Saturday, January 01, 2011

What is the place of serious criticism in the age of instant, ubiquitous opinion­?

There are half a dozen articles on literary criticism in Sunday's New York Times under the header "What is the place of serious criticism in the age of instant, ubiquitous opinion­?" The index and editors' introduction is here.

They range from thoughtful to evangelical to downright hyperbolic (cop the quotation from Sam Anderson's piece, below!) but they make interesting reading.

Anderson writes:

Martin Amis, one of my reviewing heroes, made an apt comment once about the special nature of book criticism: he said that art critics, when they review art shows, don’t paint pictures about those shows, film critics don’t review movies by making movies about them and music critics don’t review concerts by composing symphonies. “But,” he said, “when you review a prose-narrative, then you write a prose-narrative about that prose-narrative.” This is the magic, and the opportunity, of the form. In reviewing a book, we respond artfully to a work of art in its own medium. We write words about words — and then, as the conversation progresses, we write words about words about words about words. Our work is a kind of ground zero of textuality, in which one text converges on another text to create a third, hybrid, ultratext. This self-reflexiveness doesn’t make critical writing secondary or parasitic, as critics of the critics have said for centuries: it makes it complex and fascinating and exponentially exciting. It reminds me of Aristotle’s description of the mind of God, an apparatus so divinely perfect it can think only of itself: “Its thinking is a thinking on thinking.”


My reaction? Maybe Marty should get his hand off it. (You too Sam!) Composers have been responding to each others works critically, in kind, for centuries. Visual artists too. Rare is the literary critic that can match, let alone eclipse, the original writer.

My fave reviews Of All Time were by DH Lawrence, especially his responses to Walt Whitman. DH skewers Walt. Oh, yeah! That's art! But it's all DH innit? I didn't love Walt any less after seeing him disemboweled. But I did like DH a whole lot more. Enough to forgive him (most of) his trespasses.


5 Comments:

Blogger Alison Croggon said...

DH Lawrence skewering Walt sounds like an act of patricide. But that would be par for the course, I guess. Dark gods are always killing their fathers. Must read it for myself.

Thanks for pointing this out, Chris. Fascinating bunch of essays - I liked Katie Roiphe's, Pankah Mishra's and Adam Kirsch's especially. I guess I think it's not the ubiquity of opinion that's new - it was ever thus. It's merely that that the ubiquity of opinion is now written down as much as said. Does that change the game, essentially? I'm not sure it does. Interesting times.

5:34 AM  
Blogger Chris Boyd said...

I liked what Adam Kirsch had to say about the decline in power (forgive reductiveness of this paraphrase!) of the common reader, at least in America. I don't think the situation is quite so dire in the UK or Canada or here, despite Howard's sustained anti-'elite' push.

6:01 PM  
Blogger Chris Boyd said...

Might as well just quote it!

"Like everyone, I wonder whether a general audience, made up of what Virginia Woolf called “common readers,” still exists. If it does, the readership of The New York Times Book Review is probably it. But measured against the audience for a new movie or video game, or against the population as a whole, even the Book Review reaches only a niche audience. Perhaps the only difference between our situation and Arnold’s is that in Victorian England, the niche that cared about literature also happened to constitute the ruling class, while in democratic, mass-media America, the two barely overlap."

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Owen Richardson said...

DH Lawrence skewering Walt Whitman sounds like another kind of act to me.

I don't really understand what Adam Kirsch means by saying that in the nineteenth century England only the ruling classes cared about literature - the nineteenth century being the era of self-improving working men and women, and an aristocracy and plutocracy notorious for their philistinism. Unless by "ruling class" he means everyone in the middle classes as well. But it's still a dumb thing to say.

7:01 PM  
Blogger Chris Boyd said...

Yeah Owen, fair point. AK was a bit too keen to make a point about his own time to get the comparison exactly right. Elite bashing is more widespread than I'd care to believe.

12:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home