Comments on: Solving the Literary Critical Crisis

By: Ideas of fun | News in brief

Ideas of fun | News in brief — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:42:03 +0000

[...] while back, the prolific book blogger Edward Champion provided his no-nonsense solution for the crisis in literary criticism (this crisis, if you were wondering which one): “I think [...]

By: Newspaper Accountability : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits

Newspaper Accountability : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:13:08 +0000

[...] Telegraph’s Peter Robins has, to my great astonishment, followed up on my suggestion of asking book critics what they read for fun. Robins has queried his fellow staffers, even [...]

By: Steven Augustine

Steven Augustine — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:02:38 +0000

Nah, James Wood isn’t a problem; he’s just one guy with an opinion or two. It’s his legion of bumbling disciples that can be a drag now and then, but even *that* nuisance is, more often than not, funny. There’s more important stuff to worry about, in any case, than who agrees with us, or doesn’t, at any given moment, eh? This isn’t politics (unless one considers it the pointless politics of the virtual hive), in which votes count, or popularity confers an advantage.

Here’s an idea: why not go read a good book? Far-fetched… ?

By: Derek Catermole

Derek Catermole — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:14:13 +0000

I’m with Ed on this one, I’m afraid, Kids. Only I think we should refine our definition of what particular passions our sanctioned critics may experience. Here’s how we do it: we show each critic a photograph of James Wood and those who fail to react with rage, paranoia, jealousy, and ressentiment, we take out back and shoot.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:56:29 +0000

I’d say that asking critics to name a book they read recently for fun would make the point that not all of their reading is for professional reasons. Critics who only have time to read on assignment is more likely to have their opinions warped and jaded by purely professional concerns.

By: Rohan Maitzen

Rohan Maitzen — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:39:10 +0000

I’m with Steven on this one. Passion is no guarantee of either interesting or rigorous criticism. It may inspire such criticism, and the very best criticism may be that which communicates love of its subject along with compelling analysis, but on its own, passion (or enthusiasm, or whatever you want to call it) is as likely to generate “soporific fallow” as to counteract it.

That said, every critic I know (and as it happens, most of my best friends are literary critics) is extraordinarily passionate about literature and would have no trouble generating a list of the kind you mention.

By: Steven Augustine

Steven Augustine — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:59:01 +0000

“Here is my solution to the literary critical ‘crisis’: To ensure that those practicing literary criticism still maintain some passion for books…”

The obviously unfounded implication here being that “passion” behind any activity is a predictor of quality in the results. No: quite a few of the earnestly half-arsed or untalented are driven by passion. Marion “Rosebud” Davies was a “passionate” singer whose voice could crack mirrors (and kill small dogs); Uwe Boll is a “passionate” filmmaker.

Isn’t that “passion produces wonderments” superstition a hokey tenet of the faux-egalitarian, New Age, post-PC morass we’ve been mucking around in for decades? Isn’t “passion” the universal fairy dust that “passionate” makers of money use to sell fantasies with?

I see culture-wide crystals of mutual-congratulation forming, passionate in their unifying greed for validation. I’m also seeing less and less work of genuine merit and gigatons of crap. Coincidence? Hardly.

Was Paul Bowles a “passionate” writer? Is Joan Didion? What if Pynchon is “passionate” about jazz but merely a genius at writing? Frankly, I associate (self-professed) “passion” with B-listers like Herman Wouk or creeps like William F. Buckley or out-of-control burnouts like Bobby Fischer. It’s a histrionic term to apply to anyone who is, necessarily, forced to do rather lots of cool-headed calculation-and-revision for most of every productive day.

It’s kind of a showbizzy junk word when it comes to Art, Ed, though I know that plenty of people who wouldn’t know the difference have rather “passionate” opinions on the matter. I’m fully prepared to be ignored or jeered at for this post (by the usuals), but how about some boldly idea-generating discourse instead?

Lost cause?