Notes and Two Talking points on Terry Eagletons The Function of Criticism This text opens with an exploration

of the history of criticism. At first, it seems, the function and medium for what the author didnt fully consider criticism were early stage periodicals. This was because these were much less critical and more of a rambling of the specific authors. However these texts did democratize knowledge and encourage discussion of everyday life. The bricklayer would be able to discuss social issues with the shop owner, usually within a coffee shop (a very popular place for these discussion). Finally, regardless of economic or social status, there was a space that intellectual discussion could take place between classes and different people. However the author is critical of critics early on, describing them as more of a rambler than a critic. This was due to their problem of trying to push back against authoritative viewpoints of the state but also become a voice of the people (and therefore give authoritative views/opinions). As time progressed, these authors started to employ a more unique voice, which the author negatively views as the writing was becoming less important than their style. There started to be lists of subscription for people, inventing a timely way to receive thoughts on the contemporary society regularly. As the Rambler had shown however, there was still much critique on giving the ability for every person to contribute or read such criticism. It was no longer thought of as such a refined or high literary form. The author then delves into many different critical periodicals of the time, often pointing out their flaws or negative traits. While the pre-romantic period provided interesting points and counterpoints within the ever-evolving literary critic, the romantic period was seen as a more disinterested period, leaving the poet or sage (both critical individuals) to have a much less well-defined audience. As time went on, the Victorian area was marked

as the critic trying to be a mediator between binary forces. The author details the difficulty of criticism to try to either cater to public needs or risk going into idealism with no viable practical information.

Two Talking Points

Why was the author so negative in regards to early-day criticism?

How has this criticism shaped what we call Art Criticism Today?