Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Critics and how DID we form our dislikes for them? Message-ID: <16463@watmath.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 10:24:05 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.16463 Posted: Mon Sep 16 10:24:05 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 05:00:50 EDT References: <3630@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 50 [...] I see an important point in Steve Zeve's comments about the anti-critic bias. FOR THE MOST PART, those with no formal training in literature (say, those who have taken few university level courses) have only been exposed to "backyard" critics: high school teachers, peers, and that mouthy Arts major down the hall in residence. FOR THE MOST PART, those same people have only been exposed to national or international writers: those who have managed to interest a major publisher. Is it any wonder that the writers come out looking better than the critics? I mean no disrespect to high school teachers and the like -- in my five years of high school (we go to grade 13 in Ontario), I had two good English teachers (and three mediocre ones) which is a pretty good average. But the writers we read have gone through a more extensive culling process than the critics we listen to...unless we happen to find ourselves in advanced literature classes where we can read the work of national or international level critics. Given the basic high school introduction to literature, we are hardly likely to pick up a book of good criticism. The only other place we could possibly see high level criticism would be in newspaper and magazine book reviews. I will certainly concede there may be book reviews that treat SF in a competent way -- the New York Times Review of Books has been mentioned several times on the Net as one such publication. However, the Times is hard to find in Southern Ontario. I can choose one of the local papers (which are just as bush league as many high school teachers) or some newspaper/magazine which has more national coverage. Unfortunately, the newspapers/magazines that I can get my hands on do not pay any sort of attention to SF. As an example: the Toronto Globe and Mail (which is as close to a national newspaper as Canada has) published a review a few months ago of a new line of quality paperbacks that Penguin was bringing out, featuring Canadian short story writers. The writers were W.P.Kinsella, Leon Rooke, Audrey Thomas, and Spider Robinson. The Globe assumed that any literate person would have heard of the first three (highly unlikely outside Canada, and not so likely inside) but felt they had to go to great lengths to explain who Spider Robinson was. To them, SF was some little-read literary ghetto that needed an explanation. Conclusion: the critics with which we have the most experience are not in the major leagues; the writers are. Of course many of the writers are bad, but they are bad by major league standards (not to mention that they have been edited by major league editors). Is it any wonder that some people develop a knee-jerk response against critics? Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com