What do you think?
Rate this book
賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿
鬲賯賵賲 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賲賯賵賱丞 亘爻賷胤丞, 賴賷 兀賳 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 賯丿 鬲乇丕噩毓 丿賵乇賴 賵鬲囟丕亍賱 鬲兀孬賷乇賴 賵囟毓賮鬲 氐賱鬲賴 亘噩賲賴乇丞 丕賱賯乇丕亍 賮賷 馗賱 賲丿 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲氐丿乇 丕賱賲卮賴丿 丕賱賳賯丿賷 賮賷 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 丕賱亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丞 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷丞. 賵賷亘賳賷 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱亘乇賷胤丕賳賷 乇賵賳丕賳 賲丕賰丿賵賳丕賱丿 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 廿毓賱丕賳賴 丕賱賲丿賵賷 毓賳 "賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿" 賵丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱噩丕乇賷 毓賱賶 丨賮賱 鬲兀亘賷賳賴, 賮賷 廿卮丕乇丞 乇賲夭賷丞 丿丕賱丞 毓賱賶 賮賯丿丕賳 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱氐丨賮賷 賲賰丕賳鬲賴賲丕 賵丿賵乇賴賲丕 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱兀賳噩賱賵爻丕賰爻賵賳賷丞 禺賱丕賱 丕賱毓賯賵丿 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 兀賵 丕賱兀乇亘毓丞 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞, 賵亘丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿 亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱胤賱丕亘賷丞 賮賷 兀賵乇亘丕 毓丕賲 1968 賵氐毓賵丿 丕賱鬲賷丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲毓丕丿賷丞 賱賱爻賱胤丞 賵丕賱賰丕乇賴丞 賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱卮丕亘 丕賱丿丕毓賷 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲丨乇乇 賲賳 噩賲賷毓 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞, 亘賲丕 賮賷賴丕 爻賱胤丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱賲毓賱賲, 丕賱匕賷 賷賱賯賷 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 丨賵賱 丕賱丌丿丕亘 賵丕賱賮賳賵賳 賲賳 毓賱賺 賵賰兀賳 賰賱賲鬲賴 賴賷 丕賱賮氐賱, 賲賳賴賷丕 賰賱 丨賵丕乇 賵噩丿賱 賵丌乇丕亍 賮乇丿賷丞 睾賷乇 毓丕賱賲丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賯丕卮 丕賱匕賷 賷丿賵乇 丨賵賱 丕賱賳氐賵氐 賵丕賱丌孬丕乇 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 賵丕賱賮賳賷丞
192 pages, Paperback
First published December 27, 2007
10 people are currently reading
188 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
September 20, 2015
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 毓賳賵丕賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 - 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿 - 賷丨丕賵賱 "乇賵賳丕賳 賲丕賰丿賵賳丕賱丿" 丕賱鬲丨匕賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲乇丕噩毓 丕賱賵丕囟丨 賱丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 貙 賮賷 馗賱 氐毓賵丿 兀噩賷丕賱 賱丕 鬲丐賲賳 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵丕賱賲乇噩毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘賴丕 丕賱賳丕賯丿 貙 賵廿賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賵爻丕卅賱 - 賲孬賱 賲賵賯毓 噩賵丿 乇賷丿夭 賳賮爻賴 - 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳 賲乇丕噩毓丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱廿賳胤亘丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱爻胤丨賷丞 賵丕賱賲鬲丨賷賾夭丞 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳 貙 亘丿賷賱丕賸 毓賳 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 .
賷卮賷乇 賰匕賱賰 廿賱賶 丕賱禺賱賱 丕賱匕賷 賲乇 亘賴 丕賱賳賯丿 毓賱賶 丕賲鬲丿丕丿 爻賳賵丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 賵鬲禺亘賾胤賴 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲囟丕丿丞 貙 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 噩毓賱鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿 賲賰乇賵賴丕賸 賱丿賶 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賯丕乇卅 .
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 .
