5 ms·

Why Great Critics Make Disastrous Judgments

34 points by samclemens 10y ago

rurban 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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
  - mtdewcmu 10y ago
    I also think there's a phenomenon in which artists can be classified into innovators and refiners. The refiners aren't as innovative as the innovators, but the innovators aren't as refined as the refiners. Some people are able to hear the potential in innovators, but their work is harder to appreciate, especially outside its historical context.
nerdponx 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Good point, but public critics' opinions are amplified, and can make or break a work.
  - gydfi 10y ago
    Not these days, with thousands of professionals critics and millions of amateur ones just waiting to jump in with their opinion.
bdrool 10y ago
> "It is no discredit to Walt Whitman that he wrote Leaves of Grass, only that he did not burn it afterwards." Damn.
- cema 10y ago
  Yeah. Reads like a witty remark whose only purpose is to be one.
empath75 10y ago
Great books aren't beyond criticism. I love gatsby, but the criticism about the thinness of the plot is totally fair.
- nerdponx 10y ago
  I always understood the thinness of the plot as a deliberate part of the story, accentuating the characters' vacuity and such.
tzs 10y ago
> "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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.
tsunamifury 10y ago
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.
ameister14 10y ago
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.
elchief 10y ago
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.html https://rogersworst.blogspot.ca/2011/01/2-unforgiven-1992.ht...
squozzer 10y ago
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 10y ago
  A critique making excellent points in a dull way would be unfortunate, but it'd still be making excellent points.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    And go unread. And later, if the practice continued, go unpublished.
    - jamesrcole 10y ago
      Readable is better, no questions. But there's still plenty of read, published and republished dull writing.
gnl 10y ago
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.
mynameishere 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Many Shakespeare plays stand on their own and that's not even counting the wordplay and context that is missing from them nowadays
gydfi 10y ago
I didn't like Wuthering Heights either, so it's refreshing to see a contemporary critique which hated it too, written without all the mental baggage of knowing that it's supposed to be a Great Work and all.
jmmcd 10y ago
> "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-gatsby-f-scott-fitzgerald-hl-mencken-20141010-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-great-...
maldusiecle 10y ago
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.
hackuser 10y ago
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.

34 points by samclemens 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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
- mtdewcmu 10y ago
  I also think there's a phenomenon in which artists can be classified into innovators and refiners. The refiners aren't as innovative as the innovators, but the innovators aren't as refined as the refiners. Some people are able to hear the potential in innovators, but their work is harder to appreciate, especially outside its historical context.

nerdponx 10y ago

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 10y ago
Good point, but public critics' opinions are amplified, and can make or break a work.
- gydfi 10y ago
  Not these days, with thousands of professionals critics and millions of amateur ones just waiting to jump in with their opinion.

bdrool 10y ago

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

cema 10y ago
Yeah. Reads like a witty remark whose only purpose is to be one.

empath75 10y ago

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

nerdponx 10y ago
I always understood the thinness of the plot as a deliberate part of the story, accentuating the characters' vacuity and such.

tzs 10y ago

> "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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.

tsunamifury 10y ago

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.

ameister14 10y ago

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.

elchief 10y ago

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.html https://rogersworst.blogspot.ca/2011/01/2-unforgiven-1992.ht...

squozzer 10y ago

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 10y ago
A critique making excellent points in a dull way would be unfortunate, but it'd still be making excellent points.
- ci5er 10y ago
  And go unread. And later, if the practice continued, go unpublished.
  - jamesrcole 10y ago
    Readable is better, no questions. But there's still plenty of read, published and republished dull writing.

gnl 10y ago

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.

mynameishere 10y ago

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 10y ago
Many Shakespeare plays stand on their own and that's not even counting the wordplay and context that is missing from them nowadays

gydfi 10y ago

I didn't like Wuthering Heights either, so it's refreshing to see a contemporary critique which hated it too, written without all the mental baggage of knowing that it's supposed to be a Great Work and all.

jmmcd 10y ago

> "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-gatsby-f-scott-fitzgerald-hl-mencken-20141010-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-great-...

maldusiecle 10y ago

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.

hackuser 10y ago

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.