Alas, we be lazy critics, yes?

[burntpunk]

I recently read 1984. It is generally regarded as a masterpiece. I liked it, but didn't love, as an avid critic and writer of prose myself, I read other critiques, study guides and reviews of 1984 to try and understand what components quanitified it as a masterpiece. And of course, I took them down and understood, still I liked the book but didn't love.

Conversely, I watch Skins, the British TV drama. I didn't like it, I loved it. Yet, critically, it probably doesn't deliver all the punches, yet I identified countless elements of it, that make it such a fulfilling piece of literature.

The horrible irony is that, I seem to deny any of the pleasure I gained from Skins and when I talk about it with friends (it's just about the only piece of art my phillistinical friends consume), I make it out to be some guilty pleasure, like it should be frowned upon just because there's no consensus gratifying it as a masterpiece. First and foremost, Literature should be about stretching and educating ourselves, so I will continue to move through the creme-de-la-creme, they must be regarded as masterpieces for a reason, but we must not label books. We shouldn't read blind. We should judge for ourselves, without being told what to like. Us readers, we're meant to be the ones that don't conform. It's ironic, yes? Remember, Hamlet was hardly appreciated at the time compared to how it is now, nobody noticed the hesitation back then.

Sure, context and topic play some part, maybe Skins is more accessible, but surely we should lower our guards and enjoy our arts blindly, before conforming to the critics views. I've find myself only reading the 'safe' books, the certified masterpieces of literature, yes this is because of time restrictments.

Are we getting lazy critics?

[JBI]

How is it the critics' fault that you watch, or don't watch skins? Do you know who made those classics of yours, which you only read, because of time constraints? Critics. As for Hamlet being unappreciated, or Shakespeare for that matter being unappreciated, footnote please. From what I know - there were more quartos of this play than others, and it would seem to have been quite a popular one in its day.

I don't quite get what you're saying. Are you suggesting that critics are sloppy because they don't champion this Skins show, or that they don't tell you, who is time constrained, what to read? As far as I know, neither of those tasks are technically critics' jobs.

[PeterL]

Literary criticism demands a substantial amount of background about the work and the time when it was written. Without having a similar amount of background, it is easy to have a different conclusion about the work than the opinion of most critics. If you don't know how totalitarianism was regarded around the period when 1984 was written, then the power of the message of the book would not be clear to you. I expect that 1984 will be largely ignored in 100 years, unless there is another major spate of totalitarianism.

[mayneverhave]

Literary criticism demands a substantial amount of background about the work and the time when it was written. Without having a similar amount of background, it is easy to have a different conclusion about the work than the opinion of most critics. If you don't know how totalitarianism was regarded around the period when 1984 was written, then the power of the message of the book would not be clear to you. I expect that 1984 will be largely ignored in 100 years, unless there is another major spate of totalitarianism.

The New Critic in me must disagree with you. If a book can only be appreciated as a period piece (one reflecting the opinions and values of a certain date), and not as a stand alone work, it is a deficiency in the work.

I have only a sparse knowledge of the English Revolution, but yet my appreciation of Paradise Lost has not been effected in any major way. Perhaps my understanding of the poem would grow if I were to master the time period, but as it stands now, the work transcends its time. Even so, my impetus to understand the English Revolution requires no congruent revolution to occur in the states in order for me to fully grasp it.

[prendrelemick]

You should always keep your guard down.

[PeterL]

The New Critic in me must disagree with you. If a book can only be appreciated as a period piece (one reflecting the opinions and values of a certain date), and not as a stand alone work, it is a deficiency in the work.

I have only a sparse knowledge of the English Revolution, but yet my appreciation of Paradise Lost has not been effected in any major way. Perhaps my understanding of the poem would grow if I were to master the time period, but as it stands now, the work transcends its time. Even so, my impetus to understand the English Revolution requires no congruent revolution to occur in the states in order for me to fully grasp it.

I understand what you mean, but even truly great literature is tied to its time; although the very best is timeless. Shakespeare's plays don't have the same meaning now as they did when he wrote them, and many people have trouble understanding them at all. Paradise Lost is rooted in religious and moral discussions of its time. Many of those discussions are ongoing, but some parts are lost on modern readers. Gulliver's Travels has become a fantasy for children, but it was written as a deeply biting satire of it's time. I think it's one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language. Although many people still love the books by the Brontes, I consider them extremely out of date; the cultural values have changed greatly since them.

