The critic must behave in stoic determination and define, must show, must expose--what more can he do? After all, the exactness of the novelist's route to their profession, their making a statement through form, does not require simply telling the statement, though some do; rather their interests at the outset can appear contrary to their statements, and the critic has until the last word to redeem, for his reader, the novelist's method and make excuses for the novelist's followthrough toward the statement's end, or in this critic's studies he makes the choice to throw the book against the wall at the east window or, finding errors worth disregarding, sits breathless.
It must be said that simple statement making cannot be criticized by the literary critic. Due to the vast amounts of time spent on the act of criticizing statements in philosophy, the literary critic must assemble their tools to piece out the syntax of the novelist's choices, avoiding judgement of the novelist's statement. Even in this, the critic realizes, the creative endeavor of the literary critic comes to a fork; some relying on their judgement of a novelist's statement for the exposure of the novelist's personal intents politically or otherwise, and others evaluating the meal set at the table for all to eat, rather than why we are brought to the table.
The question in the critic's mind, for many years, asked if a novelist's statement through means of method in form should come to a suppression of the author, rather than an announced opinion. In this way, he once believed, the author couldn't help but wear their statements, secret to themselves, on their backs, their true beliefs seen by way of reading the critics and better understanding, through criticism, their meaning. But, he realized later on, the author cannot be subject to his own beliefs at any given moment past the creation of a text, as beliefs are transitory and unlike murder, can be renounced and honed, developed and depleted.
Conor Robin Madigan