The Morning Critic by Marifa Khan

THE MORNING CRITIC
M A R I F A K H A N , E N G 2 2 0 3 , 1 3 S E P T E M B E R , 2 0 2 2
BREAKING
PREFACE TO A FORGED FRIENDSHIP
W
illiam Wordsworth, aged 47, of Cumberland was
seen staging a riot at the residence of Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, aged 45, of Devonshire yesterday at 9 PM
GMT. Since the declaration of friendship between
the two renowned figures through their collection
of poems Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth and Coleridge have been spotted
in public quite a few times, displaying their amicable and strong
relationship. However, after the publication of Coleridge’s book
Biographia Literaria, people assumed there was a disruption in their
friendship. The poets dismissed these rumours when they were seen
cordially catching up over coffee the very next day of Coleridge’s book
release.
However, things did not seem as picture perfect as the two poets wanted
them to appear. People seated nearby reported sensing an air of hostility
and threat from the pair. Some even claimed to have witnessed an
intense game of feet scuffling under the table, which ended in Coleridge
grinning with joy and Wordsworth holding back tears of probable pain.
We reached out to an insider from Coleridge’s team, who informed us
that the poet has been receiving oddly specific threats and insults in the
Page 1| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

mail since that incident at the coffee shop. After some hesitation, the
insider shared a few of the letters, which included, but were definitely not
limited to, phrases such as “You don’t think poetry should be
experimental? I am slightly confused as your face seems to perfectly
resemble a failed experiment”, “Your version of “The Three Graves” will
never be better than mine- I mean, Wordsworth’s”, and lastly “Count your
days because the only accidental poet I see is you and I can remedy that
mistake”. Although the sender remains anonymous, the public has
garnered a wild guess as to who it could be.
Following these incidents, it came as no surprise to locals when
Wordsworth was found situated outside of Coleridge’s home, in an one-
man protest. Passersby reported hearing him shout, “Only losers don’t
show emotion in their poetry!”, “I dare you to come down and tell me to
my face that my writing sucks!” and finally, a very distraught, “I thought
you said “Ruth” was one of the finest works in our collection, how could
you do this to me?” The source of this very public outburst is still quite
unclear, however, many internet users have chimed in saying that it may
be due to Coleridge’s strong distaste towards Wordsworth’s writing finally
being known to the latter poet.
When approached by reporters, Wordsworth said, “I
could have never guessed I would be betrayed so
harshly by someone I trusted so much. It is true
when they say your closest ones always tend to
betray you.” Before any further questions could be
asked, Wordsworth burst into hysterical tears and
ran away from the scene.
Page 2| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

We were able to catch Coleridge leaving his residence the next day,
looking pleased with a joyful skip in his step. Once asked about the
happenings of the night prior, he said, in poorly-concealed delight, “I sang
William’s praises as much as I pointed out his flaws. It may be that he is
too insecure about his works to be able to take my criticism, however, that
has nothing to do with me. He should look into the sources of his
insecurity. Maybe it is the way he claims to write in rustic language but
only uses a few words that can be considered rustic, or the way he thinks
metre is an ornamental element to poetry just to conceal the fact that he
cannot utilise it properly. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.” With that, our
reporters watched as he bid them goodbye, strolling away whilst
humming a cheerful tune.
This is the extent of the story till the present time. The public has
expressed heightened interest regarding the direction of Wordsworth and
Coleridge's friendship after the events that have transpired. Every news
outlet is following their actions and words very closely, eager to find the
next big feud and quench the public’s overarching thirst.
INTERVIEW
A DISCUSSION ON SHAKESPEARE WITH
SAMUEL JOHNSON
S
amuel Johnson is a beholder of numerous titles: biographer, essayist,
poet among others. However, he has gained immense fame (and
notoriety) as a critic after his essay “Preface to Shakespeare”, where he
highlights the good and bad in the renowned William Shakespeare’s
works. He attempts to identify the reasons why Shakespeare is as
Page 3| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

influential as he is. We sat down with him in order to gain a deeper look
into his criticism.
When asked why he thinks his essay received such a
colossal amount of attention, Johnson explains that
it may be because his perspective is different from
the ones who have criticised Shakespeare before,
due to the fact that he is not the typical critic
belonging to the elite class of society. Johnson
claims his humble beginnings gave him the
opportunity to offer an intriguing perspective. When asked about the
identity of these aforementioned high class critics, Johnson coughs and
opts to go for a drink of water.
Johnson begins his essay with praises of Shakespeare, bringing out the
reasons why his works have remained so significant and monumental
even after decades. “He knew how to present his art in a way that
perfectly imitated nature,” says Johnson, “and he practised universality,
which is what drew every kind of audience to his works. His use of
language was also understandable by the common people.”
Johnson compliments Shakespeare on his ability to blend genres, namely
tragedy and comedy. “The Merchant of Venice is a perfect example of a
tragicomedy, it has all the sombre elements of a tragedy and the quick
relief of a comedy,” he says. “We are never only melancholy or only joyous,
a tragicomedy is able to imitate our complex emotions.”
Johnson straightens in his chair as he proceeds to the next part. He
Page 4| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

