Meaning: Raymond Chandler, an American novelist and screenwriter, was known for his hardboiled detective fiction, particularly his creation of the iconic private detective Philip Marlowe. In the quote, Chandler criticizes critical writing, expressing his disdain for what he perceives as the dishonesty and lack of emotional depth in much of it. His perspective sheds light on the tension between critical analysis and the emotional impact of literature and serves as a thought-provoking commentary on the nature of literary criticism.

Chandler's assertion that "most critical writing is drivel and half of it is dishonest" reflects his frustration with the state of literary criticism during his time. While some may view this statement as overly cynical, it is important to consider the context in which Chandler was writing. During the mid-20th century, literary criticism was undergoing significant changes, with various schools of thought vying for dominance. Chandler's critique may stem from his perception that much critical writing was becoming overly academic and detached from the emotional and sensory experiences that literature can evoke.

Chandler's claim that critical writing is a "short cut to oblivion" suggests that he believes such writing lacks lasting significance or impact. This viewpoint may reflect his belief that critics often overlook the enduring emotional and visceral power of literature in favor of intellectual analysis. For Chandler, the true essence of literature lies in its ability to evoke emotions and sensations, and he seems to lament the potential loss of this aspect in the face of critical dissection.

The notion that "thinking in terms of ideas destroys the power to think in terms of emotions and sensations" encapsulates Chandler's belief that an overemphasis on intellectual analysis can detract from the visceral impact of literature. It implies that an exclusive focus on dissecting the themes and ideas within a work may hinder the reader's ability to engage with the emotional and sensory aspects of the writing. Chandler's perspective aligns with the idea that literature should be experienced holistically, engaging both the intellect and the emotions.

Chandler's critique of critical writing resonates with a broader conversation about the role of criticism in the appreciation and understanding of literature. While critical analysis undoubtedly provides valuable insights into literary works, Chandler's perspective serves as a reminder that the emotional and sensory impact of literature should not be overshadowed by intellectual deconstruction. His emphasis on the power of emotions and sensations in literature highlights the multifaceted nature of the reading experience and invites readers and critics alike to consider the holistic impact of literary works.

In conclusion, Raymond Chandler's quote offers a compelling critique of critical writing, highlighting the potential pitfalls of overemphasizing intellectual analysis at the expense of emotional and sensory engagement with literature. While his perspective may be viewed as contentious, it underscores the importance of balancing critical analysis with an appreciation for the emotional and visceral power of literature. Chandler's words serve as a thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature and significance of literary criticism.