賷卮賷乇 賰匕賱賰 廿賱賶 丕賱禺賱賱 丕賱匕賷 賲乇 亘賴 丕賱賳賯丿 毓賱賶 丕賲鬲丿丕丿 爻賳賵丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 賵鬲禺亘賾胤賴 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲囟丕丿丞 貙 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 噩毓賱鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿 賲賰乇賵賴丕賸 賱丿賶 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賯丕乇卅 .
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 .
November 19, 2012
McDonald describes how the role of the literary critic has changed over the centuries, ultimately leading to "death" in the latter half of the 20th century.
He opens with a history of aesthetics, why evaluative criticism is so important, and how its lack is a symptom of general moral relativism and anti-authoritarianism. The rest of the book is an in-depth history of criticism and all it's association academic theories, beginning with Plato and Aristotle (doesn't everything begin with Plato and Aristotle?) and weaving along through romanticism, modernism, new criticism, structuralism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, and cultural studies. More interesting than it sounds, I swear!
The books ends with a hopeful thought that perhaps criticism isn't dead, but just biding it's time. Already there are signs of returning interest in aesthetic and literary value.
I was an undergraduate English literature major from 2002-2006, when the structuralist literary theories were already falling away and the focus of literary criticism was beginning to once again assess aesthetic value through close reading while still hanging on to the cultural and authorial contexts that structuralism emphasizes. At the same time though, cultural studies was taking off in a big way, and analyzing everything from Harry Potter to Second Life, the Simpsons to fashion magazines.
Perhaps I'm a product of relativistic anti-authoritarianism, but I never really felt pressure to ignore literary and aesthetic value in college. I definitely can see a lack of interest in literature beyond academic english departments, publications like the New Yorker, and a select group of lit-bloggers (many of whom were english majors themselves).
I read this book to get a grasp of how the internet is changing the book review and got something else entirely here, but I'm not complaining. I was very interested in the ongoing struggles throughout history to wrestle with the concept of aesthetics. Theorists went from trying to come up with a set of standards that could scientifically evaluate all artistic works to avoiding any type of evaluation altogether.
I'm new to all this, but I see value in literature, and I think it's worthwhile for society to continually value literary merit and consider some works more meritorious than others, even if standards are continuously changing. Aesthetic relativism is akin to moral relativism - high-quality and low-quality exist, just as right and wrong do, even if these all are products of culture.
Themes: literature, criticism, critical theory, history, science vs. art, aesthetics, relativism, cultural studies, journalism, popular culture
He opens with a history of aesthetics, why evaluative criticism is so important, and how its lack is a symptom of general moral relativism and anti-authoritarianism. The rest of the book is an in-depth history of criticism and all it's association academic theories, beginning with Plato and Aristotle (doesn't everything begin with Plato and Aristotle?) and weaving along through romanticism, modernism, new criticism, structuralism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, and cultural studies. More interesting than it sounds, I swear!
The books ends with a hopeful thought that perhaps criticism isn't dead, but just biding it's time. Already there are signs of returning interest in aesthetic and literary value.
I was an undergraduate English literature major from 2002-2006, when the structuralist literary theories were already falling away and the focus of literary criticism was beginning to once again assess aesthetic value through close reading while still hanging on to the cultural and authorial contexts that structuralism emphasizes. At the same time though, cultural studies was taking off in a big way, and analyzing everything from Harry Potter to Second Life, the Simpsons to fashion magazines.
Perhaps I'm a product of relativistic anti-authoritarianism, but I never really felt pressure to ignore literary and aesthetic value in college. I definitely can see a lack of interest in literature beyond academic english departments, publications like the New Yorker, and a select group of lit-bloggers (many of whom were english majors themselves).
I read this book to get a grasp of how the internet is changing the book review and got something else entirely here, but I'm not complaining. I was very interested in the ongoing struggles throughout history to wrestle with the concept of aesthetics. Theorists went from trying to come up with a set of standards that could scientifically evaluate all artistic works to avoiding any type of evaluation altogether.
