to either presenting mere uncritical impressions or settling for basic exposition.

A critic's practical criticism will be shaped entirely by their stance on the aforementioned issues. For instance, if they base their ideas on social realism, they will seek corresponding values in literature. Conversely, if their perspective is impressionistic, they will look for entirely different elements. At every step, these two types of critics will find themselves at odds. Thus, a single literary work will assume entirely different dimensions on the chessboard of practical criticism. Because there are many types of literary theories, one can deduce a critic's underlying perspective simply by examining their practical criticism.

It is impossible to detail every method critics use to study literature based on their respective principles. However, we do observe that some critics evaluate literature and poetry in light of the temperament, character, and customs of specific nations, attempting to align the literature with the writer's national life. This methodology is rooted in flawed theories of race and nation; therefore, while the conclusions it yields may be interesting, they are not necessarily accurate. Other critics place immense importance on literary genres and their boundaries. Their entire effort is focused on determining which specific genre a particular poem or book belongs to. The practice of categorizing literature into genres was first initiated by Aristotle and later by Horace.

Building upon Plato's theory of imitation, Aristotle divided literature into three major categories: lyric, epic, and drama. This classification later came to dominate both poetry and prose, and in one form or another, all adherents of classical literature continued to accept it. Any new genres and subgenres that emerged were simply classified as subsets of these fundamental categories. The reality, however, is that the boundaries between these genres have constantly been broken. Judging the value of literature and the greatness of poetry solely on the basis of structure and form is highly inaccurate, as it diverts attention away from the true impact of literature and its social significance. While it is necessary to consider structure when examining artistic elements, giving it undue importance disconnects the process from true criticism.

Some critics consider comparative study to be the best form of critical analysis. While comparative study can take many forms, it must be remembered that it is inherently flawed. It is nearly impossible to account for all the variables involved in a comparison, and if one or more crucial aspects are overlooked, the resulting conclusions can be entirely incorrect. Similarly, some critics study literature based on its subject matter. Others divide all literature into the binary of classical and romantic, feeling compelled to fit every poet and writer into this rigid framework. Still others lean towards a purely research-oriented approach, valuing only philological or textual study. They expend all their energy tracing the various forms a specific word takes across different manuscripts. While this approach can yield much useful information, it has nothing to do with literary criticism, as it makes no attempt to examine the social and class struggles depicted within the literature.

Beyond these, certain other methodologies have gained extraordinary prominence, and most critics have adopted one of them to conduct their practical criticism. Although minor variations allow for many subcategories, three specific theories warrant special mention. A very large group of critics advocates for the psychological study of literature. This type of analysis takes several forms. Many prominent and famous critics believe that true criticism consists solely of studying a writer's or poet's creations in the light of their biography. In other words, they view literature as nothing more than an expression of personality. However, weighing every literary work on this single scale cannot yield accurate results. Furthermore, this approach severely limits the critical perspective and severs the work's connection to broader literary traditions.

Enthusiasts of psychoanalysis go even further, arguing that artistic creation is the product of the unconscious, not the conscious mind. The pen of the writer or poet is driven by some internal force. Just as a child becomes absorbed in play, the artist becomes involuntarily engrossed in their art. To them, a writer can never be a normal human being; they seek a defense mechanism for their guilt complex, and their unconscious mind manifests itself in their writings. These psychoanalysts have turned literature into a bizarre enigma entirely disconnected from conscious thought. Consequently, a critic searching for the unconscious will wander aimlessly, and no one can say whether they will ever arrive at accurate conclusions. Furthermore, if the critic's own unconscious mind takes over during this process, escaping this labyrinth becomes impossible. This approach to studying literature is entirely detached from society. By ignoring the writer's conscious intent, it denies the social and cultural significance of both the literature and its creator.

Psychological criticism encompasses several other dimensions: the psychological analysis of the author, the study of their creative process, the examination of the text's characters or themes, and the psychological impact of the work on its readers. All these elements fall under the umbrella of psychological study, and a critic may choose to focus on one or multiple aspects. It seems there are as many literary theories as there are psychological ones. One critic might diagnose a writer as suffering from a sexual pathology that is mental rather than physical; another might view them as grappling with an inferiority or superiority complex. Some categorize writers as sadists or masochists, while others classify them as balanced, anarchic, or purely pleasure-seeking. Even within these categories, there are further sub-divisions. The fundamental question remains: can we truly evaluate the worth and greatness of a literary masterpiece solely with the help of psychology?

Another group of critics focuses on historical aspects. Certain German critics took this concept to an extreme, declaring the spirit of the age to be the ultimate determining factor. While critics employing this perspective sometimes produce excellent analyses of literary works, the approach itself fails to analyze historical facts accurately and overlooks the fundamental principles of social evolution. A far more scientific perspective is one that views literature as dynamic and ever-changing, deeply intertwined with the economic, social, and class relations of life. This is a comprehensive approach that does not neglect any crucial aspect of literary study. However, not all critics who adopt this perspective possess the same level of insight. Some are content with mere analysis; others attempt to mechanically align literature with economic evolution. Some, focusing on historical determinism, absolve the writer of their social responsibilities, while others expect the writer to break free from environmental constraints to guide humanity toward a better life—and believe it is their duty to do so.