Every work of literature is f its time, and later readerswill not understand it the same way that contemporaries did.

[Hank Stamper]

Watching Skins IS something to be frowned upon!

But I agree that we should judge works of art for ourselves - be that literature or anything else... I'm not particularly a big fan of critics anyway - they are just spouting opinions... I am quite capable of forming one of my own cheers

But classic literature is classic literature for a reason... people read it because it has stood the test of time, not necessarily just because it is critically acclaimed

and Skins is popular culture at its most gratuitous, so that is why it is more 'accessible'

[kasie]

.... I watch Skins, the British TV drama. I didn't like it, I loved it. Yet, critically, it probably doesn't deliver all the punches, yet I identified countless elements of it, that make it such a fulfilling piece of literature.

...... I've find myself only reading the 'safe' books, the certified masterpieces of literature, yes this is because of time restrictments.

Are we getting lazy critics?

burntpunk, everyone is allowed one piece of bad taste! :D And everyone is allowed to relax in whatever way he/she prefers. When I was doing my Finals, with a HUGE reading list, my 'night off' was to watch Doomwatch, a science fiction series, and Up Pompeii! a somewhat risque Frankie Howard series set in Ancient Rome (and most of the jokes were contemporary with the setting!) I knew both of them were mindless entertainment but they were my choice of mindless entertainment and they let me switch off from close readings of Dostoevsky et al. Enjoy your Skins - you've recognised its failings so your critical faculties are in full working order: as long as you don't try passing it off as High Art on the grounds that you enjoy it (I won't mention The Da Vinci Code....or Harry Potter.....) you are entitled to your innocent enjoyment.

As for reading 'safe' books, I take it you are still studying? If so, this is the time for laying down a foundation of tried and tested Classics, upon which you can build your future reading and criticism. A very good tutor once said with a smile that there was a place for 'rubbish' reading: if you didn't sift through the rubbish, how could you know you'd come across a gem when you found one? Not that he advocated 'rubbish', he added hastily, he just thought it had its function, to set off the books of true worth. :)

[grotto]

Wannabee critics who look for validation of their opinions will never have a true opinion. The true worth of personal value lies in how it touches you alone without the crowd’s acceptance to your taste. Good taste is defined by the masses, not by the individual and the day that I need conformity to guide me in my taste will be the day I stop reading.

Here we go again on lets start with the classics. Define classic? Is classic what sold the most? What has been garnered as school board acceptable? Or what Oprah puts her stamp on? Read to open your mind, not to close it and fit some self imposed norm. When you have to be told what it is that you just read, you’re not reading what the author wrote.

Some will read this as angry, bitter, matter of factually or maybe I have a big smile on my face. Who knows but me? The same with a novel, we all feel something completely different in it’s interpretation and no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to write exactly how we feel, so why should a writer be any different? To pigeon hole a novelist is to kill him.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not responding to any particular post at all just making a general comment about critics, why is it that there seems to be a general dislike towards the critic? They seem to be the estate agents of the literary world.

Personally I think the job which a critic does is invaluable to further understanding a reading of a text whether you agree with that opinion or not. I don't really get the attitude of distaste towards the literary critic. If there is something which a critic has said about a particular text which you don’t agree with then why don’t we share it and open up the discussion a bit?

I get the feeling that sometimes people become threatened by the voice of the critic as if there is a feeling of inferiority towards the voice of the “expert.” I don’t know. A critic only offer a particular reading/readings of a text or author, there is no harm in that surely.

[The Comedian]

I'm not responding to any particular post at all just making a general comment about critics, why is it that there seems to be a general dislike towards the critic? They seem to be the estate agents of the literary world.

Personally I think the job which a critic does is invaluable to further understanding a reading of a text whether you agree with that opinion or not. I don't really get the attitude of distaste towards the literary critic. If there is something which a critic has said about a particular text which you don’t agree with then why don’t we share it and open up the discussion a bit?

I get the feeling that sometimes people become threatened by the voice of the critic as if there is a feeling of inferiority towards the voice of the “expert.” I don’t know. A critic only offer a particular reading/readings of a text or author, there is no harm in that surely.

Good post Neely. In my days in the university system (several years ago), I developed a distaste for "the critic" because I observed that literary critics (my professors; I went to a pretty highfalutin' university) behaved like well-spoken adolescents.

Criticism, and correspondingly those who wrote it, chased trends. New Historicist criticism was the flavor of my turn in the graduate halls: everyone espoused how enlightening it was, how the previous trend was foolish and weak and full of flaws. But this New Historicism was true enlightenment!

