[Opinion] Literary Critic Stalkers

The professionalism in the field of science and engineering still gets respect in our society, but the situation appears to have changed considerably in the field of literature or the arts. People especially disregard the field of literary studies to such an extent that one suspects that its professionalism is falling to pieces and faces the challenge of unprofessionalism.

The first thing that one notices is the unprofessionalism in the sphere of production. Although there is still such a thing as the literary world and various platforms for monitoring the professionalism of the craft as producers of literature, their authority crumbled a long time ago.

Since the beginning of this year, one actually experiences with greater frequency the onslaught of unprofessionalism. To put it in a rather exaggerated way, one feels that we are moving into a world where whoever claims that he or she has written a novel is taken at their word, and whoever claims that he or she has written a poem is accepted as having written a poem.

Of course, there is no reason to see such phenomenon negatively or criticize it in itself. From a different perspective, the increase of these published writers could expand the base of professionals in the field and contribute to the diversification of the cultural world. Also, this can supplement the weaknesses of existing system of review. It may be that the system of reviewing and monitoring professionalism in the field may have been too severe.

It is, however, an altogether different issue when it comes to literary criticism that serves to filter distribution and consumption. Criticism that evaluates the quality of published literary works demands an in-depth knowledge of the history of literature and broad understanding of theory that can relatively cover the length of time and amount of space that the literary tradition has taken up. It must be based on the sensitivity and ability to establish objective standards by applying that knowledge.

Also, literary criticism is different from the subjective interpretation of a reader in that it must be mindful of its effect on distribution and consumption beyond the individual critic. Hence, the need for professionalism in literary criticism.

Yet, this field of literary criticism faces greater and more severe challenges in these times. The popular presses are indiscriminately carrying miscellaneous criticisms, whose professional standards have not been confirmed, for the sake of their needs and interests, and are replacing literary criticism`s function of monitoring consumption and distribution by popularizing the personal and subjective interpretations of the reader.

One person in particular, who has not written any notable work in his own field, has greater renown and following than literary critics by publishing such rubbish.

Yet the strange thing is that the majority of literary critics have regarded such a phenomenon from the sidelines. May be they merely saw them as literary paparazzi or stalkers that exist in every society, but the consequence is rather serious. A case in point is one unprofessional critic, who mounted focal attacks against several writers whose political perspective or taste did not agree with his in recent years, who finally emerged and claimed that he will `take care` of the entire `literary world.`

Fortunately, several recent quarterly journals carried the responses of acknowledged professional critics who showed him for what he really was. Yet, may be because they were responding to unprofessional writing and reasoning, the vulgar language and emotional logic of the responses almost felt like it would put their professionalism in jeopardy. The abuse of unprofessional criticism appears to have gone beyond misleading the readers to affecting even the craft of literary criticism itself.

One writer says that the conflict over professionalism in literary criticism is an issue of the patron`s choice. This probably means that the issue is not for the producers of culture or monitors of distribution to settle, but for the patron, who is the mass consumer (reader), to decide. This is correct. In a world where everything is becoming commodified and absorbed in the market system, culture and the arts is no exception. It is more than possible that we may reach a literary situation where the reader no longer demands high quality professionalism.

However, if the dissolution of literary professionalism happening in our society has no connection to such trends or happens to be a deliberate distortion and misleading of consciousness riding upon these waves, we still have reason to worry. An example of this is the application of political equality to literature, and deluding the public by masking the dismantling of literary professionalism as literary egalitarianism. This may be a brilliant strategy for appeasing the public palate, which has become sensitized to egalitarianism more than ever before, but it recalls a point in world history when an overly political era brought about cultural barrenness and sterility.

Lee Moon Yeol (Novelist)