The Fallacies in Literary Criticism

1. JOHN RUSKIN: On The Pathetic Fallacy

The spendthrift crocus, bursting through the mold

Naked and shivering, with his cup of gold.
The lines above are criticized by a gifted painter and a social critic, John Ruskin, saying that
those lines involve pathetic fallacy. He included those lines in his book “Modern Painters” which
discusses the art of attributing human emotions and feelings to nature. But what really is a pathetic
fallacy and what are the guidelines that classify a poem for having it?
Pathetic fallacy is a literary term coined by Ruskin in the year 1843. It is defined as an
untruthful description applied to an aspect of nature or basically, an emotional falseness (pathetic---
emotions, fallacy--- falseness). For Ruskin, it a poet's tendency to project his or her emotions outward
onto the workings of the natural world was a kind of false vision. Pathetic fallacy has become part of
the literary devices or figures of speech. Meaning, it may be used to beautify the language and add
color to a literary piece, more specifically a poem. However, according to Ruskin it’s not enough to
become a skilled imitator of nature, he explains, just like becoming a skilled user of language doesn’t
make one a poet. There must be a fine line between projecting emotions for a great poem and
projecting emotions without it commanding the entirety of the poetry.
Going back to the lines above, pathetic fallacy is much exhibited in the crocus. Ruskin says that
those are “very beautiful and yet very untrue”. Untrue as a plain crocus could never be considered a
spendthrift. However, as much as one would judge the false attributions, the pleasure attained in those
lines is undeniable. Ruskin convicted that pathetic fallacy in poetry is false and untrue, even if it can
make art beautiful.
In the same book, he was able to classify four classes of people.
1. “The men who see feel nothing, and therefore see truly”
2. “The men who feel strongly, think weakly, and see untruly”
3. “The men who feel strongly, think strongly, and see truly”
4. “The men who, strong as human creatures can be, are yet submitted to influences stronger
than they, and see in a sort untruly, because what they see is inconceivable above them”
And, among these four, the quality poet (first order poet) are the poets who “feel strongly,
think strongly, and see truly”--- those who don’t let their emotions overpower their logic in crafting an
art. This what makes their work truthful.
However, as much as Ruskin would say that pathetic fallacy is untrue, he was able to make
clear that there is a place where it can be utilized. Not on the mind of the poet but to the mind of the
character. Even though it is undesirable for a poet to indulge in pathetic fallacy, their characters are
allowed to have this weakness as this is an accurate representation of human nature.

2. JOSEPH WOOD KRUTCH: The Tragic Fallacy

Page 1 of 3
 Krutch’s idea of tragic fallacy rooted from his opposition on Aristotle’s definition of tragedy as an
imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude. Imitation, or by which
observation is turned into art, seems too weak of a word to represent the process of tragedy. In the
search for a more versatile term, Romanticists conceptualized it as an “expression”.
Moreover, what Aristotle means with his definition of tragedy is that the action being imitated
should be noble. Krutch perceives the word “noble” as something that subjectively exists without clear
criteria making it unreliable. Thus, defining nobility is open for interpretation.
In defining the idea of “interpretation” in nobility, the author mentioned a scene in the Iliad written
by Homer. Achilles’ parade of Hector’s dead body in the kingdom for “the observer”, according to
Krutch, is seen as not a noble act. However, for the writer, Homer, this is exactly a noble act as it was
made for a friend’s vengeance. The interpretation of the observer, then, can be fallacious like equating
tragedy as the imitation of noble action and assuming that art and photography as the same.
For Krutch, the actual definition of nobility does not exist. The only way we can define it is when
we see a man triumphantly overcoming calamities. This manifests the coexistence of nobility and
tragedy. Tragedy is filled with calamities disturbing universe’s peace. Through overcoming these
calamities, an emphasis of “inward’s victory” is made. The latter shows the paradoxical nature of
tragedy. In these victories over the calamity, tragedy comes out best. When the plot starts out sad, the
effect of tragedy won’t work. There should be conceding outward defeat (due to arrival of calamity) for
the sake of inward victory (character development).
Tragedy is often tagged as just a sad story. But, it is more than that. Tragedy is the capability of
the writer to reveal the greatness that humans possess. Thus, pessimism is not the right formula for a
writer. One must first believe that there is always a chance for a light after the storm to become a
great author of tragic art.
Moreover, Krutch defines tragedy as the ultimate genre. It is only in tragedy that one realizes
humanity’s strength. How? Through the ending. Unlike drama and comedy, it has a different ending
compared to other genres because the indication of a happy ending in tragedy is when everything goes
back to normal—a realization of human’s strength.
Tragedy is a complex art to craft and perfect. The ability of the author to create a tragic ending
without compromising the satisfaction of the readers through peace and justice requires sophistication
and skill.
Lastly, Krutch was able to point out the death of tragedy in the contemporary period. He said that
what sets apart real tragedy and "distressed modern works" is when people are fully cognizant of life's
disaster, and are arrogant because humanity thinks it can solve any problem because of its greatness.

3. T.S. ELIOT: Tradition and the Individual Talent/ Hamlet and His Problems

Thomas Stearns Eliot is one of the renowned critics in the English literature. His essay Tradition
and Individual talent was first published in The Egoist and later collected in The Sacred Wood. It was
the foundation in the creation of the New Criticism. The essay attacks some critical views particularly in
the Romantics where poets tend to create poems for mere expression of the personality of the poet.

In Eliot’s essay, “Tradition and Individual Talent”, he emphasized three main points--- tradition,
relation of individual talent and tradition (historical sense), and the theory of impersonality or

Page 2 of 3
depersonalization. Eliot defines tradition as a vital thing that cannot be inherited but can be obtained
only by hard labor. He says that an author is capableof being influenced by “tradition” in his work. But,
it is not something that should be replicated or passed on. An author must work to be influenced by
that tradition. How? The example author quotes in this context is that a poet should know literature
from the start of Homer till his own generation and by that, he acquires a traditional skill that he can
reflect in his work. Now, this is the relation of individual talent and tradition. A contemporary author
should contribute his contemporary work (individual talent) to the classical and ancient poets
(tradition). Eliot explains that a modern poet is not the creator but a “catalyst” who tackles the
pastness of the past through his work. Eliot suggests that authors must be willing to sacrifice their own
personality, simply called as “depersonalization”. The business of the poet is not to find a new emotion,
but to use the ordinary and transform them into a form of poetry. He then adds that writing poetry is
not a process of turning loose of all the poet’s emotions. Rather, it must be an escape for these
emotions. A mind of a mature poet differs from a mind of an immature poet. He makes this argument
not based on the personality of any poet but on the excellence of a poet in writing poetry. He also
warns critics not to judge the quality of an artwork through the personal views or emotions of the poet
projected on the poem but directly on the poem’s overall composition.

Not only did T.S. Eliot criticize the Romanticists. He also pointed out some failure in the longest
play, “Hamlet”, of one of the best writers in the entire history of the English literature, William
Shakespeare. He entitled this critical essay as “Hamlet and His Problems” claiming that Shakespeare’s
play Hamlet, far from being a triumph, is an artistic failure. According to Eliot, Hamlet is the Mona Lisa
of literature, a work that that is interesting, but not a work of art. It means that the writer is unable to
objectify the emotions through senses, things, or any other external facts which he called as objective
correlative. And, due to this loss of objective correlative, Eliot feels that Hamlet of Shakespeare is
puzzling and deficient.

Page 3 of 3