F.R. Leavis as a literary critic

Frank Raymond Leavis was an influential British literary critic of the 20^th century English Literature. He was influenced by T.S. Eliot to a great extent. Leavis possessed a very clear idea of literary criticism and he was well known for his predecessors and

his contemporaries. He is still regarded as “a charismatic and undisputed leader of the critical world of England”.

F.R. Leavis shares some ideas, theories and practices with the New Critics. Instead of concentrating on literary history and biography, like the other New critics of the period, Leavis advocated close reading of the text itself, arguing that the critic should analyze the words on the page rather than work form extrinsic evidence. Criticism, for Leavis, is means of objective analysis of literary works for the exploration of ‘value-judgment’, ‘inherent human nature’ or ‘an art of civilized living’ in literature.

Leavis' conception of criticism is very different from the contemporary understanding of the term. To Leavis, the purpose of evaluating literature is to keep alive the tradition of the human world, not by admiring its achievements, but by bringing its values, purpose, and significance to bear on the presents. So, it is the business of the critic to explore and rediscover the social culture and an art of living behind literature. But he did not fully believe that criticism should focus only on "the text itself" or ‘the words on the page’. As a New critic he always looks for an objective way of analyzing the text.

The critical method of Leavis is similar to that of T.S. Eliot. His criticism is concerned with the evaluation of a work of art or literature. His criticism is often based on the response of his students in the classroom. The basis of his criticism lies in his interest in culture and the problem of maintaining a tradition. One of his early books, “Mass Civilization and Minority Culture”, examines this problem of maintaining a right tradition of moral and aesthetic taste. In his criticism of the authors what he seeks is the ‘quality of life’ presented. He is not interested in the ‘form’ of a work of literature apart from its contents.

Leavis was a controversial critic. He was frequently impelled for what was in fact his greatest strength: his consistent refusal to define a clear theoretical basis for his work. As a literary critic he felt little sympathy for the others. In fact, he didn’t hold any of the critics who had preceded him in high esteem. Even the great classical critic Aristotle was not exempted from is unsympathetic attitude. His only concession was given to Mathew Arnold. To Leavis, humanism mattered and for him literary criticism must be humanistic.

The essay “Literature and Society” is basically a substance of an address given by the author to the students’ Union of the London School of Economics and politics. According to Leavis, society consists of individuals and individuals live in society, so society is more comprehensive than individuals. Again, a society may have two sides of its culture- popular and sophisticated. Literary creation is impossible without individual creative gift. But the individuals live in a society so he must contain some social elements.

According to Leavis, good literature should be based on the entire social culture- its sophisticated culture, and its popular culture. Relation with only one part of the culture will not make a literature full-blooded, it will not be permanent, and in course of time, it will lose its appeal. The writer has cited examples from the different periods of Literature.

           In fine, we can say that despite his shortcomings and limitations Leavis “was a charismatic and undisputed leader of the New critical World of England”. He has not advanced any general aesthetic or literary theory. He is even despised by many for his aggressive attitude.