Phenomenological criticism : an analysis and an application to the fiction of John Updike

Although phenomenological criticism of literature varies in its appearance, it is all based upon the seminal studies in phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). The value of Husserl's phenomenology to literary criticism is due largely to his emphasis on careful description and his recognition of the importance of subjectivity in perception. Of special importance to literary criticism are his concepts of intentionality, the intentional nature of perception, and epoche, the phenomenological reduction that "brackets off" some phenomena in order to see other phenomena more clearly. A major advantage of phenomenological criticism is that it can be applied to any aspect of the literary experience, not merely to the literary artifact itself. From a phenomenological point of view, the literary experience can be considered as the merging of the subjectivities of an author and a reader accomplished by means of a literary work; the literary work acts as a bridge of words that joins the subjectivity of an author with the subjectivity of a reader. Phenomenologists believe that all aspects of the literary experience can be profitably studied. This increase in material available for study partially accounts for the growing popularity of phenomenological literary criticism; it also explains the diversity of appearance one finds in critical works based upon phenomenology, because a work that concentrates on the subjectivity of an author will differ greatly from one that concentrates on the subjectivity of a reader, and both of these will differ from a work that concentrates on the literary artifact itself. Much of the emphasis of phenomenological criticism has been on the relationship of an author's subjectivity to his work. Phenomenologists view the literary work as an intentional artifact that is dependent upon an author's subjectivity and is a reflection of his particular subjectivity. Consequently, phenomenologists disagree with the formalists' belief in an isolated ontological status for the literary work and feel free to connect a work with its author when such connection seems advantageous in understanding a work's meaning. Additionally, phenomenologists are quite conscious of the ways in which their own subjectivities interact with the literary work and are therefore less prone to project their biases upon a work than critics who ignore this interaction. A phenomenological analysis of John Updike's fiction reveals a persistent pattern in his work, namely a disruptive tension between two basically antithetical impulses. On the one hand, Updike shows a strong inclination toward didacticism, a desire to have his works carry important messages to his readers. On the other hand, Updike also has a profound interest in purely aesthetic concerns, a love of disinterested, poetic contemplation of life. Much too frequently, these two impulses work against each other in his fiction and keep it from achieving a truly unified effect. Commonly, critics will react to one of these two impulses in Updike's fiction and ignore the other, and the result is widely divergent critical opinion regarding Updike's fiction and his status in contemporary American literature. Although the use of phenomenological criticism may not resolve critical disagreements such as those created by Updike's fiction, it does provide critics with a tool that helps describe the sources of disagreement and, therefore, is a most useful critical approach.