
Why Great Critics Make Disastrous Judgments - samclemens
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Great-Critics-Make/239149
======
tzs
> "How a human being could have attempted such a book as [Emily Brontë’s
> Wuthering Heights] without committing suicide before he [sic] had finished a
> dozen chapters, is a mystery. It is a compound of vulgar depravity and
> unnatural horrors. …"

Just from that excerpt I can't tell if that critic liked or disliked the book.
I greatly enjoyed "Wuthering Height", but I'd also say that excerpt is pretty
accurate.

That's what makes it an interesting story--it takes a level of depravity and
horror that would be appropriate for big villains in expansive settings with
free reign to exercise their evil--Darth Vader in Episode IV, for instance--
and squeezes it into a couple families in a couple estates on the moors of
England in a time when strongly ingrained social conventions for politeness
prevented them from even being overtly hostile when all they wanted to do was
utterly destroy each other.

~~~
phaus
I've read a lot of classic literature, but I always assumed this one was some
sappy historical romance novel. After reading your description, this will be
the next novel I read.

~~~
crooked-v
The biggest problem with a lot of classic literature isn't the literature
itself, but that teachers treat it as some high and exalted work and never
offer any of the native context that would make the ardent mess and bother of
it really sink in.

A classic example is Romeo and Juliet, which, if you're actually taught the
language being used on a level beyond "old funny-sounding English I guess", is
stuffed to the gills with teenage angst, jokes about teenagers being stupid,
sexual insults, jokes about adults being stupid, bawdy flirting, jokes about
sex, etc etc.

------
rurban
Much more interesting is the other way. Contemporary highly respected artists,
lauded by critics, who couldn't stand the test of time. Rightfully though.
Critics often have their darlings for whatever reasons, only remotely
concerning their actual work. If it's political criticism, contemporary humor
or other events.

~~~
8fGTBjZxBcHq
Just because something didn't stand the test of time doesn't mean critics are
wrong to praise it.

Works can be products of their time, and lose emotional impact as times
change. Someone can produce something powerful for their contemporaries that
lacks that power later.

It's not as desirable as producing 'timeless' works, but maybe some effects
can't be maintained through time. We would lose a lot by demanding that only
timeless works be considered great.

~~~
pdpi
This is related to what TV Tropes calls "Seinfeld is unfunny".

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)

------
maldusiecle
There's another factor which the article misses: being a great critic isn't at
all the same as being a correct critic. Great critics take risks, flirt with
contrarianism, point out flaws that other observers miss or gloss over. Not
only are they not "neutral"\--no one can really look at art neutrally, anyway
--but they are particularly likely to take eccentric views. A negative view of
a well-regarded classic can do a lot more to spark the imagination, to make
the work exciting, than a boring list of the work's obvious virtues.

------
jmmcd
> "Scott Fitzgerald’s new novel, The Great Gatsby, is in form no more than a
> glorified anecdote, and not too probable at that."

That remark is from a highly _favourable_ review, but you have to actually
read it: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-
great-...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-great-gatsby-
f-scott-fitzgerald-hl-mencken-20141010-story.html)

------
nerdponx
That's the great thing about opinions: everyone can have one, and no two
people need to share one. I actually find scathing criticism of things I like
(or even consider "great") refreshing, and an opportunity for reflection.

~~~
jeffdavis
Good point, but public critics' opinions are amplified, and can make or break
a work.

------
elchief
One thing I liked about Roger Ebert is that he was willing to change his mind,
and admit it

"I changed my mind on Unforgiven; I gave it only two-and-a-half stars. I
wasn't thinking very well when I reviewed that."

[https://rogersworst.blogspot.ca/2011/01/2-unforgiven-1992.ht...](https://rogersworst.blogspot.ca/2011/01/2-unforgiven-1992.html)

------
empath75
Great books aren't beyond criticism. I love gatsby, but the criticism about
the thinness of the plot is totally fair.

~~~
nerdponx
I always understood the thinness of the plot as a deliberate part of the
story, accentuating the characters' vacuity and such.

