Comments on: Literary critics and pride, part II

By: Laura Craner

Laura Craner — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:35:18 +0000

Mojo, that’s what we need on the next AMV t-shirt: apropos of nothing :)

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:54:53 +0000

Thanks for the link, Mojo. I got a good kick out of Holt’s wit.

I find these lines especially apropos in light of this conversation about the charitableness (or not) of critics/reviewers:

“What matters is the readers experience.”

“[P]eople write customer reviews as though they’re talking to a dear friend. Most of them would never give away the ending or the salient parts of a book or movie because that would spoil the friend’s enjoyment of the story.”

By: MoJo

MoJo — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:30:59 +0000

This is probably apropos of nothing, but in my mind, this goes to “responsibility to readers”:

http://www.holtuncensored.com/hu/why-authors-are-furious-part-2/

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:24:07 +0000

I like that Bradly: the critic should remember that they have a responsibility to readers, to the work they’re analyzing, to literature in general—something many critics might brush off, but that Mormon critics should be especially invested in, I believe. This is part, I think, of critiquing with integrity, charity, and humility.

By: Bradly Baird

Bradly Baird — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:26:48 +0000

Be invested in the success of your readers. That is to say that criticism’s ability to communicate the power and importance of literature (or the arts in general) cannot be underestimated. While dissecting and analyzing someone else’s work, do so with the guiding thought that you have a reponsibility to engage the reader in a dialogue that inspires them continue the habit, and always to seek “the best books.”

By: Tyler

Tyler — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:36:04 +0000

And I think, Laura, that that’s one thing critics should also keep in mind: that criticism/reviewing is a wide-open dialogue about literature in which no one really gets—or should get, in my opinion—the last word, since we’re all, authors, critics, reviewers, simply scribes, having no real authority but our character and the power of our words. And once those words go public, they’re essentially up for grabs, becoming subject, as Jonathan points out, to others’ tastes, intelligence, and good will (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

And the best thing about this, I think, is that everyone is invited to the conversation, something that should (not that it necessarily happens this way), as William suggests in his post, keep literature an inclusive club and readers and writers a charitable lot.

By: Luisa Perkins

Luisa Perkins — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:09:16 +0000

This is all very good; I’ll bookmark this post for future use.

By: Laura Craner

Laura Craner — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:15:26 +0000

Well, now that I’ve read this I’m pretty sure what I do isn’t ALL bad. I’m not a literary critic–heck the stuff I write is barely a review sometimes–but yesterday’s post had me worried about the road I was headed down.

This list is a good place to start conversations. And that’s really the fun of reading and writing, the conversing.

By: Jonathan Langford

Jonathan Langford — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:19:07 +0000

Good thoughts, by the way, William. Thought-provoking.

By: Jonathan Langford

Jonathan Langford — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:18:32 +0000

* Acknowledge – explicitly and often – that tastes differ, and that people of intelligence and goodwill may (and most likely do at times) arrive at judgments that differ from yours.

* Whenever possible, attribute the best motives to others (both mentally and in conversation).

* Seek clarification and explication.

* Avoid value judgments about classes of readers.