Waray Literature and Kimball’s Critique of Contradictions in Eagleton’s Work
III
The Leyte Samar Heritage Center has a cozy bookstore called Kaaradman Library & Bookshop, which specializes in Visayas literature. They carry titles like Pinili: 15 Years of Lamiraw, Tinalunay: Hinugpong nga Panurat nga Winaray, and Sa Atong Dila: Introduction to Visayan Literature. I picked up Bagulaya’s Writing Literary History there. Afterwards, I headed to Dunkin’ Donuts on Salazar Street and devoured the book over donuts and iced coffee. It was dusk. The first page I read was Bagulaya’s critique of modernist literature.
Both Brooks and Richards obviously privilege the language of poetry. But this privileging denies practical logic which makes poetry anti-logic. It reduces the poem to New Critical sophistry. No wonder Brooks appreciated Donne’s poem for its paradox: “The lovers in rejecting life actually win the most intense life” (Brooks 1972, 38). From the above sophistry, it is obvious that New Criticism is not only anti-practical logic, it is at the same time metaphysical. They are able to resolve the apparent contradictions not in the material reality, but in metaphysical space of the poem. Moreover, the notion that poetry is different from the normal prose language because it uses metaphor is also unacceptable. As critic Terry Eagleton counters, “the idea that there is a single normal language, a common currency shared equally by all members of a society, is an illusion” (1983, 5). (Bagulaya 100 emphasis added)
IV
The following applies Kimball’s critiques, originally directed at Eagleton, to Bagulaya’s “The Ideology of Modern Waray Poetry,” examining the parallels point by point.
Forcing Everything into a Marxist Framework
Kimball’s criticism of Eagleton: His discussion of aesthetics “transforms a philosophical innovation into a dramatic example of class warfare… as if reason were a feudal lord oppressing the serfs of sensation” (24). Bagulaya does exactly this. He takes poems that appear to be about personal, intimate experiences – such as Victor Sugbo’s “Kan Margaret,” which is simply about an uncle leaving his niece (Bagulaya 110) – and forces them into an allegory of “city vs. countryside,” “center vs. periphery,” and “semifeudal exploitation.” Just as Kimball accused Eagleton of twisting Baumgarten’s aesthetics into a narrative of political oppression, Bagulaya reduces every line of poetry to a symptom of economic relations. He assumes that everything (the choice of subject, the use of imagery, the decision to write about private life) must ultimately be explained by the “semicolonial, semifeudal” structure of the economy. Bagulaya posits that “Modern Waray poetry has so far been argued as the most recent cultural development of the persistent semicolonial, semifeudal Philippine economy (120). To Kimball, this is not analysis; it is ideological projection: seeing only what your theory tells you to see, regardless of what the work actually says or means.
Misinterpretation and Distortion of Meaning
Kimball’s criticism of Eagleton: “[He] drastically misreads the philosophers he discusses” misunderstanding Schopenhauer’s pessimism as a product of ‘class history’ rather than an essential feature of existence (24). Bagulaya fundamentally misrepresents the meaning and value of modern Waray poetry. He interprets its focus on the private realm, intimacy, and personal emotion as a sign of indifference, political unconsciousness, or support for the status quo. But as Kimball would argue, this is a total misreading. The turn toward the personal is not necessarily a “failure” or a hidden political stance; it can be a deliberate choice to explore human experience, beauty, memory, or individual truth, which are valid and meaningful in themselves.
Bagulaya claims that because these poets do not write explicitly about revolution or class struggle, they are “unconscious” or trapped in “split modernism.” This is like Eagleton saying art is only valuable if it serves a political end. Kimball would point out that Bagulaya judges the poetry only by his own political standard, completely missing its literary, emotional, or cultural value. He mistakes literary autonomy (the freedom of art to be about things other than politics) for a flaw or a contradiction.
Obsession with “Contradictions” That Exist Only in the Theory
Kimball’s criticism of Eagleton: “One must always be suspicious when a Marxist uses the term ‘contradiction,’ because it usually means that some aspect of reality is not conforming to his vision of things” (24). The entire analysis revolves around the idea of “split modernism,” the claim that modern Waray poetry is contradictory because it mixes modern techniques with traditional or romantic themes, and because it is caught between feudalism and modernity. Kimball would argue that this “contradiction” is not a flaw in the poetry, but a flaw in Bagulaya’s model.
