Marxist Literary Criticism

Marxist literary criticism is a loose term describing literary criticism based on socialist and dialectic theories. Marxist criticism views literary works as reflections of the social institutions from which they originate. According to Marxists, even literature itself is a social institution and has a specific ideological function, based on the background and ideology of the author.

The English literary critic and cultural theorist, Terry Eagleton, defines Marxist criticism this way:

Marxist criticism is not merely a 'sociology of literature', concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully; and this means a sensitive attention to its forms, styles and meanings. But it also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the product of a particular history.

The simplest goals of Marxist literary criticism can include an assessment of the political 'tendency' of a literary work, determining whether its social content or its literary form are 'progressive'. It also includes analysing the class constructs demonstrated in the literature.

Read more about Marxist Literary Criticism:  History, Ideologies, Development of Marxist Criticism, Influenced Writers

Famous quotes containing the words literary criticism, marxist, literary and/or criticism:

    “Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.”
    —John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908)

    “The Marxist analysis has got nothing to do with what happened in Stalin’s Russia: it’s like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.”
    —Tony Benn (b. 1925)

    “I am not a literary man.... I am a man of science, and I am interested in that branch of Anthropology which deals with the history of human speech.”
    —J.A.H. (James Augustus Henry)

    “Cubism had been an analysis of the object and an attempt to put it before us in its totality; both as analysis and as synthesis, it was a criticism of appearance. Surrealism transmuted the object, and suddenly a canvas became an apparition: a new figuration, a real transfiguration.”
    —Octavio Paz (b. 1914)