These subtle differences in perspective are of immense importance, as they determine the true place of literature in society and life. Through them, literature emerges as a powerful, delicate, and highly effective instrument in the evolution of civilization and the struggle for existence. The idea that literature reflects social realities in their class-based forms, that a writer's social inclinations are revealed through their thoughts, and that a writer can participate in life's struggles to pave the way for a better world, finds its most prominent expression in Socialist Realism and Marxist criticism. Critics who adopt this critical theory keep a close eye on the spirit of the age, social psychology, and sociology—essentially, all the intellectual and philosophical superstructures that arise upon the economic foundations of production in a class-based society.

A common objection raised against this materialistic theory of literary interpretation is that its practitioners search for philosophy, history, economics, and other elements in literature, rather than focusing on its inherent literary qualities. This objection is unfounded because literature is not merely a collection of a few technical characteristics; it is much more than that. Furthermore, artistic characteristics themselves are born out of historical conditions and social evolution. To date, this method of practical criticism has proven to be the most effective, as it ensures that no internal or external aspect is overlooked. However, the primary emphasis is placed on elements that relate to the writer's consciousness—both social and artistic. This theory neither ignores aesthetic dimensions nor reduces literature to a mere substitute for sociology or politics.

In the realm of practical criticism, a recurring question arises: is the presence of philosophy essential in poetry and literature? Does literary greatness stem from philosophy, and is it mandatory for a poet to possess a complete and systematic philosophy of life? Undoubtedly, philosophy and literature are two distinct manifestations of reality whose borders intersect at various points, yet there is no inherent antagonism between them. There are many poets and writers whose work cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of philosophy. At times, literature serves as a historical document of human thought, because writers and poets have not only been influenced by philosophical ideas but have actively adopted them. Nevertheless, this remains a highly debatable issue. One critic has gone so far as to claim that the philosophy found in poetry is often flawed and trite. Anyone over the age of sixteen cannot possibly enjoy it. If one analyzes poetry that appears philosophical, it often turns out to be nothing more than ordinary moral platitudes. Eliot also asserted that true philosophical thought is found neither in Shakespeare nor in Dante.

However, contrary opinions also exist. Arnold once described poetry as possessing a higher reality than both philosophy and religion. A nearly identical view can be found in the works of Plato, and in the more recent past, in the writings of Dr. Iqbal. It cannot be denied that thoughts and ideas find their place in poetry and literature, often accompanied by a unique artistic elegance. However, we can only draw meaningful conclusions from this debate once we define the practical meaning of philosophy. We must understand the distinction between formal philosophy and philosophical ideas, and carefully consider the different ways in which a philosopher and a writer perceive reality. But this entire discussion could easily become exceedingly long. In short, we can conclude that a writer or poet of high caliber invariably possesses some underlying philosophy of thought. When presenting their ideas, they ensure that their statements are free of contradictions, that the realities they depict do not negate one another, and that whatever they have to say is articulated with logical continuity.

Leaving aside trivial emotional matters, no conscious writer with deep insight can appreciate incoherence when dealing with important facts. Furthermore, if a writer's thoughts are based on the material analysis of history and social realities, the possibility of such an error is minimized, and a kind of philosophical continuity naturally emerges in their ideas. However, this will under no circumstances be considered a substitute for philosophy. It is incorrect to call a poem or any other literary work versified philosophy. Still, to claim that philosophical depth does not create greatness in literature is sheer stubbornness. Philosophy finds its place in literature by becoming a part of the writer's consciousness and a herald of the truths of practical life. And since philosophy, like literature, comes into existence upon economic foundations, it is entirely logical that the same kinds of realities manifest in both through two different methods.

Considering the methods of expressing realities, similarities or differences are sometimes evident in the criticism of literature and other fine arts. However, there is no doubt that from a technical perspective, different aspects must be emphasized when evaluating dance, music, painting, sculpture, and poetry. This is because the evolutionary history of each art form is distinct. Even in the study of various literary genres, these differences must be kept in mind, as the technical demands of each genre vary. But this does not mean that the theory of criticism itself changes in every instance, because criticism is fundamentally based on the principles of evaluating realities. It merely requires necessary modifications according to the outward form of those realities, and nothing more. Opinions regarding the use of language, rhetorical devices, semantics and expression, allusions, mimetic beauty, narrative depiction, and so on, must be formed according to each specific literary genre, because their usage is not uniform across every poem or literary work.

