Page 27 - Aldi Lukman Nurhakim_How to Write Critical Esays: A Guide for Students of Literature

26 How to write critical essays
cleverness and less with comedy. Obviously, ‘true’ is the least
qualifying of epithets since it begs all the questions about what
the writer takes truth to be.
Circling of key-terms would, however, stress ‘imitator’ and
reveal that the title includes originality as one of the essential
ingredients of ‘wit’. Thus a title which at first might seem to
have Pope as its subject in fact insists upon your comparing his
work with that of his predecessors and contemporaries.
This inclusion of novelty within the definition of ‘wit’ does
not, however, exclude its other connotations. Your answer
would also have to consider at least Pope’s verbal dexterity and
precision, his intellectual subtlety and his sense of humour.
Conversely, a title may sound more demanding than it
actually is. Its syntax may divide into two apparently distinct
questions which, once the key-terms have been identified and
explored, resolve themselves into only one: ‘How do you
account for the view, frequently expressed, that King Lear is
“a poor stage play”? What steps would you take to defend the
play from the imputation that it is unlikely to do well in the
theatre?’ The first sentence’s ‘poor stage play’ and the second’s
‘unlikely to do well in the theatre’ pose the same possibility
and specify only one subject for your essay to explore. The
terms of approach here seem merely to restate a long-
established rule: whenever you give an account of the grounds
on which a text may be attacked, you ought also to consider
those steps that other commentators might take in mounting a
defence.
Most students in reformulating the question would
probably cross out many of the opening words: ‘How do you
account for the view, frequently expressed’. They would
assume that the whole title can be translated as ‘King Lear is a
poor stage play. Discuss.’ Their answers would be confined to
the supposedly innate weaknesses and strengths of the text
itself. Nevertheless, some students might see in the opening
words an invitation to consider the motives, conscious or
unconscious, which have led some critics to construct the text
in particular ways.
Was Bradley (Shakespearean Tragedy, London, 1904), for
instance, committed to depoliticizing literature when he argued
that the battle-scenes make for clumsy theatre? Was he implying
that civil war and the question of who rules England are