Of course, this same critical narrative was said about the brand before New Historicism.

Of course, things may be different now. And they may be different in England than they were in the US when I went to graduate school, but this trendiness left a bitter taste in my mouth -- my professors who wrote criticism in the method of the time got published. Those who didn't didn't (at least, it was much harder for them to do so).

In my years after graduate school, I still read literature and I can say that I almost never use any type of criticism to further my understanding of the text, unless, of course, you count the formalist "close reading" as a critical method. Further, the value of literature for me, is almost exclusively spiritual (in the most general sense of the word) and personal, something which no critical theory that I was exposed to acknowledge as anything other than simplistic.

Anyway, that's my story of why I don't care much for critics: it's jaded, subjective, and probably not accurate anymore. But it's real, nonetheless.

[Hank Stamper]

I'm not responding to any particular post at all just making a general comment about critics, why is it that there seems to be a general dislike towards the critic? They seem to be the estate agents of the literary world.

Personally I think the job which a critic does is invaluable to further understanding a reading of a text whether you agree with that opinion or not. I don't really get the attitude of distaste towards the literary critic. If there is something which a critic has said about a particular text which you don’t agree with then why don’t we share it and open up the discussion a bit?

I get the feeling that sometimes people become threatened by the voice of the critic as if there is a feeling of inferiority towards the voice of the “expert.” I don’t know. A critic only offer a particular reading/readings of a text or author, there is no harm in that surely.

academically, yes they serve an invaluable purpose - but to the general reader, I don't think they should have any relevance..

I'm not a fan of being told what to like or not to like - so I am talking about critics in the broadest sense, not from an academic or even literary viewpoint

[grotto]

I have nothing against the critic, the critic makes me think as much as the novelist. My objection is when the critic becomes the ultimate voice and no one questions their opinions, and yes, they are opinions just as mine is. AKA Oprah and the like. When you don’t question, the critic becomes the new ruler.

How many times have you heard the sheep see a movie or read a book for the sole reason that a critic has recommended it? Not because they want to mind you, but because so many are programmed to believe what others suggest as opposed to making their decisions.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Comedian, yes I can see why you would dislike the attitudes that can foster in academia but that shouldn’t really affect the criticism. To me literary critics offer insights into texts and you take or leave them. They are like tools in a tool box the more you have the more able you are to do the job.

Hank, why would the general reader even consider a critic's choice?

I think you have summed it up when you say “I'm not a fan of being told what to like or what not to like” I think most peoples dislike of critics goes along these lines. Fair enough you are talking about general critics, maybe even the TV critic or art critic, but I don’t think any critics' job is to tell you what to like or what not to like. I personally think people get upset when they like something and critics say it has little or no value and this is one of the reasons why they dislike the critic, they feel undermined by their words.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have nothing against the critic, the critic makes me think as much as the novelist. My objection is when the critic becomes the ultimate voice and no one questions their opinions, and yes, they are opinions just as mine is. AKA Oprah and the like. When you don’t question, the critic becomes the new ruler.

How many times have you heard the sheep see a movie or read a book for the sole reason that a critic has recommended it? Not because they want to mind you, but because so many are programmed to believe what others suggest as opposed to making their decisions.

But there is a world of difference between the real critic and the marketing scams for the likes of these Oprah stickers? Really if the sheeple are going to take in the likes of a sticker on a book from “Oprah” or from “Richard and Judy Book Club” (google don’t ask) then they get what they deserve: cheap mass-produced rubbish.

I’m talking about real literary criticism (or film/theatre criticism etc) from educated people in their field. No, just because they are educated in their field it doesn’t necessarily mean that you will agree with their stance, but their input is often extremely interesting regardless.

[mayneverhave]

I have nothing against the critic, the critic makes me think as much as the novelist. My objection is when the critic becomes the ultimate voice and no one questions their opinions, and yes, they are opinions just as mine is. AKA Oprah and the like. When you don’t question, the critic becomes the new ruler.

How many times have you heard the sheep see a movie or read a book for the sole reason that a critic has recommended it? Not because they want to mind you, but because so many are programmed to believe what others suggest as opposed to making their decisions.

In terms of literary criticism, it would be unwise to group legit critics with marketing schemes like Oprah's - they are not at all the same.

