文学批评有没有客观标准？还是纯粹凭主观判断？业内存在着两种截然不同的观点。先来看看一位英语教授的立场：
如何衡量认定一篇文章的好坏，是有并且也应该有一种标准。稍作思考，想想如果没有的话后果如何，你肯定就会赞同我。没有标准的话，什么东西都可被当作“文学”。尤其是它会因人因地而异，完全视乎各个刚入门初哥的口味而定。
There is and must remain a standard by which good writing is measured and acknowledged. Take a moment to consider the alternative, and you'll surely come to agree with me. Without standard, anything and everything could be considered "literature." More so, it would change from person to person and place to place based solely on the rudimentary preference of varied individuals.
如果对什么是“文学性”不甚了了，所有的写作就是一片狼藉的观点和怪异的兴趣。言情小说与稀世的艺术之宝平起平坐。而那些稀世珍宝可是囊括了人类的经验，提出重大的社会政治话题。这些书自从杀青至今，仍旧长留在读者心中。如果没有标准，《暮光之城》系列就会摆在托尼莫里森的作品旁边。
Without a clear idea of what is meant by "literary," all writing is a chaotic mess of opinion and idiosyncratic interest with genre romance being just as viable as those rare works of art that embody the human experience, raise significant social and political questions, and remain in the readers' minds long after the book is finished. Without measure, the Twilight series sits right next to the works of Toni Morrison.
让我们想想，什么是好文章。写作像所有伟大的艺术形式一样，拥有让我们更清楚看清这个世界的能力。如果写的够得体，它承载历史与真理，是一卷触摸得到的人性。它恒久不衰，或如厄拉庞德曾经说过那样：“仍是新闻的新闻”。这令我们感动。我的意思是，文学玩的是大题目，探求的是大事情。它追求美，目标和意义，通过审美唤起激情。人们承认这种标准优胜一筹，具有艺术品质，并非因为人人爱读，而是因为它提高我们对生命的理解，挑战我们的舒适度。
Let us think about what makes important writing. Writing, like all great forms of art, has the power to make us see the world more clearly. It is, when done effectively, a carrier of history and truth, a script of humanity that can be felt. It is lasting, or as Ezra Pound once remarked, "news that stays news." And it moves us. What I mean is that literature plays with the big questions, searches for the big things. It pursues beauty, purpose, and meaning in an aesthetic way that arouses emotion. The canon is acknowledged as superior and of artistic merit not because everyone likes reading the stuff, but because it heightens our understanding of life and rattles our comfort levels.
阅读文学本质上是让我们成为更好的人。可以肯定，并非所有作品都能做到这一点。说写作的好坏无法衡量或者说没有明确标准，那都是无稽之谈。即便所有被认定为“文学性”的东西你不尽喜欢，它们还是具有发人深省的力量。文学之所以成为文学，正是因为这种对普世真理的探索，加强了我们对人性的理解，触动了我们的灵魂深处。你在读《哈利波特》时可能会哭笑喊叫，但它不会因此而列入伟大作品之一。
In essence, reading literature makes us better humans, and certainly, not all writing can do that. To say that writing cannot be measured or that there is not a clear standard is absurd. While you may not like everything deemed "literary, " it surely has the power to make you think and feel and wonder. It is this exploration of universal truths that intensifies our understanding of humanity and stirs something deep within us that makes literature. While you may laugh or cry or shout while reading Harry Potter, that in itself cannot classify it as one of the greats.
