Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site starfire.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!qantel!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!ncs-med!starfire!brust
From: brust@starfire.UUCP (Steven K. Zoltan Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: reply about criticism
Message-ID: <180@starfire.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 16:04:31 EST
Article-I.D.: starfire.180
Posted: Sun Feb  9 16:04:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 19:57:19 EST
References: <27800071@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: Starfire Consulting Services, Mpls MN
Lines: 68

> >
> >        Saying that someone who can't write cannot criticize or
> > review a piece of writing is akin to saying that someone can't
> > fix a electrical appliance unless he knows how to invent one.
> 
> > = Jerry Boyajian
> 
> Uh, wait a minute.  Knowing whether or not you *like* something is different
> from having the capacity to criticize it.  In general, I don't care for
> modern art -- my tastes are pretty representational, not abstract.  However,
> after dutifully watching one of the PBS series on modern art ("The Shock of
> the New"?), I understood more about it and had my opinion of *some*
> works/artists changed, e.g., Kadinsky.  I have had similar revisions of
> liking some literature after having had a guided tour, e.g., Joyce, Faulkner;
> on the otherhand I can't bring myself to like other work even after such an
> experience, e.g. Smollett, Richardson, Trollope (yechhh!).
> 
> It seems to me that to be a critic, you have to have some understanding of
> what the author is intending, even if you don't sympathize.  In the case of
> you and your mother's paintings, you obviously have the understanding,
> whether your education has been formal or by osmosis or both.  Note that the
> examples I used involve the issue of accessibility.  Many people will not
> like a work simply because it is not easily accessible (I sense that this is
> at the crux of the Dhalgren argument, but since I haven't read it, I'm
> staying out of that one).  It's easy to say "I don't like a work" if its not
> accessible, but I don't know that that constitutes fair criticism.  (I also
> think that accessibility is critical fair game, e.g., "Did the author need to
> make the work as inaccessible as it is?" -- more fuel for the Dhalgren folk.)
> 
>       -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet
> 
> 		  {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb  (most reliable)
> 
> 		  ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb
> 
> 
> 		  or   jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa
> 				   ^
> 				   this asterisk is necessary!

Sorry to quote so much--it's largely because I don't yet quite
have the feel of this editor.  I'll fix this problem soon.

As to criticism, I agree with you, Jim, that a critic ought to
have some understanding (in fact, a thorough understanding) of what
he is criticising, but I don't see why he needs to be able to write
the sort of thing he is criticising.  Certainly, a critic ought to
be able to write, otherwise his criticism won't be readable.

There are two points that come to mind most strongly as far as
criticism is concerned.  The first is something I've said before:
The difference between a critic and a reviewer is that a critic
has probably read the book.  The second is that a critic ought
to have quite clear in his mind the distinction between "I like
this," and "this is good."

There are good books I like, good books I don't like, bad books
I like, and bad books I don't like.  A critic who claims to like
everything that's good and dislike everything that's bad is
either lying to us, lying to himself, or lacking in judgement.
In any case, he may be discounted.

As for accessibility, as I've said before, I think it one of
the most important aspects of a work of fiction, and there is
nothing wrong with attacking a story on the grounds that it is
inaccessible.  I'll admit I share your prejudices about comic
books, though.
			skzb