------
ameister14
H.L. Mencken's critique of Gatsby is actually really on-point in a lot of
ways. It's also fantastically written. He loves Fitzgerald's writing and takes
issue with the plot, which particularly at the time was a valid criticism.

------
tsunamifury
I've always assumed classical critics are searching for archetypical qualities
which they tend to "over-fit" to over time. It helps them become good at what
they do, but then when the inevitable disruptive new expression occurs, the
are unable to fit it into their model and reject it.

The modern version of this has seem to evolve into genre-level criticism which
insulates the critic from that level of disruption. At the extreme, it just
becomes fanboy-ism.

------
squozzer
The author misses what I think is a very important point -- that critiques
must also entertain. And poison pens entertain with much more certainty than
saccharine paeans.

~~~
jamesrcole
A critique making excellent points in a dull way would be unfortunate, but
it'd still be making excellent points.

~~~
ci5er
And go unread. And later, if the practice continued, go unpublished.

~~~
jamesrcole
Readable is better, no questions.

But there's still plenty of read, published and republished dull writing.

------
mynameishere
Well. Shakespeare could never get staged today. Nor could "Wuthering Heights"
get published. "Leaves of Grass" might get published given Whitman's ability
to schmooze, and it might even sell as many as 100 copies (pretty good for
poetry).

The vast bulk of great literature isn't. Gatsy and "Catcher in the Rye" in
particular are just mystifyingly dull. There's nothing strange about such
opinions now, or then.

~~~
tdb7893
Many Shakespeare plays stand on their own and that's not even counting the
wordplay and context that is missing from them nowadays

------
bdrool
> "It is no discredit to Walt Whitman that he wrote Leaves of Grass, only that
> he did not burn it afterwards."

Damn.

~~~
cema
Yeah. Reads like a witty remark whose only purpose is to be one.

------
hackuser
It's not just in the humanities. Plenty of scientific theories, technology,
and other developments were originally panned by many experts and critics.

A few startup founders might recognize that experience.

------
gnl
Opinions and arseholes, eh.

To build on the point made by the author - while it can be a useful label to
describe what appeals to a majority of people within a certain group, there is
ultimately no such thing as good art and consequently no such thing as a
critic getting it right.

We could of course try to define "a critic getting it right" as predicting and
matching the majority opinion within a certain culture/time period, which I
suppose the article does and it's certainly a valid approach, but then we come
dangerously close to implying that that is equivalent to recognizing the
intrinsic value of some work.

As astutely observed in the quote by Terry Eagleton, "value" is by its very
definition a subjective and transitive term, completely meaningless without
context.

Critics (so I guess pretty much everyone, this being the internet) tend to
shine all light on the subject of their criticism, while themselves trying to
stay in the shadows, as if keeping their personal context out of it somehow
makes their opinion more objective. I'd argue that the only people this
doesn't do a disservice to, are people eager to find a solid, reliable opinion
they can subscribe to in order to join in the pretense of knowing what is good
art and what isn't.

A more honest reader turning to critiques to help answer the question "What is
valuable to me?" in an infinite sea of content is much better served by a
critic openly exposing their biases, their personal framework and context,
clearly showing where they are coming from and how it flows into the image
they paint of their subject. When it comes to talking art, any attempt at
objectivity is doomed to fail, so I say do away with it altogether.

Not only does this make it easier for a reader to better place potentially
interesting works within his context by comparing it with the critic's, it
would also provide more value to the authors/artists themselves. It's okay
being disliked by people you're not trying to reach.

The other thing that really gets me is the disrespect of suggesting something
is so bad it shouldn't have been created in the first place.

It takes passion and courage to put a personal creation out there. It takes a
great and exhausting amount of bad work to finally create something good, as
anyone who's ever build anything worthwhile can confirm. All it takes to take
a dump on it and feel powerful in the act is an internet connection.

Then again, maybe destructive criticism creates a necessary hostile
environment, testing an author's/artist's resolve and allowing truly great art
to emerge, similar to how children need to be exposed to germs in order to
develop healthy immune systems.

I do not like critics.