再看看这位艺术系研究生的观点：
我读创造性写作学位第一年，每交一次功课都会为自己的紧张兮兮而得意。有时，我会觉得自己写的东西如有神来之笔；有时，则会觉得自己是个会写字的白痴菜鸟。我根本拿不准我的小说批回来上面会是盖着一个“A”或是一个“F”的戳――教授在这两者之间任何取舍，我根本毫无头绪。我的分数往往都不错，但是，导师把我最喜欢的句子挑出来拿红笔把它一笔勾销的时候，我会发出心疼的呻吟。那可是会让我成为下一个冯尼格或凯鲁亚克的句子哎！她又琢磨了一会，就在下面涂鸦一通。我是花了两年时间和得了“滑鼠腕”病以后才明白，根本无法知道什么是好作品，作品好不好纯属主观臆断。
I used to revel at my anxiety after turning in an assignment in my first years of my Creative Writing degree. One moment, I was quite sure that my work was genius. And another, I was the most dim-witted simpleton to ever put pen to paper. I had absolutely no idea whether my fiction would come back with an "A" or an "F" stamped on it—no clue how the professor might decide between the two. Often, I'd pull decent grades, but moan aloud when the instructor picked out my very favorite sentence—the one that was going to mark me the next Vonnegut or Kerouac—and crossed it out in red ink. Rethink this she'd scribble underneath. It took me two years and the onset of carpal tunnel to realize that there is no real way to know what's good, and that what's good is entirely subjective.
为了证明我的理论，我把前几学期写的几首诗（当时被我大学嗤之以鼻的作品，不过为试验起见还是用拿来用一下）交上去，希望听听别家之言。我发现我的分数参差不齐，但不是很明显。更有意思的是，导师们的反馈简直是南辕北辙。由此我意识到，写作根本就没有真正的衡量标准，至少对创造性写作而言是这样的。你要是已经过了“点题之句”，“逻辑推理”和“上下文连贯”这种纯学术文章的阶段以后，其实已经不存在对什么是好是坏的认可了。
To test my theory, I submitted a few poems from previous semesters (highly frowned upon by the university, but necessary for my experiment) in hopes of getting a second opinion. I found that my grades varied only imperceptibly, but more inter- estingly, instructor feedback bordered on polarity. And so, I realized there is no true standard of measurement for writing, not creative writing at least. Once you venture past the "thesis statement" and "logical reasoning" and "coherent organization" of the purely academic writing, the concession on what is good is really nonexistent.
诚然，对写得特别糟糕的东西，我们还是会认同说它的确糟糕，对一篇写得特别精彩的东西，我们也会点头称是，至少会说它并不糟糕吧。但总体而言，你欣赏的文字我会讨厌，有人会对一个让大家吐槽的比喻叹为观止。我认为引人入胜的，你觉得无聊透顶，如此类推。秋季学期的春娇会把春季学期志明觉得“有趣深刻”的东西视为“一无是处”。因此，我说：“萝卜白菜，各有所爱。”有思想有激情的好东西，就是不偏不倚，不仅因读者而异，还因读者当时的心境，周遭环境，甚至因读者刚刚读过什么而异。因此，想写啥写啥，想读啥读啥，兴之所至，就一言九鼎地宣称它们是不同凡响的。
Sure, we might be able to agree that something particularly terrible is just that, and we might be able to nod our heads to a piece that is particularly brilliant and say that, at the very least, it isn't terrible. But overall, many will adore language that others detest, and some will gasp appreciatively at a metaphor that makes the masses vomit. I find enchanting what you find dull, and so it goes. And Mary Wright (fall semester) will find the same image "ineffective," which Tobias Dalton (spring semester) calls "delightful and provocative." And so I say, to each their own. What is thoughtful, good, and stirring is without impartiality, contingent not only on the reader, but the reader's mood, location, and even on what the reader has recently read. Therefore, write what you will and read what you wish, and if you like it, then declare with authority that it is indeed exceptional.
读这两篇针锋相对的文章，我莫名其妙想起中国作家冯唐来了。因为，冯唐说过：文学的确有一条金线，一部作品达到了就是达到了，没达到就是没达到，对于门外人，若隐若现，对于明眼人，洞若观火。这种论点与第一篇不谋而合。可是冯唐的作品，如《不二》，有人觉得令人作呕，他自己却宣称是会比《金瓶梅》更伟大的作品。这种态度又和第二篇的口吻如出一辙。
俗话说：“文章是自己的好。”一语道破文学批评的天机：凡是对我作品评价高的，就是客观标准；凡是吐槽我作品的，那就见仁见智的了！