I'm new to all this, but I see value in literature, and I think it's worthwhile for society to continually value literary merit and consider some works more meritorious than others, even if standards are continuously changing. Aesthetic relativism is akin to moral relativism - high-quality and low-quality exist, just as right and wrong do, even if these all are products of culture.
Themes: literature, criticism, critical theory, history, science vs. art, aesthetics, relativism, cultural studies, journalism, popular culture
October 4, 2018
鈥淒e literaire kritiek is dood鈥�, is de overtuigde stelling van R贸n谩n McDonald, 鈥渆n daar mag best een traantje om gelaten worden鈥�. Vanuit dit startpunt laat hij de lezer door zijn ogen zien wat de stand van zaken is binnen het wereldje van de literaire kritiek. Op die wijze worden in vier hoofdstukken de meest basale factoren voor het overlijden van de criticus geschetst, alsook de polemische geschiedenis tot aan vandaag de dag, de ontwikkeling van de literaire kritiek zowel binnen als buiten de universiteit en, tot slot, de verwoede pogingen die sinds de jaren zestig zijn gedaan om tot een theorie der literatuurkritiek te komen. The Death of the Critic (2007) is een rond essay, waarin de situatie waarin de literatuurkritiek verkeert vanuit verschillende kanten belicht wordt, al blijft de dood als uitkomst discutabel.
In het eerste hoofdstuk van het boek legt de schrijver uit in welke situatie de literatuurkritiek precies verkeert. De democratisering van de sector, vooral door tussenkomst van het internet en de bijbehorende mogelijkheden om als consument zelfstandig kritieken te publiceren, heeft bijgedragen aan de afnemende autoriteit van de professionele criticus. De professionele kritiek impliceert een zeker elitisme en in de hedendaagse samenleving wordt de professionele criticus steeds vaker gezien als iemand die de consument probeert de les te leren. Deze ontwikkeling is goed te plaatsen in de afkeer van autoriteit die in vrijwel de hele Westelijke samenleving plaatsvindt. Uiteraard is dit niet de enige oorzaak.
Deze ontwikkeling moet niet gevierd worden, zo zegt McDonald: de grote vari毛teit van kritieken die vandaag de dag geschreven worden, neemt ook een grote verscheidenheid in kwaliteit met zich mee. Bij een professionele criticus kun je er van op aan dat er een zekere inhoud in het artikel zit. Kritiek die sommige bloggers publiceren op hun site gaat soms niet verder dan een korte samenvatting en wat commentaar. Maar dan toch, zou ik zeggen, geeft deze democratisering van de sector de lezer de mogelijkheid om de recensies te lezen die hij zelf wil. De afnemende autoriteit van professionals is een gegeven, dus het is aan hen in te spelen op de veranderende sector. Zoals R贸n谩n McDonald al aangeeft: ze hoeven alleen maar te gaan bloggen en als hun doordachte commentaar daadwerkelijk onderscheidend is, komen hun kritieken vanzelf wel bovendrijven.
Hoe het ook zij, van de dood van de criticus lijkt nog niet echt sprake. Uitgeverijen maken nog altijd volop gebruik van het meest lovende commentaar om hun boeken aan te prijzen. Je zult op de achterkant van een boek niet snel een verwijzing naar een blogger tegenkomen, dus kennelijk wordt de autoriteit van de critici vooralsnog door de literaire sector zelf in stand gehouden. De autoriteit van de professionele recensent zit hem namelijk voor een groot deel in zijn verbondenheid aan een belangrijke krant: De Volkskrant, Trouw, of zelfs The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde en El Pa铆s zijn nou eenmaal bij een veel bredere kring van lezers bekend als kwaliteitskranten dan literatuurblogs. Ook over de grens. En hoe genadeloos men af en toe ook mag zijn, sommige auteurs hebben hun naamsbekendheid juist te danken aan het goedkeurende oordeel van een recensent.