There is nothing contradictory or wrong about a culture or literature blending old and new, local and foreign, personal and social. This is normal in every living tradition. But because Bagulaya measures reality against a rigid Marxist model of historical development (where things should move from feudal to modern in a straight line), he calls it a “split.” As Kimball said about Eagleton: “Minus that [Marxist model], it is merely a complex process that refuses to accommodate itself to the predictions of philosophers.” Bagulaya creates the problem himself, then blames the poetry for it.
Reducing Art to Ideology, Denying Intrinsic Value
Kimball’s criticism of Eagleton: “[He does not] care much for literature except in so far as it is an instrument for social change” (24). This is the core of Bagulaya’s argument. For him, poetry has no intrinsic value. It is good or bad, progressive or backward, only based on how well it reflects or challenges the economic base. He writes: “Modernist aesthetics is not enough… It takes a twenty-first century socialist revolution to transform poetry.”
To Kimball, this is the ultimate reductionism. It means that art is nothing more than a tool or a symptom. Bagulaya dismisses the beauty, skill, imagination, and emotional power of Waray poetry as secondary or even irrelevant. Just as Kimball rejected Eagleton’s view that aesthetic experience is “as coercive as law,” he would reject Bagulaya’s view that a poem about family or nature is actually just a hidden statement about surplus value or feudal exploitation. He would say: This tells us nothing about poetry, but everything about the critic’s obsession with politics.
Obscurantism and Dogma
Kimball’s criticism of Eagleton: His writing often becomes obscure and forced; full of jargon that keeps reality at bay. Bagulaya relies heavily on abstract terms like semicolonial semifeudalism, political unconscious, split modernism, ideological position, center vs. periphery, terms that function like a closed system. Once you accept these definitions, his conclusions follow automatically. But as Kimball would note, these are not discoveries; they are assumptions built into the language. By using this kind of jargon, Bagulaya avoids actually engaging with the poetry on its own terms. Instead of describing what the poems mean, he describes only how they fit (or fail to fit) his theory. And like Eagleton, he ends with a dogmatic conclusion: only a socialist revolution can save it, a solution that comes straight from ideology, not from literary analysis.
This analysis is a perfect example of what happens when literary criticism is swallowed whole by Marxist ideology. Bagulaya reads every poem as a coded document about class and economics, misinterprets the legitimate choice of personal themes as political failure, invents ‘contradictions’ that exist only in his own theoretical framework, and reduces the rich, diverse tradition of Waray poetry to nothing more than a reflection of the economy. It is not an analysis of literature, it is ideology in action. It tells us almost nothing about the poetry itself, but a great deal about the rigid, reductive worldview of the critic.
V
Bagulaya’s Writing Literary History gives space to Sugbo’s Waray verses. On page 277, you’ll find the opening lines of Sugbo’s poem “This Anticipation for Poetry”.
How wearisome this search for poetry
More so when neither moon nor sun on you shines
The speaker is describing that looking for, creating, or seeking out poetry feels tiring, tedious, and exhausting. The act of trying to find or write poetry is difficult and draining; it feels like a heavy, unending effort. The sun and moon are metaphors of light, hope, clarity, inspiration, and guidance. The speaker is saying that the effort to find or make poetry is already tiring, but it becomes even more difficult and disheartening when there is no inspiration, guidance, or hope. Without that “light” (creativity, meaning, or motivation), the search feels pointless, bleak, and heavy. It describes the frustration of trying to create or find art when there is no inspiration or reason to keep going.
Short Biography
Fhen M.’s essay “Waray Literature and Kimball’s Critique of Contradictions in Eagleton’s Work” appears in Synchronized Chaos, an interdisciplinary journal focused on art, music, culture, science, and literature. Literary Heist also publishes his prose “Imagination of Disaster in the Major Works of Henry James: A Study by Genotiva.” From 2016 to 2017, he worked as an academic writer at Zeveral Academic Consultants Inc. in Pasig City, Metro Manila. During his tenure, his team leader gifted him a copy of the 2014 animated film The Prophet, adapted from Kahlil Gibran’s 1923 book. The film follows Mustafa, a poet and activist under house arrest in Ottoman-era Lebanon, as he engages in profound conversations with the townspeople on topics like work, love, and death. One of Gibran’s notable poems featured in the film is “On Work”.
