Henry Lawson And Australian Literary Criticism

Henry Lawson is one of the most distinguished writers in Australia. He began writing in the 1880 s, and by 1900, his short stories were highly esteemed by Australian literary critics. The 20 th century witnessed the surge of various critical paradigms in Australia, and Lawson became first established as part of the Australian literary canon and then came under a lot of critical attacks. This dissertation takes an institutional look at the way in which Henry Lawson was handled by Australian literary criticism.Beginning in the 1880 s, Australian literary criticism boasts a history of more than 130 years. In the 20 th century, Henry Lawson, as an exemplary figure in the Australian literary canon, was repeatedly re-interpreted. This dissertation explores how four schools of literary criticism dealt with him and evaluated his literary achievement. Through analyzing their different attitudes towards Lawson, the dissertation offers a critical investigation of the interaction between Australian literary criticism and the most famous writer in Australian literature.This dissertation consists of six chapters :Chapter One is the Introduction. It begins with a brief overview of canon formation theories. After taking a look at canon debates in the United States and Australia in the 20 th century, it gives a critical discussion of the limitations of these canon debates and the rationality of institutional theory of literature in the issue. Finally, it explains the objectives, the methodology, the theoretical framework and the layout of the study.Chapter Two begins with a brief look into Henry Lawson's canonization as a great writer in the hands of early federal nationalist critics. In the 1890 s, A. G. Stephens, as Australia's federal nationalist critic, praised the uniqueness of Lawson's works and his fondness for him helped directly to establish Lawson's literary reputation. From the First World War to the Second World War, more radical nationalist critics like Vance Palmer, Russel Ward and A. A. Phillips expressed their admiration for Lawson's writing because they thought they found mateship and the spirit of democracy and egalitarianism in him. These nationalist critics maintained that Lawson expressed his democratic vision through his great concern for the common people and socialist activities. They also adored Lawson's realistic art. To them, Lawson's works conformed to all their nationalist evaluative standards of great literature. Literary publishing and literary history, under the influence of literary criticism, fully established Henry Lawson as a canon.Chapter Three analyzes the Australian New Critics' treatment of Lawson. In the 1950 s and 1960 s, the New Criticism was the prevailing paradigm in Australian literary criticism. The New Critics believed in the value of European literary tradition, and critics like G. A. Wilkes and Vincent Buckley censured Lawson for his departure from that tradition. The New Criticism disapproved of Lawson's poetry, and criticized his fictions for their inadequate control of narrators, and mawkish characterization. For these reasons, they argued that Lawson was below their criteria. The New Criticism's attitude towards Lawson later changed when H. P. Heseltine re-read Lawson and found Lawson writing about the universal spiritual state of human beings. When F. M. Todd re-read Lawson and found his interest in ethics and humanitarianism, Australian New Criticism had readjusted itself in its stance towards Lawson. Their re-evaluations of Lawson through literary journals, literary textbooks, and literary histories, further helped in the canonization of Lawson.Chapter Four looks at a few Australian critics from the New Left and their treatment of Henry Lawson. As a critical paradigm, the New Left appeared in the 1970 s, echoing the New Left movement in Europe and United States. The Australian New Left declared its position against the Australian literary tradition as it was constructed by the Nationalists. Humphrey McQueen, for instance, regarded Lawson as a fascist, who hated Asians and was addicted to wars. Besides, McQueen criticized Lawson's for what he perceived as Utopianism, blurred understanding of classes and shallow understanding of socialism. Later members of the New Left also changed. Michael Wilding, for instance, speaks highly of Lawson's unionist and socialist ideology. Wilding deserted McQueen's extremely radical ideas and re-evaluated Lawson's literary achievements. The New Left's impact on the re-evaluation of Lawson was strenghthened by the New Writing program co-initiated by Michael Wilding and Frank Moorhouse, who originally tried to overthrow traditional bush realist tradition, but more in fact, were found to have inherited and promoted the Lawson tradition, and consolidated Lawson as part of the Australian literary canon.Chapter Five disscusses the feminist engagement with Henry Lawson. Inspired by the New Left, feminist criticism opposed patriarchy and the distortion of women's image by male writers. Some feminist critics like Marilyn Lake critiqued Lawson's male chauvinism, and thought that Lawson's mateship conceals the conspiracy between male-centeredness and nationalist criticism. Sue Rowley contended that men in Lawson's works enjoy financial hegemony in family and claimed that Lawson ignored women's feelings, and distorted women's image. Other Australian feminist critics later turned around and recognized Lawson's contribution to the Australian feminist movement. They argued that his female characters were mostly portrayed vividly and positively. And they expressed their appreciation of Lawson's contributions to Australian women's liberation movements.Chapter Six is the Conclusion. Initially established as a canonical writer in the 1880 s and 1890 s, Lawson was promoted as part of the country's irrefutable canon throughout the first half of the 20 th century. However, after the 1950 s, a succession of critical paradigms severely criticized Lawson and defied him. These theories later amended themselves and modified their approaches to the writer. In general, the 20 th century witnessed Lawson's ups and downs, which reflected the numerous changes in the critical criteria in Australian literature and critical perspectives. The interface between Australian literary criticism and Lawson shows that some critical paradigms began by criticizing a canonical writer radically, but they often will retract their negative comments and readjust their readings of him. This is because in Australian literature, Lawson's canonization like that of canonical writing had taken place in exceedingly complicated social and historical circumstances and because of many institutional factors. Australian literary criticism as an important literary institution contributed, but it often can't do much to undermine a fully established literary reputation. In the history of Australian literature, it is perhaps a bit simple-minded or even na?ve to think that, simply by being radically aggressive, a literary critic can decanonize a canonical writer like Henry Lawson. The study of the case of Henry Lawson undoubtedly gives us a deeper understanding of the relationship between literature and radical literary criticism in general.