Als de essayist het over de taken van de professionele literatuurkritiek heeft, zijn de argumenten overtuigender. Critici houden namelijk niet van stilstand: ze peilen de veranderende smaak en stemmen die af met de veranderende context. Daardoor speelt de kritiek ook een essenti毛le rol in de literatuurgeschiedenis. Deze draait altijd om de grote namen en zo is het ook onvermijdbaar dat alleen de critici met een zekere autoriteit hun stempel kunnen drukken op het canon. Dit argument gaat hand in hand met de overtuiging dat men door het lezen van blogs alleen maar een bevestiging van de eigen smaak vindt. In de kranten, daarentegen, wordt een gevarieerder aanbod besproken. Op die manier is de literaire criticus ook in staat andere soorten lectuur te suggereren.
McDonald leidt de lezer ook langs de geschiedenis van de literatuurkritiek. Dat hij daarbij ook stilstaat bij de voornaamste kunststromingen die er zoal geweest zijn, is wellicht een beetje overbodig. Van de meeste echt ge茂nteresseerden mag verwacht worden dat zij hiermee bekend zijn. Toch moet ook geprezen worden dat het essay grondig onderlegd is en dat de schrijver veel achtergrond biedt om zijn standpunten te onderbouwen. Zo maakt hij ook duidelijk dat de literaire kritiek een verleden heeft met veel veranderingen. In het derde hoofdstuk laat hij namelijk ook zien dat de gedachten over hoe de ideale recensie is, objectief of subjectief, erg vaak veranderden vanaf de twintigste eeuw. Dit had vooral te maken met de pogingen van academici om tot een systematische aanpak te komen met objectieve criteria. Toch is dat eigenlijk wel frappant, want elke criticus maakt een persoonlijke selectie van wat hem wel of niet aanstaat. Een zekere mate van subjectiviteit zal er dus altijd blijven.
Zo is The Death of the Critic een weloverwogen essay over de stand van zaken binnen de literaire kritiek. Schrijver McDonald heeft daarbij oog voor zowel de veranderende samenleving waarin de critici een veranderende rol moeten aannemen als voor het historisch belang van het beroep. Om terug te komen op de stelling waarmee hij begon, is de overtuiging dat de literatuurkritiek dood is niet geheel overtuigend. Zo is het aanbod aan recensies juist een stuk hoger dan voorheen en ondanks het feit dat lang niet alle even diepgaand zijn, wordt er ook zeker genoeg kwalitatief verantwoorde recensies geschreven. Het overlijden van de criticus is daarnaast ook te betwijfelen, aangezien er op de kaft van boeken niet snel citaten van literaire blogs terecht zullen komen. Zo zorgt de boekensector er zelf voor dat kwalitatieve literatuurkritiek niet verloren gaat, al is het ook voor een groot deel aan het podium dat de grote kranten hen bieden te danken dat de recensenten nog altijd kunnen publiceren en ook gelezen worden. We moeten de kritiek niet ten dode opschrijven voordat dat ook echt het geval is. Ze is levend en tussen de doden hoort ze nog niet thuis.
In het eerste hoofdstuk van het boek legt de schrijver uit in welke situatie de literatuurkritiek precies verkeert. De democratisering van de sector, vooral door tussenkomst van het internet en de bijbehorende mogelijkheden om als consument zelfstandig kritieken te publiceren, heeft bijgedragen aan de afnemende autoriteit van de professionele criticus. De professionele kritiek impliceert een zeker elitisme en in de hedendaagse samenleving wordt de professionele criticus steeds vaker gezien als iemand die de consument probeert de les te leren. Deze ontwikkeling is goed te plaatsen in de afkeer van autoriteit die in vrijwel de hele Westelijke samenleving plaatsvindt. Uiteraard is dit niet de enige oorzaak.
