I.A. Richards, one of the more important critics of the early 20th century, noted very early on in his career that artists are not usually very good at explaining how and why their work is important. Sometimes (though this seems to be rare for many writers), they do not even see that it is important. The ambiguities inherent to any piece of good writing, then, are not easily seen until the critic or the theorist come along to fill in the blanks for the reader by explaining things that may seem obvious but might not be. The critic is like an interpreter, trained to translate the language of the artist for the reader, despite the fact that many critics in recent years choose to write in a nearly incomprehensible code of buzz-words and cliché phrases.
So, then, if we assume that the critic is helpful in illuminating a story or poem, is the critic part of the writing process? Does the work of the critic make a strong piece of work better? Does the light a critic sheds on a novel, poem or story really help to make that story more meaningful, bridging a gap between simple enjoyment and permanent statement, giving the reader a chance to experience the work more fully?

Yes and no. In short, the work of the critic is to give others a chance to know why a piece of work is important or unimportant.

To be honest, there is not avoiding the criticism of work. A writer would be quite unlikely to sell a single book, if it were not for `critics'. Though the majority of these critics are doing nothing but delivering simple reviews in newspapers, magazines and on the internet, they are the initial `critics' who look closer at what has been written and pass on a simple judgment about the work which will be crucial to its longevity, in most cases. After this, it is the word-of-mouth critic who keeps the book's value alive in this second stage of advertisement. Once a work has been proven over a number of years to be valuable to a larger group of people, it becomes `worthy' of having a closer reading. It enters into the canon of what people tell each other they should read to fully educate themselves and share in the joint experience of other readers. Inevitably, other books will written about the book, fleshing out the reasons it is important and making clear the ideas that are harder to grasp within it.

Without critics, in whatever form one chooses to see them, this would not be possible. There is no person who has not encountered a book that they found difficult. For readers of what are often referred to the classics, this is more consistently true than for the reader of more popular literature. However, books are generally caught within the frame-work of the time in which they are written, making them subject to nuances and phrasing that is soon to become foreign to anyone that did not experience that specific time.

And, for this reason, it is important that critics hone their skills as readers by continually commenting on the work that is written both in the present and in the past. Those who become more and more adept at commenting on the work of writers will inevitably be looked to for their opinions, as they have shown over time that they have valuable insight into what writers say.

*

Anyone who has ever written poetry or fiction, or on the other side, has ever written a piece of criticism, will understand that it is not easy to write either well. There are as many bad critics as there are bad writers. Perhaps there are more. In a few cases, there are individuals who are both bad critics and bad writers, though they tend to disappear fairly quickly. Some very rare writers have the ability to combine fine writing with savvy criticism, proving themselves to be able to see literature more clearly then the average person.

So, given the obvious call-response function of criticism and literature; if we allow for the relationship of the two to be a somewhat symbiotic one, where the writer pays attention to the work of the critic, in many cases an editor, then it is fair to say that the work of the critic often influences the work of the author. In the same way, the work of the theorist, calling for the writer to push the boundaries of what is accepted within the framework of a certain genre, also causes the writer to see possibilities that were not there before. The work of the critic and theorist, as much as they are often hated for their negative opinions, is often instrumental in widening the field of what a writer is able to do.

In the case of widely popular writers, writers whose work is no taken seriously by academics, but is taken seriously by the wider reading public, critics are crucial. Though universally hated by this set of writers, the writer is generally forced to change their future novels/stories to fit the tastes of the readers and critics. Stephen King is a great example of this. Though the critics called for more of the same in this case, his Dark tower series was originally begun as an exercise he abandoned in college. However, when his popularity allowed for the publishing of nearly any string of sentences he chose to join, they published his college exercise and fans loved it. Though it had never been planned as a series of novels, it is one of his more popular collections of work. His response to the critics, in this case fans and reviewers, forced him to continue the creation of something he would not have otherwise. It is inevitable that other popular writers must also fall into this pattern of behaviour.

Now, the truth is, some of the best writers are also great critics.  Look into the history of English shows that most writers who have been successful have also felt it important to show why they are successful by explaining the purpose and function of their work within the wider scope of the language. Even some writers that have never been accepted as `serious' or `good' by the public or other critics, though their success cannot be argued with, have thrown their hats in the ring. In many ways, criticism is too alluring for a writer. To be able to write fiction or poetry successfully, but to also comment on how to write and why to write is a personal comment on the level of a writer's craft.

E.M. Forster wrote an entire book on the subject of novel writing. The afore-mentioned Stephen King recently published a book of the same nature. T.S. Eliot has been called one of the most influential critics of his age, as has Edgar Allen Poe. In fact, in Poe's case, his stories were almost less famous than his criticism, since many people found them so distasteful. Virginia Woolf, Ezra Pound, David Lodge, Umberto Eco and the list goes on. In all of these cases, they have written significantly about literature as well creating important literature.

*

Though often hated by readers and writers, critics and the act of criticism is an inevitable part of what Kenneth Burke called the `unending conversation' that is language. For every statement there will be many responses. People will read and then naturally want to set down their own ideas. There is no escaping criticism.

However, is it needed? It is a question that is always asked, but it seems a redundant one. Is the sun needed? Is rain needed? Despite your opinion, they will be there. Criticism is as much a part of writing now as it was when Samuel Johnson wrote at length about Shakespeare in the 1700's. It has always been a part of writing and it always will be. To say that it does not influence writers is not only illogical, it is plainly untrue. Writers read and many writers will want to know more about why other writers write. They will want to express their pet peeves with certain modes and styles of writing. They will talk to one another and express why writing is this way or that way. Criticism on the age is only a more formal version of the criticism we give each other as writers every day.

So, in short, Literary Criticism and Theory are as needed and as much a part of the historical fabric of English as the books they attempt to explain. If writing were anything other than a conversation, then it would cease to interest us. As long as it is a conversation, then there will always be two or more voices present, even if many of the voices responding are inadequate to the job they attempt.