Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ism780 Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb From: jimb@ism780 Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: reply about criticism Message-ID: <60200002@ism780> Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 15:34:00 EST Article-I.D.: ism780.60200002 Posted: Fri Feb 21 15:34:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Feb-86 10:54:26 EST References: <180@starfire.UUCP> Lines: 74 Nf-ID: #R:starfire.UUCP:180:ism780:60200002:000:3875 Nf-From: ism780!jimb Feb 21 12:34:00 1986 > 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. > = SKZB, responding to me Um, sorry, didn't mean to imply (if I did) that a critic should be able to write what he/she is criticising. I think people who have at least attempted to write have a better idea of author's intent, but I'm jaded for two reasons. Among my friends, those who are writers are invariably intelligent readers. Only some of my intelligent non-writer friends, however, are intelligent readers. Secondly, a lot of postings on the net have convinced me that there's a lot of sloppy or lazy reading going on. One effect seems to be a lack of discrimination -- so much is rated to be "good" or "great" or in the higher number of rating "stars". Phooey. I've also arrived at the conclusion that a large number of readers are superficial plot readers only. Hey, I've got nothing against plot; I detest some of the plotless literary wonders that have been perpetrated as "art." But someone whose reading doesn't allow them to get beyond plot is intellectually handicapped. Period. Long-winded way of saying, yes, an intelligent non-writer reader can make a good critic. > 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. A-MEN, Brother Brust! Say it. Say it again. > 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. I think accessibility is a two-edged sword. I try to make all of my work as accessible as I can and usually, whatever else its faults, it's crystal clear. But art is a matter of interpretation, and to reach some themes from some angles (and this, at least for me, is not a conscious process) requires leaving the paved road and leading the reader over some rocky terrain. Wolfe's BOTNS as a case in point. I don't think he could have written it to be more accessible and still have fulfilled his intent. The reader must make a decision whether to grapple with the work or not. I don't think the work can be fairly criticized by those who aren't willing to slog it out on ITS terms -- that's the reader's problem, not the writer's. Only if you slog it out, understanding the author's intentions, do I feel that it becomes fair game for not having succeeded. End note: Welcome back to the net, SKZB. -- from the musings of Jim Brunet ihnp4/ima/ism780B hao/ico/ism780B sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780/ism780B "In any large scale endeavor that has worked to the benefit of mankind, there has been pain and sacrifice and loss. We stand now at one of the pivotal points in history. We can say "no" to the unknown mysteries of space, turn our backs, and announce our decline as a civilization. Or we can look at the stars, express our grief at the loss of CHALLENGER and its crew, and then honor their lives by saying, 'We shall continue.'"