Deze ontwikkeling moet niet gevierd worden, zo zegt McDonald: de grote vari毛teit van kritieken die vandaag de dag geschreven worden, neemt ook een grote verscheidenheid in kwaliteit met zich mee. Bij een professionele criticus kun je er van op aan dat er een zekere inhoud in het artikel zit. Kritiek die sommige bloggers publiceren op hun site gaat soms niet verder dan een korte samenvatting en wat commentaar. Maar dan toch, zou ik zeggen, geeft deze democratisering van de sector de lezer de mogelijkheid om de recensies te lezen die hij zelf wil. De afnemende autoriteit van professionals is een gegeven, dus het is aan hen in te spelen op de veranderende sector. Zoals R贸n谩n McDonald al aangeeft: ze hoeven alleen maar te gaan bloggen en als hun doordachte commentaar daadwerkelijk onderscheidend is, komen hun kritieken vanzelf wel bovendrijven.
Hoe het ook zij, van de dood van de criticus lijkt nog niet echt sprake. Uitgeverijen maken nog altijd volop gebruik van het meest lovende commentaar om hun boeken aan te prijzen. Je zult op de achterkant van een boek niet snel een verwijzing naar een blogger tegenkomen, dus kennelijk wordt de autoriteit van de critici vooralsnog door de literaire sector zelf in stand gehouden. De autoriteit van de professionele recensent zit hem namelijk voor een groot deel in zijn verbondenheid aan een belangrijke krant: De Volkskrant, Trouw, of zelfs The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde en El Pa铆s zijn nou eenmaal bij een veel bredere kring van lezers bekend als kwaliteitskranten dan literatuurblogs. Ook over de grens. En hoe genadeloos men af en toe ook mag zijn, sommige auteurs hebben hun naamsbekendheid juist te danken aan het goedkeurende oordeel van een recensent.
Als de essayist het over de taken van de professionele literatuurkritiek heeft, zijn de argumenten overtuigender. Critici houden namelijk niet van stilstand: ze peilen de veranderende smaak en stemmen die af met de veranderende context. Daardoor speelt de kritiek ook een essenti毛le rol in de literatuurgeschiedenis. Deze draait altijd om de grote namen en zo is het ook onvermijdbaar dat alleen de critici met een zekere autoriteit hun stempel kunnen drukken op het canon. Dit argument gaat hand in hand met de overtuiging dat men door het lezen van blogs alleen maar een bevestiging van de eigen smaak vindt. In de kranten, daarentegen, wordt een gevarieerder aanbod besproken. Op die manier is de literaire criticus ook in staat andere soorten lectuur te suggereren.
McDonald leidt de lezer ook langs de geschiedenis van de literatuurkritiek. Dat hij daarbij ook stilstaat bij de voornaamste kunststromingen die er zoal geweest zijn, is wellicht een beetje overbodig. Van de meeste echt ge茂nteresseerden mag verwacht worden dat zij hiermee bekend zijn. Toch moet ook geprezen worden dat het essay grondig onderlegd is en dat de schrijver veel achtergrond biedt om zijn standpunten te onderbouwen. Zo maakt hij ook duidelijk dat de literaire kritiek een verleden heeft met veel veranderingen. In het derde hoofdstuk laat hij namelijk ook zien dat de gedachten over hoe de ideale recensie is, objectief of subjectief, erg vaak veranderden vanaf de twintigste eeuw. Dit had vooral te maken met de pogingen van academici om tot een systematische aanpak te komen met objectieve criteria. Toch is dat eigenlijk wel frappant, want elke criticus maakt een persoonlijke selectie van wat hem wel of niet aanstaat. Een zekere mate van subjectiviteit zal er dus altijd blijven.
