A Critique of Literary Critiques
The entire plot of this story revolves a literary critique of Hugh Vereker’s latest novel by the narrator which the narrator personally learns from the author himself is inconsistent with his intention. When the narrator mentions that the key to understanding the author’s entire oeuvre is inextricably traced back to one singular motivating element to Vereker in the imagery of being akin to a “complex figure in a Persian carpet” Vereker is wildly enthusiastic in his agreement. Determined to figure out what the mysterious element motivating Vereker to write actually is, the narrator proceeds to go about discovering the mystery by relying upon accounts provided by the author himself, a couple named George and Gwendolen, and various other people. That couple, meanwhile, try to figure out the mystery of the metaphorical figure in the carpet by studiously poring over every word the author has ever published. In the end, George successfully figures out the mystery while the narrator never does. These events situate a major theme of the novel being the author’s critique of lazy literary criticism which seeks to find the answer to the meaning of a text anywhere but within the actual content of the story.
Literary Complicity
The narrator is actually the one person who specifically comes up with the imagery of the figure in the carpet being a metaphor for the secret behind the meaning of the author’s work. Vereker immediately takes a liking to the imagery and instantly agrees. Later, it is George who claims to have solved the mystery and upon informing Vereker of this theory, once upon the author enthusiastically embraces whatever idea it was George proposed. The two scenes in which two different literary critics voice an interpretation of the author’s motivations for writing are representations of the often opposition but always necessary unsigned contract binding writer and critic to each other. In “The Artist as Critic,” Oscar Wilde proposed the controversial notion literary criticism is fundamental to the development of a writer with the suggestion that the two roles engage in a complicit relationship because neither can really be successful with the other. The influence of the two critics on Vereker when meeting face to face is highly suggestive of the complexity of this complicity.
Authorial Intent vs. Reader Interpretation
At the heart of the story is another significant element to the art of literary criticism. The narrator’s initial confrontation with Vereker results in learning that his interpretation of the author’ latest novel is completely wrong according to the author himself. This is the motivating factor in the narrator conceiving of a mysterious impulse at work behind Vereke’s work which he compares to the figure in the carpet. The narrator takes Vereker at his word and proceeds to waste his life trying to discover this mystery. The plot point mirrors a divide within the world of literary criticism. One faction insists that interpretation of meaning can only be successful by taking everything know about the author into mind proceeding to find meaning in a text based on assumption of what the author intended that meaning to be. The other faction insists that everything external to the text itself is meaningless and that any interpretation of meaning must rely only on evidence actually found in the story. The events which play out in the story demonstrate this divide in critical theory by questioning the validity of any reader ever actually being able to penetrate into an author’s intent.
