"Literary critics, however, frequently suffer from a curious belief that every author longs to extend the boundaries of literary art, wants to explore new dimensions of the human spirit, and if he doesn't, he should be ashamed of himself"

This quote by Robertson Davies addresses a common mindset among literary critics, highlighting the frequently impractical expectations put on authors. Davies recommends that critics regularly run under the presumption that every writer is naturally driven to push the limits of literary kind and delve into uncharted territories of the human condition. This perspective indicates that authors have an obligation to innovate or challenge the status quo within their works, which failure to do so is viewed as an imperfection or something to be embarrassed about.

Davies' observation critiques this frame of mind, explaining the detach in between the critics' goals for literature and the intents or desires of the authors themselves. Not every writer seeks to change literature or embark on an extensive exploration of the human mind; some may compose just to tell a story, entertain, or convey a straightforward message. The critic's belief that striving for literary innovation is a universal goal can result in an unjust or narrow evaluation of literary works, dismissing the value of storytelling that does not necessarily push boundaries.

Moreover, Davies' declaration likewise touches on the wider style of creative autonomy. He subtly advocates for the idea that writers must be able to select their own courses without the pressure to comply with external expectations of embodying an artistic pioneer. The expectation to continually check out "brand-new dimensions of the human spirit" can be suppressing and may negate the legitimacy of works that focus on clearness, custom, or individual resonance over development.

In addition, this viewpoint raises questions about the function and function of both literature and its criticism. Should literary success be determined by its novelty and expedition, or can it be similarly valued for its ability to link, communicate, or mesmerize audiences on familiar terms? Davies implicitly argues for a more inclusive and understanding technique to literary criticism, one that appreciates the diversity of objectives and designs among authors.