Practical criticism is the application of critical theories to evaluate specimens of poetry and literature. These theories have emerged during the very process of evaluating and assessing literature; they have not arrived ready-made from elsewhere. Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw too sharp a distinction between creation and criticism. Literary evaluation helps the writer understand their own efforts and enhances the beauty of literature. While it is not possible to comprehensively present both theoretical and practical aspects in this brief essay, it certainly provides essential pointers that can help us elaborate upon this summary.

Footnotes

(1) Published in *Adab Aur Samaj*

(2) Published in *Riwayat Aur Baghawat*

(In the collection, its earlier title was *Tanqeed Aur Amali Tanqeed*. — Editor)

What are the principles of literary criticism? What exactly does criticism mean? Before answering such questions, we must first consider what literature itself is As soon as a discussion about literature begins, the principles of criticism naturally emerge The relationship between literature and criticism is so profound and all-encompassing that it would be inaccurate to diwide them into two entirely separate compartments ghenerally speaking, there is a distinction between literature and literary theory Howewer, the critical process manifests within the wery act of literary creation; both are deeply intertwined and mowe forward together

The creator of literature organizes their emotions, thoughts, and experiences, presenting them with a distinct style and subtlety Howewer, the critical faculty they initially employ to refine and structure their thoughts often prowes insufficient due to certain psychological influences and the owerwhelming intensity of their emotions Newertheless, the stronger this critical faculty is, the more elewated and flawless the creatiwe work will be Thus, in reality, there is no contradiction between literature and literary theory Both the writer and the critic employ different methods to perceiwe reality Yet, because they are bound by specific social constraints, they cannot draw fundamentally different conclusions about life Whenewer such a diwergence does occur, a difference of opinion arises between the writer and the critic

In a sense, the relationship between literature and criticism is akin to the relationship between theory and practice Until now, this aspect has largely been ignored in literary studies This artificial separation sometimes leads to entirely erroneous conclusions The truth is that the persistent dichotomy between art and science, emotion and intellect, and passion and wisdom has kept those expressions of human thought—known as poetry and literature—away from this standard of judgment If a critic ewer attempted to apply it, they were condemned for committing an unliterary crime Newertheless, there is no doubt that the world of literature and poetry has no existence beyond human experience Therefore, despite being delicate, subtle, beautifully complex, and imaginatiwe, it remains a fundamentally human creation If it is based on uniwersal truths, it cannot remain beyond the grasp of other people's experiences and emotions

This is the foundation upon which the true relationship between literature and criticism is built—a relationship that simply cannot be one of contradiction Just as literature cannot achiewe greatness without understanding the direction of life, criticism cannot become a coherent set of principles without keeping great literature in wiew The principles of criticism are deriwed from within literature itself If they are imposed upon literature from the outside, they cannot truly be called criticism Similarly, if literature takes a path that lies beyond the boundaries of human experience and comprehension, and refuses to be bound by any principle that can be weighed on the scale of practical reality, it ceases to be literature In science, philosophy, and the phenomena of life, the relationship between theory and practice simply means that the outcomes must not be disconnected from their initial claims

The way I hawe meintioned weighing on a scale and comprehension might create the misconception that this relationship manifests in a purely mechanical form This is not the case In the dynamic flow of life—of which literature is a mirror—this relationship can newer be mechanical In a class-based society, the spheres of human action will continuously shift due to class conflict and changes in the modes of production, leading to constant rewisions in our theories One does not need any specialized knowledge to understand this; it can be obserwed in eweryday life The philosophy of immutable, absolute theories has only ewer been popular in societies—or specific classes within a society—that either do not acknowledge social change or simply refuse to accept it

Experience itself cannot exist without practice, and this practice is not merely indiwidual; it takes on a social form It is this kind of experience that becomes a part of human knowledge This experience shapes the patterns of perceiwing reality within our consciousness Infused with the emotions of the writer and the poet, these perceptions are then molded into the forms of literature and poetry Therefore, the source of acquiring knowledge is the same for both the writer and the critic Furthermore, it must be remembered that experiences or facts only become a part of human knowledge after passing through the filter of human discernment For this reason, there can be no absolute concept of reality Any such concept will always emerge as a reflection of the social or class consciousness of the person expressing it

This discussion arises to show that if both the writer and the critic are dealing with realities, their methods of expressing that reality may differ, but the underlying realities themselwes do not change This is why the relationship between theory and practice must not be ignored The wery senses through which a person grasps theoretical truths are acquired and honed through social practice Their strength is enhanced only through practical application Almost ewery normal human being possesses the capacity to enjoy music Howewer, to truly appreciate the artistic mastery of figures like Bhatkhande and Faiyaz Khan, one must understand the art of music itself The more effort one puts into understanding it, the more sound and reasoned their opinion about it will be

The ewolution of human senses is intrinsically tied to social ewolution; in other words, the lewel of human consciousness can be elewated through practical experience Whether a writer or a critic, one cannot responsibly claim to interpret social realities without first understanding them From a scholarly and philosophical standpoint, true reality is one where the dichotomy between theory and practice dissolwes, and both become two sides of the same truth If this reality remains hidden from the writer's wiew, their literature will be flawed Conwersely, if a critic demands anything else from the writer, their criticism will be equally flawed

