
The Novelist’s Complicity - prostoalex
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/01/05/the-novelists-complicity/
======
lionhearted
> The democratization of reading tastes has gone hand in hand with the demise
> of the critic, and with that, the idea of reading a novel because certain
> people with discernibly good judgment think that the book is worth reading.

This seemed wrong to me on a glance, and I wasn't sure why at first.

I think it's the phrase "discernibly good judgment." When I look to see if I
should follow any recommendation, whether from someone who is formally a
critic or not, one of the first things I do is try to figure out if the person
is admirable, accomplished, and — yes, if they have good judgment.

To be frank, most professional critics fail that test.

The best critics are typically those who are also accomplished, interesting
people with a wide variety of interests and life experiences to draw on.

Take George Orwell. Most people would agree he was an excellent writer and
lived a very interesting life. He fought in the Spanish Civil War and was
wounded by a fascist sniper. He turned out a number of classic works — 1984
spawned a whole set of metaphors and words that entered the English language.

He's also an excellent critic of both literature and society. "Politics and
the English Language" and "What is Fascism?" are both extremely astute reads
that make you smarter.

But when I look at most critics, they don't measure up at all to Orwell.
They're often very privileged people, for whom political connections and
politicking were of primary importance in getting their role as a professional
critic — not anything like an objective standard of merit or accomplishment.

Most of them seem, frankly, unaccomplished.

So I'll listen to Orwell on literature and culture — an accomplished person
with many insights — and I'll read carefully the reflections of Edward O.
Thorpe when he talks about corruption in finance, or Peter Norvig when he
writes on experiment design and critiques sloppy thought in the sciences.

But the average critic? The author of the piece thinks they have "discernibly
good judgment"? Why would he think that? It seems to be... well, frankly,
false.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Yes. In truth, I am far more likely to be swayed to read a book because some
intellectual wrote a positive review, than because of crowdsourced
ratings/recommendations.

But that intellectual will not be someone who is placed before me as a generic
source of "discernibly good judgement". I'll do the discerning for my self.
The critic I follow we usually be a blogger or columnist who I have followed
for posts that they write abou their own field of expertise.

------
icodemuch
_> Amazon and Goodreads ratings, and numerous online book-reviewing sites,
have all contributed to and reflected the democratization of the arbitration
of literary taste. But such democratization is not intrinsically a good
thing._

It hadn't occurred to me before this article but after thinking about it I do
depend upon Amazon/Goodreads ratings in large portion when choosing my next
book.. Upon re-examination I think I'm going to factor in more book critics'
opinions into my selection process.

~~~
forapurpose
A great example of the problem of even reading Amazon reviews: I was looking
for a translation of the Analects by Confucius (more correctly, Lunyu by
Kongzi).

A well-respected translation was criticized by at least one Amazon reviewer
for its commentary, which veered off-topic, included the editor's own ideas,
etc. I ruled out that translation.

Then I read a scholarly review of the translations (found via Google Scholar)
and learned that such commentary is the proper way and that it's been done
that way for centuries or more. The editor is meant to interact with the
Kongzi's text.

If I didn't read the scholarly review, I would have believed the Amazon
reviewer. It was a lesson to me - one I finally accepted: No matter how smart
you think you are, unless you have expertise in a field then you lack the
ability to discern the truth from ignorance. Persuasiveness is not a measure
of truth. You're a sucker, a mark, if you think otherwise.

I no longer read Amazon reviews for such purposes and don't trust Wikipedia
either. Also, note that reading the Amazon review actually hurt me; bad
information is worse than no information.

~~~
shubb
I dunno. Sounds like the Amazon review was factually correct. The difference
was whether what it identified was good or bad.

The answer to that surely depends on what you need.

My friend is a car expert. I might read a positive review of a car which said
that its small engine made it easy to control. He would say that a small
engine meant it had poor top speed and acceleration and therefore sucked.

Surely all I learned from this is that the car has a small engine. Someone who
drives a lot of cars may want a fun one. Someone who reads a lot of
translations of the analects may want a dialogue that contributes to the
field. After all, if such a scholar wanted a litteral translation they would
read it in the original language.

------
wellpast
> Amazon and Goodreads ratings, and numerous online book-reviewing sites, have
> all contributed to and reflected the democratization of the arbitration of
> literary taste. But such democratization is not intrinsically a good thing.

Same phenomenon, though, occurs with TV/Film. Brett Easton Ellis's podcast
riffs (extensively, caustically and yet wonderfully) on this "democratization
of art" as it occurs in TV & Film.

------
dredmorbius
A large part of this is the mass culture problem generally.

Dwight MacDonald wrote of this in the 1950s:

[https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDon...](https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDonald_-
_A_Theory_of_Mass_Culture.pdf)

------
detcader
The "literary critic" should be revived as a website, or as a feature of
existing websites like GoodReads. I have no idea what recent fiction to read,
and would love to just enter a list of authors ("Cormac McCarthy", "John
Darnielle") into a search engine and find critics to follow...

~~~
forapurpose
Most leading book reviews are available online. Try:

* NY Times Book Review: [https://www.nytimes.com/section/books/review](https://www.nytimes.com/section/books/review)

* New York Review of Books

* London Review of Books

* New Yorker

Here are a couple of aggregators, but I haven't tried them very much:

* iDreamBooks: [https://idreambooks.com/](https://idreambooks.com/)

* Book Verdict: [http://www.bookverdict.com/](http://www.bookverdict.com/)

------
larkeith
> "...modern fiction, particularly English-language fiction, has moved in the
> direction of the televisual, anyway. Much so-called literary fiction is
> evidently written with an eye to an option for film or TV adaptation."

These statements (and therefore the points which follow) lack evidence and do
not align with my anecdotal experience, which suggests to me some selection
bias (likely from both myself and the author). I would be deeply surprised if
a great enough portion of books are 'written with an eye to [a TV adaptation]'
to cause a significant impact on writing quality and style.

~~~
detcader
The "portion of books" doesn't matter at all, the economic incentives do. A
few sentences later: "For all but a tiny few, it’s nearly impossible to make
anything even approaching a living from writing literary fiction."

