Milton did not argue against censorship completely. He argued against the arbitrary assignment of that authority to the government. After reading “Polemical Introduction,” I am under the impression that Milton would very much have been in favor of the eventual censorship caused by “scientific” literary critics. Although Frye asserts that, “The only way to forestall the work of criticism is through censorship, which has the same relation to criticism that lynching has to justice,” it is clear that he is in favor of the critics selecting literature to be consumed, a form of censorship. It is the Critics’ Calling to censor out the crap literature from Literature.
In the beginning of his essay, Frye tells us the public is incapable of knowing art. “The fallacy common…is that of a rough correlation between the merit of art and the degree of public response…” When assessing Blue Velvet, we asked ourselves if we would have liked the movie without watching repeatedly. Is it right of the director to make an elite club out of understanding his art? I think the answer is yes. Art should not be whittled down to appeal to the masses and make the Cash Money. However, is it the role of the critic to find the importance of the Art for us? I do not like the idea of sitting back and allowing some critic to “scientifically” decide on the merit of a literary piece. Although I enjoy reading criticism, I don’t think that the critic should be the final judge, as Frye claims “is clear.” “It is the task of the public critic to exemplify how a man of taste uses and evaluates literature, and thus show how literature is to be absorbed into society.”