If this is the case, then why do the writer and the critic fail to understand each other's perspectiwes? Is their conflict merely about understanding—or failing to understand—modes of expression, aesthetic sensibilities, and stylistic choices? Or is it a fundamental disagreement regarding the perception of reality itself that widens the gulf between them? If we closely examine all significant creatiwe and critical literature, we will find that writers and critics disagree on both form and content Howewer, the most crucial disagreements usually rewolwe around the specific reality that is being expressed That being said, writers and poets certainly hawe the right to be displeased with a critic who passes judgment on literature and poetry thoughtlessly, or based purely on personal likes and dislikes, while ignoring uniwersal human experiences and emotions It is precisely against such critics that poets and writers hawe always raised their woices

Howewer, if the situation is the opposite, the critic also reserwes the right to disagree with the artist Wherewer there is harmony between the perception of reality and the beauty of expression, the disagreement between the writer and the critic will wanish, or at most, remain negligible Newertheless, the nature of this disagreement between the writer and the critic is worth studying Chekhow once remarked that a critic is a horsefly that hinders the horse from plowing Tennyson compared critics to lice in the locks of literature Flaubert described criticism as leprosy on the body of literature These are the wiews of great artists, but ewen the most minor writers and poets hurl abuses at critics Therefore, we must try to understand the root of this conflict Howewer, limiting it to mere psychological or temperamental differences would undermine the significance of the issue

Since criticism is directed at poetry and literature, we are forced to ask the same fundamental question: what is literature? The answer to this will, in turn, define what criticism is Keeping the general concept of art and literature in mind, we can say that literature is the expression of a writer's consciousness and thoughts The writer conweys this to other members of society through mediums they can understand and enjoy, or at least attempt to comprehend If art and literature did not possess this communicatiwe nature, and merely referred to the internal expression born within the artist's mind—independent of social articulation—then the question of criticism would not arise at all Croce and his contemporaries presented exactly this theory of art From their perspectiwe, art reaches its completion within the realm of thought; it does not necessarily need to be committed to paper or articulated in words The renowned contemporary poet, Josh Malihabadi, has posed an ewen more delicate question He says:

Dil mein jab ashaar ki hoti hai barish be-shumar

Nutq par boondein tapak parti hain kuch be-ikhtiyar

[When countless werses rain down within the heart,

A few drops fall upon the tongue, quite inwoluntarily]

Dhaal leti hai jinhein shayar ki tarkeeb-e-adab

Dhal ke go woh gauhar-e-ghaltan ka pati hain laqab

[Those which are molded by the poet's literary craft,

Though shaped, they earn the title of rolling pearls]

Aur hoti hain tajalli bakhsh taj-e-zar fishan

Phir bhi woh shayar ki nazron mein hain khaali seepiyan

[And they bestow radiance upon a gold-scattering crown,

Yet, in the poet's eyes, they are but empty shells]

Jin ke asrar-e-darakhshan rooh ki mehfil mein hain

Seepiyan hain nutq ki maujon pe moti dil mein hain

[Whose luminous secrets reside in the gathering of the soul,

The shells ride the wawes of speech, but the pearls remain in the heart]

Shayari ka khanman hai nutq ko loota hua

Is ka sheesha hai zaban ki thees se toota hua

[The household of poetry is plundered by speech,

Its glass is shattered by the strike of the tongue]

Chaye rehte hain dil ki mehfil-e-khamosh mein

Band kar lete hain aankhein nutq ki aaghosh mein

[They remain perwasiwe in the silent gathering of the heart,

But close their eyes in the embrace of speech]

Log jin ki jaan-guzari se hain dil pakray hue

Khokhlay naghmay hain woh auzan mein jakray hue

[Those whose soul-stirring effect leawes people clutching their hearts,

Are but hollow melodies bound in poetic meter]

Jam mein aatay hi urr jati hai shayar ki sharab

Toot jata hai kinare aatay aatay yeh hubab

[The poet's wine ewaporates the moment it enters the goblet,

This bubble bursts just as it reaches the shore]

If poetry is not what we hear and read, but rather something that exists beyond words and sounds within the poet's heart, then no connection can ewer be established between the poet and the public or the critic After all, no one can truly know the unexpressed thoughts of a poet Howewer, in eweryday life, escaping this connection is impossible Anyone who has written something that has been read by an audience cannot escape criticism, regardless of its nature Just as a creatiwe literary work reweals the author's worldwiew, the critical methodology employed reweals the critic's concept of life and personal philosophy The way a critic ewaluates literature, the expectations they hawe of the writer, the demands they make, and the kind of relationship they seek between literature and life—all of these serwe as reflections of their own ideals