For those who read seriously (and therefore read criticism as well as literature), it is highly doubtful that the reader will suddenly abandon his own critical/analytical sense and simply accept at face value everything a critic says in an essay. For me, at least, I read criticism to further my understanding of a certain text - not as the final answer. In addition, I happen to find reading criticism just as enjoyable as reading novels/poetry, etc.

For the general reader, I highly doubt legit critics have any influence except in an indirect way - like adorning the back of book covers. The publishers (like Penguin) determine the classics, but the classics (as we've discussed many times on this forum) are the books that have been weeded out from all the garbage throughout the years for their stand out excellence. We can question the validity of a "classic" just as much we can question a critics opinion - they are just general guidelines (a canon, that is).

The general reader is not going to read criticism, is not looking for high quality stuff, and is therefore not going to put much faith or value into criticism. They take their cues from Oprah, the New York Times List, whatever their friends are reading, or whatever is popular. A very common one I find is that my friends who read (who are few in number) often buy books of films that they like. My one friend is reading Upton Sinclair's "OIL" because of the movie "There will be blood". He did not get this from a critic - and he would never think of reading criticism - he picked it up because he liked the movie.

[The Comedian]

Comedian, yes I can see why you would dislike the attitudes that can foster in academia but that shouldn’t really affect the criticism. To me literary critics offer insights into texts and you take or leave them. They are like tools in a tool box the more you have the more able you are to do the job.

Oh, they're "tools" alright. . .:D

Kidding aside, you have a good point that criticism's value is to offer varying insights into texts, their authors, and their times. This value is legitimate, noble, and helpful. But critics, from my dated and culture-bound perspective, too often present themselves as gate keepers of a nerd-fraternity whose requirements for entrance include a familiarity with trendy, made-up polysyllabic words and an exaggerated sense of importance that too often communicates exclusion rather than inclusion. But, as with all such generalities, there are probably only a few arseholes who stink up the joint.

And this is quite unfortunate.


I personally think people get upset when they like something and critics say it has little or no value and this is one of the reasons why they dislike the critic, they feel undermined by their words.

Of course. :) Walden ROCKS, and anyone who tells me different can go sit on a pumpkin.

:)

[grotto]

Very true Neely, there are differences but, I don’t think the differences aren’t as well defined as we would like to think. An educated critic needs to make a living as does the modern scam book pusher, they all have agendas. Well known and respected critics have destroyed writer’s careers only to have the same literature resurrected years, if not centuries later. We are all critics and our minds are prone to change as is any critics. What is taught as educated literary criticism today may not hold true tomorrow.

I also agree that a lot of people get upset with any criticism of the book they just read and admired. They initially set out for validation of their own opinion, then were upset because they weren’t validated, there is a selfish motive to this, please approve of my choice. It’s hard to stand against the crowd and sometimes we want support for what ever it may be, even what we read.

[kelby_lake]

The New Critic in me must disagree with you. If a book can only be appreciated as a period piece (one reflecting the opinions and values of a certain date), and not as a stand alone work, it is a deficiency in the work.

I have only a sparse knowledge of the English Revolution, but yet my appreciation of Paradise Lost has not been effected in any major way. Perhaps my understanding of the poem would grow if I were to master the time period, but as it stands now, the work transcends its time. Even so, my impetus to understand the English Revolution requires no congruent revolution to occur in the states in order for me to fully grasp it.

Not necessary political, but you need knowledge of the Bible- a lot of people don't have that today.
We read because we want to know about worlds that we can't access- hence the appeal of historical novels. Some novels encapsulate a sort of zeitgeist- take Gatsby, very American, very 20's. Yet the abstract symbolism means that it links back to tragedy, which is timeless.

No one can 'fully grasp' a good book. There should always be an element of ambiguity, interpretation, otherwise you just get glib summaries.

As TS Eliot said of plays, 'If I can understand a play the first time I see it, it can't be very good.'

[Lynne Fees]

[QUOTE=burntpunk;695905]I recently read 1984. It is generally regarded as a masterpiece. I liked it, but didn't love, as an avid critic and writer of prose myself, I read other critiques, study guides and reviews of 1984 to try and understand what components quanitified it as a masterpiece. And of course, I took them down and understood, still I liked the book but didn't love. QUOTE]

Back to 1984: I'm not sure it was a literary gem of any kind. I think the reason it had popular acclaim was that it hit a nerve with people about our society; how impersonal and pleasure-oriented we are becoming. Sometimes "masterpieces" are loved for their story-telling ability, sometimes they are widely read because they give us new ideas.