Surfing the blogosphere and John Kottke pointed me towards this rather elitist article written by LA Times critic Richard Schickel. Seeing as his article was a response to the death of book reviews, a recent phenomenon we have observed here on metacritic, I thought his observations might warrant some discussion about criticism, since that is sorta what we do here. Schickel argues that only the expert can be a critic and there is a fine line between a criticism and an opinion. Read the article please and tell me what you think.

I read it but I really don’t know what to think. I mean, the guy is entitled to his opinion I guess. He is of the opinion that you have to be very knowledgeable, intelligent, well read, have some sort of degree (maybe even a master’s or doctorate’s) and that critiquing should be done by a select few. There is some truth here because you don’t want to just read what any other reviewer or critic says but at the same time, bloggers can do what they please.

I guess there are both sides to it. I would say that I don’t entirely agree with him but I also don’t think he is completely off base.

What did you think Friar?

Being admittedly snobbish when it comes to most things literary, I tend to agree with much of what he wrote, though the eltist tone of the article was off-putting. I particularly identified with the following passages

quote:

"...Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing. Very often, in the best reviews, opinion is conveyed without a judgmental word being spoken, because the review's highest business is to initiate intelligent dialogue about the work in question, beginning a discussion that, in some cases, will persist down the years, even down the centuries."

I think a lot of what he is talking about boils down to criticism vs. reviewing. I think Schickel is accurate to identify reviewing as the cousin of criticism. They are in the same family, but the relation is an extended one.

I think you can be critical of a literary work from a theoretical standpoint without necessarily offering a positive or negative opinion. You can also offer an opinion to a work without any critical examination. This is what Schnickel takes issue with, and it's where I tend to agree with him. I think he hits the nail on the head with the second passage. A good reviewer reveals their opinion in the tone with which they offer their critical examination.

Now, I should say I am approaching this from a fairly academic background, and a background that included a large helping of literary criticism and theory. This is not to say I'm right, but it definitely informs my position of agreement with the ideas quoted above.

I also want to say that I'm also only talking about books. Again, I think it's my background that informs this bias. With movies and music, I tend not to be as interested in theory. Movies to a small degree, but almost not at all with music.

I think blog reviews definitely serve a purpose, especially for movies, and I myself often check out user opinions. 85% say thumbs up, great, let's check it out! I'll save the crit. and theory for later.

Sorry if this is a bit scattered. I wrote it while eating lunch at my desk at work and I got distracted a few times!

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
What did you think Friar?

I don't like leading off discussions.

Its a difficult opinion for me because I half agree with his but I want to focus more on the New York Times article that was the impetus for his rant. Not the democratic point brought up of the Times article but that fewer reviews are being published.

Some of the best books out there are complex and difficult to understand to the layman (god bless Joyce's soul, Ulysses). In my literature class last year, we had a discussion about what makes a classic, ie, how a book enters into the literary canon. The big things we talked about were if it withstood time after repetitive reading and analysis and if it had deep meanings that described the human condition, either using symbolism or having multiple layers of meaning or the like. Those books are great and fun to discuss in academic circles with English majors. But this excludes most people.

But I hate what I've been observing the past few years. I grew up reading an obsessive amount, especially in middle school. I still read a fair amount (actually just finished a cs lewis book and working on a graham greene and a michael crichton) but my friends don't. The novel has been around for three hundred years and it seems to me that its dying. I posted in the harry potter thread this "i read the vent section of the AJC the other day and a kid told his mother 'why read a book, if its that good, they'll make it a movie.'"

Reading is a very personal experience for me and I love it because you're reading another person's thoughts and wisdom and understanding so much more about the world. But its also difficult to like the first pages of a Cormac McCarthy book (I could barely get through the first 50 of The Road. it was worth it, though). Reading has become a small hobby or past time, like making model airplanes. Only with a little work does it pay off. I guess what I'm trying to say is its an active form of entertainment vs passive or mindless, like most TV. I just can't see most people continuing to read after they're done with college.

I'm kinda confused explaining my thoughts here but the gist is I'm slightly saddened by the state of things I've been observing but it cannot be helped. This diffusion was inevitable when technology began to make living and thinking easier (not that I hate technology) just a generalization of a trend.

ok now, more on the actual article...
I agree that criticism should be kept to the experts but the experts aren't perfect. They have been slow to accept quite a few novels. The two I want to talk about, Their Eyes were Watching God and Catcher in the Rye, are quite different in how they were handled. Their Eyes were Watching God was written by Zora Neale Hurston in 1937 but was panned by most critics who would have read it, Harlem Renaissance critics. It lacked the "fervor and the passion" of other Harlem writers. They didn't like the themes expressed in the book so they rejected it. Alice Walker in the late 1970s discovered it and with her endorsement entered into the literary world is now a staple in high schools (where I read it). Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books and its the personal connection the reader makes with Holden Caulfield that makes me love it so much. It was quite popular with people when it was first published for this reason. The critics didn't like it, though, because its an easy read and its teenage angst, usually a trash genre. Eventually, the symbolism and the troubling and very real character of Holden pulled them over. It also has become a staple in high schools, a sign that the book has entered into literary canon.