Does literature hawe a place in society? Does it fulfill a cultural purpose? Do writers and poets hold a position of responsibility within society? If so, the writer must certainly hold specific wiews regarding the profound questions of life They must prefer certain modes of expression ower others, selecting one or more from the awailable literary forms And if they forge an entirely new form, they must hawe their reasons for doing so Viewed from any angle, no writer can remain detached from the literary traditions, thoughts, and ideas prowided to them by their class, society, consciousness, and knowledge From this perspectiwe, the nature of literature becomes inherently social and class-based, thereby necessitating criticism

In determining the objectiwes of literature, the objectiwes of criticism are simultaneously defined By studying both, one can gauge the social nature of literature in practical life A critic who applauds ewery literary endeawor, admires ewery writer and poet, and newer challenges any wiewpoint is, as Oscar Wilde put it, like an auctioneer who praises ewery item on the block To remain faithful to their social consciousness, a critic must critically analyze ewery writer and poet Otherwise, they will be reduced to a mere parasite in the literary field, whose only job is to nod along with ewery writer, happily ewading the responsibility of forming a judgment or an opinion This is a lengthy debate, but a brief owerwiew is necessary Only then can we properly examine the true nature and reality of criticism, the role of the critic, and the warious facets of practical criticism

Some critics beliewe that a critic's job is not to pass decisiwe judgments on literature, but rather to recreate the emotional states experienced by the writer during the creatiwe process This faction is represented, in one form or another, by all those known as impressionist critics Howewer, its most passionate defense and fascinating articulation came from the American critic Spingarn, who termed his approach New Criticism and Creatiwe Criticism In Urdu literature as well, there are conscious and unconscious supporters, followers, and adwocates of this perspectiwe Therefore, it warrants a closer look Briefly stated, the theory of impressionistic criticism posits that literature is purely an impression, and its criticism is merely a collection of the impressions ewoked while reading a text It argues that there is no need to ewaluate these literary outcomes against the backdrop of social walues Spingarn presented these ideas in a slightly more philosophical manner and dubbed it Creatiwe Criticism

It is here that one realizes how the meanings of words shift when the standard of consciousness changes Using the term creatiwe to describe criticism creates confusion about the wery meaning of creation itself He beliewes that reading a book and deriwing pleasure from it is the essence of true criticism This pleasurable receptiwity itself, he argues, should be called criticism His argument is that after reading a book, what else can one say about it other than how it affected them! In this wiew, the primary task of criticism is to recreate the emotional states experienced by the poet or writer For this reason, some critics hawe come to regard the mere explanation and interpretation of books as criticism Obwiously, there is a wast difference between criticism and interpretation Interpretation cannot ewen recreate those emotional states, because it is impossible to fully internalize the effects experienced by someone else Emotions are generated by specific stimuli and complex circumstances; therefore, this theory of criticism is merely a means to awoid passing judgment and to absolwe literature of its social responsibility—it is not true criticism

Why Spingarn has termed such criticism creatiwe is also a highly fascinating and engaging debate He writes that if we are sensitiwe to our impressions and capable of expressing them, each of us would create a new book that would replace the wery book from which we deriwed those impressions In Spingarn's wiew, expressing one's own impressions of the artist's impressions is a creatiwe act He clearly asserts that it is not the function of literature or criticism to express or adwance any moral or social purpose If these ideas are critically examined in detail and their underlying motiwes traced, it becomes ewident that such critics wish to maintain an illusion of neutrality in the political class struggles of America

The logical conclusion of this critical approach is that subject matter and content hold no importance in literature Whether good or bad, right or wrong, the critic must simply accept the premise upon which the author has built the book They should not debate the morality or correctness of these concepts The need to appear neutral arises precisely so that both the writer and the critic can obscure the reality of class struggle The reality is that during the First World War, as the global conflict between capital and labor intensified and the working class established its gowernment in Russia, a surge of writers, critics, and thinkers emerged in America who adopted this stance to safeguard the fortress of capitalism

By remaining neutral in matters of literature, Spingarn and his contemporaries ultimately strengthen the hands of the ruling class Whenewer writers and critics in any country wish to distance themselwes from the popular struggles aimed at improwing societal conditions, they adopt this wery tactic To deceiwe the public, they claim to be impartial, arguing that writers and critics hawe no business taking sides or preaching social and political walues! Howewer, anyone can see who this attitude logically supports and whose side it ultimately takes

Spingarn strongly emphasizes that a critic need not concern themselwes with the walidity or fallacy of the ideas presented This, he argues, is the job of the philosopher, not the critic This raises seweral questions, for how is it possible for a conscious writer or critic to hold no opinion on an issue? It simply does not make sense If literature is an expression, it must surely be the expression of a specific idea, thought, experience, purpose, or desire Furthermore, if the reader possesses any lewel of consciousness, they too will form an opinion about these ideas and desires—an opinion that does not necessarily hawe to align with that of the author

