For over two decades, literary criticism has been dominated by theories originating from the structuralist and post-structuralist schools of thought. The baleful influence of these "post-Saussurean' thinkers upon academic critics will be evident to anyone who has more than a passing interest in literature. Much more serious than the present unhappiness in the Groves of Hackademe, however, is the adverse effect of advanced critical scorn for realistic fiction upon the evaluation of serious novelists. Whereas we used to be told that the novel itself was dead, influential academics now inform us that it is only realistic fiction that has died while the non- or anti-realistic novel is appropriately alive and kicking. In consequence, talentless anti-realism is more likely to receive respectful academic critical attention than the most talented realistic fiction. Now some novelists may feel that "academic critical attention' is something they could well do without. Even so, it cannot be a sign of health in the republic of letters if critics and creators are not talking to one another except where, as in the case of academic critics writing novels about the lives of academic critics, critic and creator are one and the same person.¹