Week 1: Jamie Schaub – The New Yorker – Burying the Hatchet

Hi,
This is in response to the article Helen linked to, titled Burying the Hatchet. I enjoyed reading about the author’s experience as a book critic, and his transparency about why being critical (in a non-constructive kind of way) was more meaningful to him at that time in his career, rather than saying something ‘nice.’

My impression and what popped up in my mind while I was reading the’history of the critic was stuffy ascots and tightly tweeded circles of people. I felt like a fly on the wall (or should I give myself a higher-brow placement?), listening in on the intellectuals, talking about why something was so terrible, and automatically nodding in agreement with the person who was deemed as the ‘authority.’ Reminded me of cliques and bullies.

He seems to think that the internet brought an end to the bullycritic because of the vastness of exposure a critic has on the interwebs, and one person’s authoritative ascot is another person’s dunce cap. Lee also talks about how we are living in a ‘critical age… where technology and innovation is killing the art of critical standards because artistic creation is moving at a faster pace.’ Meaning that one’s critique won’t last because the measuring stick will have evolved, first.

Very interesting theory, but I don’t quite buy into the idea that negative criticism no longer exists. I say this because when I read an article or an op-ed piece, I ignore the comments section below because people really like to sling their insults at either the author, the topic, or both, and I don’t like to be reminded on how much people enjoy reading their own selfie-comments.

Instead, I think he’s had a change of heart after his own book was reviewed. Growing up and putting the sand down instead of throwing it can hurt at first, but well worth the effort. No one likes getting sand in their eyes.

Grace

October 3, 2013 at 9:04 am · Reply

Jamie — As I read the final sentences of that article, I’m getting this sense that the author might just be trading in his butcher knife for a jeweled dagger tucked away in the perfumed recesses of his well-polished boots. There’s still that same intent of carnage but accomplished in such a way that the victim’s throat would have been slit and his jugulars bled dry before he was even fully aware of what’s happening.

I seem to sense him mentally smirking as he writes these lines: “Nowadays, the abstractions of aesthetic and intellectual criteria matter much less to me than people’s efforts to console themselves, to free themselves, to escape from themselves, by sitting down and making something…..mortality seems a greater enemy than mediocrity….writing even an inferior book might well be a superior way of living.”

I too was struck (no pun intended) by his reference to the way he framed our age as being “critical” rather than “organic.” What he said about the critic’s job nowadays of defining standards to “offer clarity and illumination amid all the change” instead of just trying “to survive and flourish amid ever-shifting modes of cognition and transmission” might well apply to us in the professional communications field. That’s quite daunting. Going back to my metaphors about knives and daggers, the big leaps in media technology have really become a double-edged sword for many in the profession.

lpaters5@uoregon.edu

October 3, 2013 at 10:58 am · Reply

Hey Jamie,

I am also not buying into the idea that negative criticism is going away. Similar to many other media forms, it seems to be changing. The internet has changed the world so immensely and so rapidly that anyone with an internet connection can now be a critic in some form. As anyone who has ever read YouTube comments knows, there is definitely thriving negativity there, but there are also ways for consumers to rate services themselves. If you were on Amazon, would you rather buy the product ranked 4.5 out of 5 stars by over 2,000 people, or the product ranked 5 out of 5 by one esteemed critic? Perhaps since there are so many rating systems and new ways to critique products, services, and literary works, the jobs of being the few distinguished critics are slowly ebbing away.

However, Siegel does seem to also agree that the mode is changing: “It’s the critic’s job nowadays not just to try to survive and flourish amid ever-shifting modes of cognition and transmission, but to define new standards that might offer clarity and illumination amid all the change. Quite simply, the book review is dead, and the long review essay centered on a specific book or books is staggering toward extinction. The future lies in a synthetic approach. Instead of books, art, theatre, and music being consigned to specialized niches, we might have a criticism that better reflects the eclecticism of our time, a criticism that takes in various arts all at once.”

Rotten Tomatoes is a great example of critic meets non-critic. I’m sure many of you are already familiar with the movie ranking site, but while it lists critic reviews and ratings for each movie, it also lists the average rating user participants gave the film, side by side. Perhaps the future of literary and artistic criticism is a compromise.

jarrattt@uoregon.edu

October 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm · Reply

I do think that negative criticism still exists too, but there is also the backlash against the negative criticism that gets heard as well. I am thinking specifically of the critic from the new york times that talked about Melissa McCarthy and her body. She ended up responding to his comments and the Huffington Post wrote an article about it. The critic was called out for his hateful comments. This has become more and more common. I feel like it happens a lot on sites like Jezebel. One writer on that site (Lindy West) responded to a number of hateful comments following her appearance on a show that was talking about women in comedy. She just reads the comments which are mindblowing, yet sadly so typical of comment sections. I never read the comments either because they always make me depressed. So, these comments might have just been lost in the feed and never addressed. Thankfully there is an attempt to engage the negative criticism and get something out of it, some kind of awareness to reignite fires/conversations about issues that we felt were decided long ago, though obviously only in certain circles. Quite possibly in the past the negative criticism would have just been accepted like Siegel mentions happened in the past with book reviews.

I see some hope for the future with respect to internet conversations, but when will we be able to truly bury the hatchet when inflammatory comments have a way of generating views? In just the past week a number of sites have talked about disabling the comment section or limiting what people can say. I have never really believed that we were being invited to “join a conversation” when it comes to internet commenting because it it usually a shouting match.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/melissa-mccarthy-rex-reed-response_n_3435596.html

http://jezebel.com/if-comedy-has-no-lady-problem-why-am-i-getting-so-many-511214385

Joel

October 4, 2013 at 6:36 am · Reply

Siegel’s not saying that negative criticism is disappearing- As Jarratt mentions, there’s been a radical leveling of the playing field where anyone can be a critic, which makes it easier for popular outcry to build when folks think someone’s being mean. Frankly, I’m not sure why that matters, since a supported argument should be able to withstand pop outrage.

Here’s the key I think Siegel missed: acerbic criticism isn’t going anywhere, because it’s been appropriated by popular audiences. Everyone has a voice on the internet, which is why Jarratt and others have noted the Comments section is frequently an unqualified shouting match (remember that tennis ad for The Ladders? vimeo.com/11212514). Similarly, anyone can self-(re)publish, which magnifies the impact of voices that would have never even reached the editing room floor decades ago.

What’s the effect of all this power to the people? Intellectual criticism is being replaced by pop outrage- the self-righteous indignation of the masses, pitchforks and all. The radically democratizing power of the internet has given everyone a voice, which has encouraged the impression that anyone and everyone’s opinion is equally valid and meritorious. Professional critics (or anyone else, really) can easily be perceived as elites, and are met with the leveling outrage of popular indignation. It’s simply more popular to be perceived as “the good guy” defending someone else- Consider the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-shayne-kagel/defense-of-miley-cyrus-vmas_b_3824923.html

The narrative of popular criticism has shifted, from a perceived elite voice to counter-criticism of the same, and I’m not sure we’re any better for it.