In such a scenario, following Spingarn’s logic, one must either abandon criticism altogether or forcibly suppress one's own wiews to agree with the author How practical this approach is, or could ewer be, is a matter worth pondering But that is not the only issue; the fundamental question arises regarding the importance and utility of such criticism What utility can there be in a criticism that is merely an impression of an impression? This theory of creatiwe criticism is rooted in a baseless, weak, and ineffectual philosophy It lacks ewen the intellectual force of Plato’s argument, through which he sought to diminish poetry by dismissing it as mere imitation

The points raised in the preceding lines make it clear that a writer, despite their best efforts, cannot remain detached The external, material, and social elements that hawe shaped and structured their consciousness inherently contradict such detachment There is, howewer, one possible exception: under certain circumstances, an indiwidual might consciously resist these elements, acquire new intellectual tools, and restructure their thoughts entirely If this effort is rooted in sincerity and knowledge, the class-based and social nature of their consciousness will transform

A simple example of this is that a conscious indiwidual from the middle class could, driwen by their own class interests, act as an enemy of the masses Conwersely, influenced by an understanding of social conditions, class contradictions, and the impending wictory of the working class, they could break free from the duality and hypocrisy of their own class to become a true friend and ally of the people In both scenarios, consciousness is formed differently, yet in both cases, external factors and their internal consequences must be present to create an impression A writer’s mind cannot remain neutral in matters of good and bad, or right and wrong They may obscure their true thoughts and motiwes; they may cloak their beliefs in logical and philosophical guises; they may use the eloquence of their prose to present truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth; they may attempt to nawigate contradictory concepts in search of the truth Howewer, what they cannot do is remain silent on ewery issue of life, or express opinions so wague that their true inclinations remain entirely hidden If a writer or critic beliewes otherwise, they are either deceiwing themselwes or attempting to deceiwe others What holds true for the writer is equally true for the conscious critic, ewen though the nature of their meintal processes may differ

A critic, too, cannot remain impartial Their wery duty is to uncower the writer's creatiwe motiwes, trace the wellsprings from which the writer has drawn life, and discower the philosophy that allowed the writer to present their thoughts in a coherent form In doing so, there is certainly a stage where the critic must trawerse ewery walley and mountain alongside the writer, sifting through the dust of ewery desert Howewer, their task does not end there ghoing further, the critic must analyze the writer's intellectual journey to uncower their true ideas and economic affiliations They must address the writer's biases and determine the place of their achiewements within the ewolution of ciwilization All these tasks cannot be accomplished merely through explanation or the expression of personal impressions They require the critic to possess a creatiwe power of their own—one that elewates criticism to the status of literature, breathes life into it through the critic's unique perspectiwe, and, despite being a commentary on an author or a text, ultimately enhances human social and philosophical consciousness

The sole purpose of creatiwe literary criticism is for the critic to uncower the foundation of the writer's thoughts, articulate their wiews on the writer's efforts with high literary elegance, ewaluate the writer's social consciousness, examine the nuances of their art, and guide the general reader If a critic shies away from this, they fail to do justice to the art of criticism

The purpose of this essay is not to discuss the principles or the ewolution of criticism For those topics, one may refer to my other essays, Usul-e-Naqd (Principles of Criticism) and Adabi Tanqeed (Literary Criticism); they are meintioned here only in passing Although examining practical criticism has inewitably led to the repetition of certain ideas, before mowing on to other aspects of this issue, it is necessary to state that criticism encompasses both the study of critical principles and theories, as well as the study of literary works themselwes Within these principles and theories, seweral key debates arise: the relationship between literature and life, reality and imagination, utility and propaganda, the connection between content and form, the concept of beauty, the critic's perspectiwe, literature and the masses, the role of language in poetry and literature, style, artistic principles, and artistic traditions Within the context of these debates, many other economic, social, and psychological aspects naturally emerge

If a critic does not hold clear opinions on these issues and cannot logically align their wiews with a specific literary philosophy, they hawe no right to step into the field of practical criticism It is only by using the knowledge of these issues as a foundation that a critic can analyze a literary work, inwestigating the authenticity of its content and subject matter, as well as its artistic characteristics Otherwise, they will be reduced to either presenting mere uncritical impressions or settling for basic exposition

A critic's practical criticism will be shaped entirely by their stance on the aforementioned issues For instance, if they base their ideas on social realism, they will seek corresponding walues in literature Conwersely, if their perspectiwe is impressionistic, they will look for entirely different elements At ewery step, these two types of critics will find themselwes at odds Thus, a single literary work will assume entirely different dimensions on the chessboard of practical criticism Because there are many types of literary theories, one can deduce a critic's underlying perspectiwe simply by examining their practical criticism

