“Hardly anyone still reads nowadays. People make use of the writer only in order to work off their own excess energy on him in a perverse manner, in the form of agreement or disagreement.”
― Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities
In “Burying the Hatchet,” Lee Siegel writes that 50 years ago, “Criticism was socializing by other means…. egos battling for position, status, friendship, and love.” He describes this as “post-war intellectual combat,” although he asserts it disappeared as formerly-biting intellectuals became featured in more popular, accessible publications, presumably encouraging their readership to tone down the criticism, as well. Siegel alleges that critics took license to eviscerate unworthy writers based on the critic’s own reputation among their small community, whose ongoing approval certifies his authority. We’re told such authority was lost on The New Yorker’s uninitiated readership and other vulgar masses.
I don’t buy it. Ironically, I posted here only hours ago about how another article by Siegel (published in Harper’s, in which he attacks most other critics’ analyses of the film Eyes Wide Shut) was transformative for me. I had no idea who he was at the time, but I immediately recognized the validity of his words because his arguments were well-supported, well-structured, and consonant with my own experience. And that’s how criticism works, because that’s how any species of argumentative thought ought to work.
Meanwhile, Siegel’s not yet finished questioning the relevance of critical thought. Like an overwhelmed toddler or my mother with just about any electronic device, he proceeds to lament and express his own bewilderment at the modern profusion of social media for the abundance of criticism (if we can call it that) the Internet is capable of producing at a given time. It’s just too much for him! What critic could ever keep up with all the content being twat and vine’d around the webs at any given moment, he asks. His solution? Throw in the towel and resign criticism to the shelf of history, because unless you’re prepared to comprehend all the wisdom the internets have to offer, you’re missing facts and your job is hopelessly incomplete.
Am I missing something? Unless this is some tasteless, extended “Shouts and Murmurs,” I am appalled at how easily a professional like Siegel has cast off all responsibility as a critic. In one breath he recalls his dedication to “defending civilization against bad art and sloppy thinking,” and in the next declares, “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.” What happened?
I think partly what happened is Siegel got old and soft. He admits nearly as much at the end. And I can relate in some way, as I am closer to his age than you although he probably has a good decade or so on me still. I can understand why you would be appalled that he has cast off his responsibility as a critic to provide meaningful feedback. However, not all meaningful feedback has to be negative, and if it is negative, the delivery can be ruthless or gentle while still being meaningful. He doesn’t say this, though, so I am curious whether he only writes good reviews now, or if he still provides negative criticism when it is warranted but delivers it more softly.
To me it strikes of an author who is caught out of his time. Siegel is from a time when instant feedback was just not a thing. He would post up a review in either a newspaper or a magazine and it would take days or weeks for the backlash to come to him. Even then the people who would take the time to respond to him were more than likely the overly angry, or those who had meaningful points. In today’s day and age responding to someone’s negative review takes as little as three or four clicks, and I think that overwhelms him to a point.