Forum / NYTimes: A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical

Carson Baker
Aug 15, 09:56pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/a-critic-makes-the-case-for-critics.html

Excerpt:

“If you spend time in the literary Twitter- or blogospheres,” Silverman wrote, “you’ll be positively besieged by amiability, by a relentless enthusiasm that might have you believing that all new books are wonderful and that every writer is every other writer’s biggest fan.”

This isn’t just shallow, he added, it’s untrue. And the constant fake fraternizing has made genuine, honest opinion feel unduly harsh, a buzz kill from the gods. “Reviewers shouldn’t be recommendation machines,” Silverman added, “yet we have settled for that role, in part because the solicitous communalism of Twitter encourages it.”

Dolemite
Aug 15, 10:17pm

amen

David Ackley
Aug 15, 10:58pm

Since we're talking criticism here, let's us note that the article in point is stunningly derivative, with hardly a sentence that lacks quote or citation from someone else. No doubt what pisses writers about critics is that the latter leech on the former and would not exist without someone else's work to suck the blood from. Having got that off my chest, I have to say I happen to like reading good criticism--which, contrary to Dwight Garner, is not to be dismissed just because it is favorable: Consider Hugh Kenner's writing on Samuel Beckett for example which teaches us much about how Beckett is to be understood. At the same time, this article is not good criticism but a kind of mashup that oddly makes the case against itself and its author more effectively than any attack could.

David Ackley
Aug 15, 11:00pm

It seems also relevant, Carson, to point out that the quotes above are not by the author of the article, Dwight Garner, but by someone else he is quoting.

Joani Reese
Aug 16, 01:24am

Read Edmund Wilson's The Shores of Light. Good, honest criticism is, for the moment, dead. I do not believe it can be revived in our lifetimes.

Marcus Speh
Aug 16, 06:17am

this thread is making me hungry for some harsh criticism, thank you carson. haven't read the article yet but anis shivani via hudfington post etc comes to mind immediately as does harold bloom. it is astonishing indeed how toothless criticism has become. i'd like to think it's a transition to some truly great writing of the future...but i'm an optimist and want to be loved too much to do anything about it.

check out roxane gay's conversation with shivani for dessert:
http://htmlgiant.com/feature/a-conversation-with-anis-shivani/

Carson Baker
Aug 16, 06:17am

David, you're totally right. As you said, the article is almost entirely derivative. That's Jacob Silverman in the excerpt I pulled.

Matthew Keefer
Aug 16, 05:10pm

Okay, so I'm in kind of a unique position to offer some insight on the writer vs critic battle.

I review music albums, and as a critic, I have no obligation to the performer. None. I cannot have any, because that poisons my service, and that's the kind of poison that's been seeping into the rest of the music industry right now.

My job, as a critic, is to guide the consumer. I am only beholden to them. It's my responsibility to say "well, if your taste is like mine, then spend your money on SuperAlbum." It comes down to money. It comes down to whether I would have felt $15 was a great deal for this album, and whether I'm going to tell my friend to spend his or her $15 on this album, too. It's word of mouth, really, but my mouth's a bit bigger.

Now, as a fiction writer, I don't care about critics. When I interview musicians, I understand that THEY shouldn't care about critics. They don't play music to impress critics, and I don't write that way either. Yes, a good review does sell more copies, but if your potential readers don't trust it (because the last 40 reviews were written on crack) then, yes, you're poisoning the well.

In short, it's a critic's job to lambast, make you sound like an idiot and generally deride. Sometimes I don't even do that enough. But on your 3rd or 4th book, when they come around and say "damn, this author really hit it this time," then you open your audience to your strongest material. I don't want people to read a couple chapters of my junk and never pick up another of my books. I can't even read reviews anymore - books or music - and I hardly buy anything newer than 1970. That's really the danger here.

Roberto C. Garcia
Aug 16, 09:56pm

Marcus, I am a huge fan of Anis Shivani. He is a fearless critic and is trying, singlehandely, to destroy all the back patting. I bought a couple of his books. They are fun to read.

When it comes to critics I follow Truman Capote's maxim, "Never lower yourself by responding to a critic." Or something like that. It's a critics job to criticize. Smart readers will know when a review is good and when it's bad. The same way they know if a book is one they want to read or not after the first few pages.

Roberto C. Garcia
Aug 16, 09:57pm

I found the article to be a little fluffy. The title had more bite than the content.

Ann Bogle
Aug 16, 10:47pm

Eric Miles Williamson discovered Anis Shivani when Shivani was a college student at Harvard. (That is pretty close if not exact.) Williamson's criticism includes Oakland, Jack London, and Me. Eric is my friend, but our critical perspectives, our views as well as our intensity, are often unalike. His passion tempts me. Say It Hot is another of his critical books.

Here is the Kirkus Review of Say It Hot:

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/eric-miles-williamson/say-it-hot/

Good thread.

Marcus Speh
Aug 17, 04:55am

This looks really really good and interesting, Ann. I had not heard of Williamson, but already the quote ‘Behind every artistic act is a moralizing artist,’ from the blurb on Amazon gets me on his side. Thank you! It's interesting also how the review begins by calling his work “more like blowhard preventing rather than thoughtful criticism.” Case in point of this debate?
You must log in to reply to this thread.