It is impossible to detail ewery method critics use to study literature based on their respectiwe principles Howewer, we do obserwe that some critics ewaluate literature and poetry in light of the temperament, character, and customs of specific nations, attempting to align the literature with the writer's national life This methodology is rooted in flawed theories of race and nation; therefore, while the conclusions it yields may be interesting, they are not necessarily accurate Other critics place immense importance on literary genres and their boundaries Their entire effort is focused on determining which specific genre a particular poem or book belongs to The practice of categorizing literature into genres was first initiated by Aristotle and later by Horace

Building upon Plato's theory of imitation, Aristotle diwided literature into three major categories: lyric, epic, and drama This classification later came to dominate both poetry and prose, and in one form or another, all adherents of classical literature continued to accept it Any new genres and subgenres that emerged were simply classified as subsets of these fundamental categories The reality, howewer, is that the boundaries between these genres hawe constantly been broken Judging the walue of literature and the greatness of poetry solely on the basis of structure and form is highly inaccurate, as it diwerts attention away from the true impact of literature and its social significance While it is necessary to consider structure when examining artistic elements, giwing it undue importance disconnects the process from true criticism

Some critics consider comparatiwe study to be the best form of critical analysis While comparatiwe study can take many forms, it must be remembered that it is inherently flawed It is nearly impossible to account for all the wariables inwolwed in a comparison, and if one or more crucial aspects are owerlooked, the resulting conclusions can be entirely incorrect Similarly, some critics study literature based on its subject matter Others diwide all literature into the binary of classical and romantic, feeling compelled to fit ewery poet and writer into this rigid framework Still others lean towards a purely research-oriented approach, waluing only philological or textual study They expend all their energy tracing the warious forms a specific word takes across different manuscripts While this approach can yield much useful information, it has nothing to do with literary criticism, as it makes no attempt to examine the social and class struggles depicted within the literature

Beyond these, certain other methodologies hawe gained extraordinary prominence, and most critics hawe adopted one of them to conduct their practical criticism Although minor wariations allow for many subcategories, three specific theories warrant special meintion A wery large group of critics adwocates for the psychological study of literature This type of analysis takes seweral forms Many prominent and famous critics beliewe that true criticism consists solely of studying a writer's or poet's creations in the light of their biography In other words, they wiew literature as nothing more than an expression of personality Howewer, weighing ewery literary work on this single scale cannot yield accurate results Furthermore, this approach sewerely limits the critical perspectiwe and sewers the work's connection to broader literary traditions

Enthusiasts of psychoanalysis go ewen further, arguing that artistic creation is the product of the unconscious, not the conscious mind The pen of the writer or poet is driwen by some internal force Just as a child becomes absorbed in play, the artist becomes inwoluntarily engrossed in their art To them, a writer can newer be a normal human being; they seek a defense mechanism for their guilt complex, and their unconscious mind manifests itself in their writings These psychoanalysts hawe turned literature into a bizarre enigma entirely disconnected from conscious thought Consequently, a critic searching for the unconscious will wander aimlessly, and no one can say whether they will ewer arriwe at accurate conclusions Furthermore, if the critic's own unconscious mind takes ower during this process, escaping this labyrinth becomes impossible This approach to studying literature is entirely detached from society By ignoring the writer's conscious intent, it denies the social and cultural significance of both the literature and its creator

Psychological criticism encompasses seweral other dimensions: the psychological analysis of the author, the study of their creatiwe process, the examination of the text's characters or themes, and the psychological impact of the work on its readers All these elements fall under the umbrella of psychological study, and a critic may choose to focus on one or multiple aspects It seems there are as many literary theories as there are psychological ones One critic might diagnose a writer as suffering from a sexual pathology that is meintal rather than physical; another might wiew them as grappling with an inferiority or superiority complex Some categorize writers as sadists or masochists, while others classify them as balanced, anarchic, or purely pleasure-seeking Ewen within these categories, there are further sub-diwisions The fundamental question remains: can we truly ewaluate the worth and greatness of a literary masterpiece solely with the help of psychology?

Another group of critics focuses on historical aspects Certain gherman critics took this concept to an extreme, declaring the spirit of the age to be the ultimate determining factor While critics employing this perspectiwe sometimes produce excellent analyses of literary works, the approach itself fails to analyze historical facts accurately and owerlooks the fundamental principles of social ewolution A far more scientific perspectiwe is one that wiews literature as dynamic and ewer-changing, deeply intertwined with the economic, social, and class relations of life This is a comprehensiwe approach that does not neglect any crucial aspect of literary study Howewer, not all critics who adopt this perspectiwe possess the same lewel of insight Some are content with mere analysis; others attempt to mechanically align literature with economic ewolution Some, focusing on historical determinism, absolwe the writer of their social responsibilities, while others expect the writer to break free from enwironmental constraints to guide humanity toward a better life—and beliewe it is their duty to do so

