Eagleton says that poetry "combines the individual and universal." By this he means that while poetry can be expressive and aesthetic, it is also a form of social honesty even if there is "distance from the public sphere." It is flexible in that it can connect the part to the whole, (the individual to the collective) in ways that government, history or even language itself cannot do single handedly. In this sense poetry is capable of being the product of a writer who is also a critic, or a critic who is also a writer. In class, we talked about how criticism analyzes literature but how it is also a form of literature itself. This never crossed my mind when I was writing literary analysis essays in high school, but now I see the point. There is definitely a presence of pure truthfulness when a critic has the ability to peel back the layers of a poem, examine them individually for what they are, then fit the parts into whole again to expose the true message. When one takes Pope's advice, close reading can transform into noteworthy "judgements." And because critics have to fit the puzzle pieces together, it is necessary for them to be GOOD critics. Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism justifies why bad criticism does more harm that bad writing: "But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence, To tire our Patience, than mislead our Sense." There is more potential for damage when a critic preaches vague opinions than there is for an author to write with bad taste.