Experts have opinions, beliefs, and attitudes too and its impossible to remain objective in any literary analysis. It is their job to remain as objective as they can and use their knowledge to analyze the quality of the work. That is criticism. But you need both sides to play ball.

quote:

Originally posted by The Friar:

ok now, more on the actual article...
I agree that criticism should be kept to the experts but the experts aren't perfect. They have been slow to accept quite a few novels. The two I want to talk about, Their Eyes were Watching God and Catcher in the Rye, are quite different in how they were handled. Their Eyes were Watching God was written by Zora Neale Hurston in 1937 but was panned by most critics who would have read it, Harlem Renaissance critics. It lacked the "fervor and the passion" of other Harlem writers. They didn't like the themes expressed in the book so they rejected it. Alice Walker in the late 1970s discovered it and with her endorsement entered into the literary world is now a staple in high schools (where I read it). Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books and its the personal connection the reader makes with Holden Caulfield that makes me love it so much. It was quite popular with people when it was first published for this reason. The critics didn't like it, though, because its an easy read and its teenage angst, usually a trash genre. Eventually, the symbolism and the troubling and very real character of Holden pulled them over. It also has become a staple in high schools, a sign that the book has entered into literary canon.

You're sort of supporting Schickel's argument when you say experts aren't perfect and are sometimes slow to come around. Look at the second passage I quoted. Schickel thinks one of the central roles of a critic is to start an ongoing dialogue. That means that even if that particular critic or a number of critics don't like it, if the review is written conscientiously and not as the end-all-be-all, the discussion and criticism may evolve over time.

quote:

Experts have opinions, beliefs, and attitudes too and its impossible to remain objective in any literary analysis. It is their job to remain as objective as they can and use their knowledge to analyze the quality of the work. That is criticism. But you need both sides to play ball.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you use the term "experts." If you're talking about critics/reviewers, I'm not saying they shouldn't have opinions, because when you think about it, that's their job. Schickel and I agree the opinion need not be blatant. The opinion of the reviewer is revealed in the tone of their critical analysis rather than a simple "thumbs up, thumbs down."

Your second entry here PRG cleared up, for me, the issue surrounding opinion in a serious critical review, as articulated by the commmentary here.
At first, I understood you to be saying that a reviewer can avoid judgement of a works merit, but your comment about 'blatantcy' is more on the mark.
It is of course impossible to avoid 'judgement', the 'judgemental word' as Schickel puts it; here I disagree with Schickel, though I am on board with him most elsewhere.
Judgement has become a dirty word in everyday discourse, and to the publics' loss.
Informed judgement, as of the type practiced by Schickel, Eagleton, Tim Parks or a hundred other lit crit types, is invaluable and necessary to a civilised discourse.
Tossing off a rant, cheap opinion or two, as I am fond of with music, for example, is of course a different barrel of fish, and I would never dream of confusing the two.
My honours thesis on J.G.Ballard was full of judgements, but carefully researched ones.
My scribblings on some singer I don't enjoy is all about the moment of being fed up ha ha.

Friar, its terrific to know there are still many others out 'there' who love those litlle paper and ink thingos as much as I do.
Thanks so much for putting some fresh blood into the books section at m/c.

I read at least 200 books a year and never review or critique one of them because I read for pleasure and learning. You might dislike every book I like. So be it. I brought home eight books from the library after work (don't want to run out) on various topics, various flavors and styles. Do I read reviews and such? Yes, but despite some of them being passably objective, I need to hold the book, hear the pages flap, read the end piece blurbs and a few paragraphs of text. Some of the best reviews and such are in magazines for librarians. I like salon.com sometimes as well. Avoid the publishers blurbs. They are written to sell the books and according to them every books is A+
Nice topic, this is. thanks.

I just had another thought> I process skads of books into the library inventory every year. Most of the time I am the first person to open the book. Have you heard the term "to crack open a book"? Many of the new books I open actually emit a cracking sound. Also, there is the delight of the ink smell that has been contained in the pages until I opened the book and fanned the pages. Delightful!
I am a lucky man.

Virgins.

Gotta love that.....(snigger, snigger in a dirty old man vein)

you bet, each book a virgin. Never thought of it that way, but it fits. Really, it is wonderful to me and then I get to read the book as well.

I'll risk predictability, and say that I agree with nearly everything Schickel writes in his article. What's more, I think it applies equally to music, painting, theatre, and all other forms of artistic endeavor. I think we all have a right to opinions about all of these things, and we can all do critical analysis. The quality of the analysis, however, is as proportional to the critics' training and education, as to their perspicacity.

As usual, k/c and the Sunshine Band says it better than anyone.

Love yr work, k/c!

You embarass me!

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels Coffin:
As usual, k/c and the Sunshine Band says it better than anyone.

You're damn right about that one Ish. Do a little dance. Make a little love. Get down tonight. I couldn't say it better myself.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
The quality of the analysis, however, is as proportional to the critics' training and education, as to their perspicacity.

Written by a self-professed lover of Pitchfork?

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:

Written by a self-professed lover of Pitchfork?

It's a fair cop. Still, I think what P4k does isn't criticism, per se, but its dirty, little, bastard cousin: review. And they do review the stuff that other, more mainstream sources don't touch. So, to quote Dr Johnson, "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."