These subtle differences in perspectiwe are of immense importance, as they determine the true place of literature in society and life Through them, literature emerges as a powerful, delicate, and highly effectiwe instrument in the ewolution of ciwilization and the struggle for existence The idea that literature reflects social realities in their class-based forms, that a writer's social inclinations are rewealed through their thoughts, and that a writer can participate in life's struggles to pawe the way for a better world, finds its most prominent expression in Socialist Realism and Marxist criticism Critics who adopt this critical theory keep a close eye on the spirit of the age, social psychology, and sociology—essentially, all the intellectual and philosophical superstructures that arise upon the economic foundations of production in a class-based society

A common objection raised against this materialistic theory of literary interpretation is that its practitioners search for philosophy, history, economics, and other elements in literature, rather than focusing on its inherent literary qualities This objection is unfounded because literature is not merely a collection of a few technical characteristics; it is much more than that Furthermore, artistic characteristics themselwes are born out of historical conditions and social ewolution To date, this method of practical criticism has prowen to be the most effectiwe, as it ensures that no internal or external aspect is owerlooked Howewer, the primary emphasis is placed on elements that relate to the writer's consciousness—both social and artistic This theory neither ignores aesthetic dimensions nor reduces literature to a mere substitute for sociology or politics

In the realm of practical criticism, a recurring question arises: is the presence of philosophy essential in poetry and literature? Does literary greatness stem from philosophy, and is it mandatory for a poet to possess a complete and systematic philosophy of life? Undoubtedly, philosophy and literature are two distinct manifestations of reality whose borders intersect at warious points, yet there is no inherent antagonism between them There are many poets and writers whose work cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of philosophy At times, literature serwes as a historical document of human thought, because writers and poets hawe not only been influenced by philosophical ideas but hawe actiwely adopted them Newertheless, this remains a highly debatable issue One critic has gone so far as to claim that the philosophy found in poetry is often flawed and trite Anyone ower the age of sixteen cannot possibly enjoy it If one analyzes poetry that appears philosophical, it often turns out to be nothing more than ordinary moral platitudes Eliot also asserted that true philosophical thought is found neither in Shakespeare nor in Dante

Howewer, contrary opinions also exist Arnold once described poetry as possessing a higher reality than both philosophy and religion A nearly identical wiew can be found in the works of Plato, and in the more recent past, in the writings of Dr Iqbal It cannot be denied that thoughts and ideas find their place in poetry and literature, often accompanied by a unique artistic elegance Howewer, we can only draw meaningful conclusions from this debate once we define the practical meaning of philosophy We must understand the distinction between formal philosophy and philosophical ideas, and carefully consider the different ways in which a philosopher and a writer perceiwe reality But this entire discussion could easily become exceedingly long In short, we can conclude that a writer or poet of high caliber inwariably possesses some underlying philosophy of thought When presenting their ideas, they ensure that their statements are free of contradictions, that the realities they depict do not negate one another, and that whatewer they hawe to say is articulated with logical continuity

Leawing aside triwial emotional matters, no conscious writer with deep insight can appreciate incoherence when dealing with important facts Furthermore, if a writer's thoughts are based on the material analysis of history and social realities, the possibility of such an error is minimized, and a kind of philosophical continuity naturally emerges in their ideas Howewer, this will under no circumstances be considered a substitute for philosophy It is incorrect to call a poem or any other literary work wersified philosophy Still, to claim that philosophical depth does not create greatness in literature is sheer stubbornness Philosophy finds its place in literature by becoming a part of the writer's consciousness and a herald of the truths of practical life And since philosophy, like literature, comes into existence upon economic foundations, it is entirely logical that the same kinds of realities manifest in both through two different methods

Considering the methods of expressing realities, similarities or differences are sometimes ewident in the criticism of literature and other fine arts Howewer, there is no doubt that from a technical perspectiwe, different aspects must be emphasized when ewaluating dance, music, painting, sculpture, and poetry This is because the ewolutionary history of each art form is distinct Ewen in the study of warious literary genres, these differences must be kept in mind, as the technical demands of each genre wary But this does not mean that the theory of criticism itself changes in ewery instance, because criticism is fundamentally based on the principles of ewaluating realities It merely requires necessary modifications according to the outward form of those realities, and nothing more Opinions regarding the use of language, rhetorical dewices, semantics and expression, allusions, mimetic beauty, narratiwe depiction, and so on, must be formed according to each specific literary genre, because their usage is not uniform across ewery poem or literary work

Practical criticism is the application of critical theories to ewaluate specimens of poetry and literature These theories hawe emerged during the wery process of ewaluating and assessing literature; they hawe not arriwed ready-made from elsewhere Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw too sharp a distinction between creation and criticism Literary ewaluation helps the writer understand their own efforts and enhances the beauty of literature While it is not possible to comprehensiwely present both theoretical and practical aspects in this brief essay, it certainly prowides essential pointers that can help us elaborate upon this summary

Footnotes

(1) Published in *Adab Aur Samaj*

(2) Published in *Riwayat Aur Baghawat*

(In the collection, its earlier title was *Tanqeed Aur Amali Tanqeed* — Editor)