blames Shakespeare for lacking morality in his plays. “I agree that art is
entertainment and Shakespeare provided that abundantly, however, art
should also teach morals and lessons. It should carry a sense of
practicality.” Johnson continues with the opinion that Shakespeare’s plays
lack a strong and effective plot due to inconsistent order of time and
chronology. When confronted with the fact that reality and universality
do not follow such chronology most times, Johnson falters and clears his
throat. “These are merely my strongly appraised opinions, do with it as
you will,” he says.
Shakespeare’s vulgar use of language is also negatively criticised by
Johnson. The critic claims to not be fond of the sexist jokes, informal
language and frequent puns found in the plays. Johnson says, “A
gentleman should only joke when the time is appropriate and in a
manner that is not so crude, and only then is the humour acceptable.”
Finally, Johnson points out Shakespeare’s inability to maintain the rules of
unities but professes that these inconsistencies are what make
Shakespeare a legendary figure in literature. “Shakespeare was able to be
appealing to a large audience due to these characteristics in his plays,
and was able to set himself to a standard only a few have been able to
reach since.”
EDITORIAL
CRITICS AND CLASSISM
T he world of literary criticism has only grown in the past few centuries
with many knowledgeable individuals sharing their opinions and advice
on literary genres, works, and creators. Reading the words of critics only
Page 5| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

broadens our own vision and offers a perspective that we may have not
thought of before. It is a great medium to strengthen our literary
knowledge. However, with the benefits of literary criticism, there are quite
a few downsides that come along, one of them being the trend of classism.
Classist opinions are, unfortunately, very prevalent in the works of many
well-known critics like Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Matthew Arnold.
Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria offers different perspective with which to
look at poetry, and while it does so in an excellent manner, it also portrays
discriminatory opinions. He believed informal language or the language
used by the common people was not adequate to generate superior
thoughts and emotions. While learning to speak in formal, high class
language can be an expansion of knowledge, it certainly is not the only
medium of expression.
Matthew Arnold’s The Study of Poetry offers a strong
yet problematic belief that only critics who carry
knowledge of prior great works can criticise art.
Through this statement, he was creating a limitation
to who can and cannot offer their criticism. Being as
academically powerful and influential as he was, it is
no surprise that he put his faith wholeheartedly in
education. However, not only the educated population are capable of
showing different, creative perspectives of literature.
Critics like Coleridge and Arnold present numerous educational aspects
through their works. However, their strong opinions on idealising and
allowing only a certain class of people to be able to access and create
literature are restrictive and incorrect.
Page 6| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

Boxing champion Neander showed the crowd the strength of his
judgements as he knocked down legendary boxer Lisideius last Friday
night at the John Dryden Stadium. The arena was brimmed with
palpable tension as the two boxers took to the ring. French drama lovers
cheered on for Lisideius while Neander received roars of encouragement
from English drama enthusiasts.
NEANDER MAINTAINS IMPECCABLE
WIN STREAK AGAINST LISIDEIUS
The first punch was thrown by Lisideius as he claimed the rules of unities
were strictly maintained by French dramas, enhancing their greatness.
Neander stumbled back from the power of the blow but came back
strong as he stated that following these rules only restricted and limited
a drama’s potential, damaging its quality. He did not let Lisideius rest as
he hit again with the fact that subplots and other diverse characteristics
only assisted to enrich a drama.
Lisideius could be seen on the brink of defeat at this point. He offered a
comparatively weak punch as he claimed that French dramatists never
mixed two genres together, preserving the rules of literature. Neander
struck with his usual fervour, asserting that the blending of two genres
only made a drama better. With this, Neander went for another powerful
hit, knocking Lisideius out and crowning himself as revolutionary and
modern yet again
Page 7| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022

All you will need to take
your poetry to the
classical level!
S P O N S O R E D B Y
NEW
EDITION!
Are you worried that your simpleton mind cannot conjure up poetry that
will hold up to the great Matthew Arnold’s strict standards? Fright no more,
as this new edition of the PSC is equipped with more features and
guidelines which will allow you to take your poetry to the standard that is
deemed appropriate by Arnold’s judgment.
With one click of a button, anyone will be able to know whether their
poetry contains poetic truth, if it is completely sombre and free of wit and
follows classical poetry (the higher form of poetry). The checker will also let
you know whether you have been practicing free thinking a little more
than what is favourable by Arnold himself. It also comes with a built-in
eliminator which will get rid of any and all good-for-nothing humour in
your poetry.
If you want your poetry to be accepted by one of the leading figures of
modernism, you have come to the right place. Don’t wait any longer and
buy the PSC for $99.99/month or start your one-day free trial today!
Disclaimer: This product is advertised and available to everyone, as long as you are
privileged and wealthy enough to be educated on all prior great works of poetry.
Commoners are politely and strongly discouraged from buying this product.
Page 8| The Morning Critic| 13 September, 2022