inkbluesky

tattooed singularity 1600×1200

Not everybody’s a critic

THE MOST grating words I’ve read in a newspaper recently were in a New York Times report on the shrinkage of book reviewing in many of the nation’s leading newspapers.

The piece suggested that this might not be an entirely bad thing. Into the breach, it argued, will charge the bloggers, one of whom, a former quality-control manager for a car parts maker, last year wrote 95 book reviews for his website.

“Some publishers and literary bloggers,” the article said, viewed this development contentedly, “as an inevitable transition toward a new, more democratic literary landscape where anyone can comment on books.”

Are there just some debates that you just don’t want to get into. You may have an opinion, but the debate just doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Mentally I tend toward the whatever attitude about the bloggers versus traditional media debate. I don’t know why most bloggers blog. There are probably a hand full of general reasons. Many like to feel that they are participating in something like a world wide conversation, that they’re just putting in their two cents worth. Some feel that they’re going to make money or maybe change the world. Nothing wrong with any of that. Though it is another thing to be pretentious. To give the appearance of special knowledge where there is none or that knowledge is lacking.

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author’s (or filmmaker’s or painter’s) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Sounds a little elitist in tone, but lets put that aside for now. I’ve heard people say that they never read critics or if they do they don’t pay attention to what they say. With the caveat that we’re talking about good critics with a certain level of expertise in their field, those critical of critics might be missing out on something. A good critic is like a filter. Out before us is a countless multitude of choices to make about everything from books and movies to food and art. Do we have the time and energy to sample it all. Knowledgeable critics are like a lighthouse warning signal - you’re probably wasting your twenty dollars if you buy this book, this painter is enjoying a certain popularity now, but his work is derivative, and the the best thing about the movie that opens tomorrow is the popcorn. Can critics be wrong or a arrogant ass clown like Richard Schickel sometimes. Sure, but think of all the drivel that they’ve saved us from. But I’m just a blogger so what do I know.

House Dems Warn White House

The House Judiciary Committee is prepared to use subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove and other White House officials, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcomittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) warned White House counsel Fred Fielding today.

“We are today writing to express our extreme disappointment in the White House’s rebuff of efforts by the Judiciary Committee to obtain voluntary cooperation with our investigation concerning the firing of at least nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and related matters,” they wrote.