Zo is The Death of the Critic een weloverwogen essay over de stand van zaken binnen de literaire kritiek. Schrijver McDonald heeft daarbij oog voor zowel de veranderende samenleving waarin de critici een veranderende rol moeten aannemen als voor het historisch belang van het beroep. Om terug te komen op de stelling waarmee hij begon, is de overtuiging dat de literatuurkritiek dood is niet geheel overtuigend. Zo is het aanbod aan recensies juist een stuk hoger dan voorheen en ondanks het feit dat lang niet alle even diepgaand zijn, wordt er ook zeker genoeg kwalitatief verantwoorde recensies geschreven. Het overlijden van de criticus is daarnaast ook te betwijfelen, aangezien er op de kaft van boeken niet snel citaten van literaire blogs terecht zullen komen. Zo zorgt de boekensector er zelf voor dat kwalitatieve literatuurkritiek niet verloren gaat, al is het ook voor een groot deel aan het podium dat de grote kranten hen bieden te danken dat de recensenten nog altijd kunnen publiceren en ook gelezen worden. We moeten de kritiek niet ten dode opschrijven voordat dat ook echt het geval is. Ze is levend en tussen de doden hoort ze nog niet thuis.
April 15, 2016
This is a very USEFUL book, but not a brilliant one. The sad thing, I suppose is that McDonald has a logic problem. It is rather annoying -- sometimes his conclusions are wtf? and sometimes when things ARE logically connected he is unable to spell out the connections, or even investigate them. That said, he has many good ideas, but they are buried here and there in the confused mass. This book outlines (heroically, since it is a lot of work) the history of literary criticism, roughly from the Enlightenment to right now, taking into account the UK and US strands. In itself that is a lot of historical work, and would be valuable for anyone who wants a concise history of 'what happened'. I am not sure however about the weird jump and slant into Cultural Studies, a full-on angry attack that I feel does not completely suss out the complications of residing in a literature (NOT specifically a cultural studies) department.
The other thing is his angst (I am supposing that the confusion in the writing and the angst are related). Like many of us literary critics -- well perhaps not many -- the more despairing sadsack ones -- he is worried about literary value and its seeming disappearance with the dismantling of the canon. It is a conservative instinct, and worth noting, but I don't think he wants to admit that to himself. It is a tricky problem, and while his book highlights the problem of the standards being 'culturally determined' he complains that we should not do away with these. But (coming from a left-winger) how could one NOT worry about using these standards or even giving them the importance that they have (or rather had) when strict adherence might mean cultural hegemony? McDonald notes this problem regarding Eliot's notion of tradition and Leavis's Great Tradition, but does not explain how his OWN proposed 'solution' to the double-bind might work out. The struggle is real, people.
I also worry about his insistence that criticism must go back to being evaluative. Again, this probably has to do with political differences. Now, obviously if you find some set of criteria by which 'great' writing can be determined, it is THEN possible to evaluate whether a work is 'good' or 'bad'. I don't have any problems with this. But I do not think this should be a primary concern of the critic. Certainly, if indeed such a non-biased set of criteria exists, it is possible for us to make value judgement of work. For instance, as a literary critic, I can say that Twilight is a shitty book. But this does not make for very interesting criticism. The standards for good criticism (again here Angsty McDonald confuses the assessment of literary merit in works of literature with the assessment of merit in literary criticism, that is, critical works written ABOUT literature, and no the dude does NOT ever sort this out. They're connected but not the same, ok?) should not be to sit in a corner judging books. Certainly I think we should be writing on the merits of 'good' work, but only because we feel its merit, and our critical investigation, while underpinned by that sense of respect and connection we have for the text, should rather explore interesting issues that we have been provoked to think about as opposed to spending the majority of our writing trying to tell others why a work is good (or not).
The other thing is his angst (I am supposing that the confusion in the writing and the angst are related). Like many of us literary critics -- well perhaps not many -- the more despairing sadsack ones -- he is worried about literary value and its seeming disappearance with the dismantling of the canon. It is a conservative instinct, and worth noting, but I don't think he wants to admit that to himself. It is a tricky problem, and while his book highlights the problem of the standards being 'culturally determined' he complains that we should not do away with these. But (coming from a left-winger) how could one NOT worry about using these standards or even giving them the importance that they have (or rather had) when strict adherence might mean cultural hegemony? McDonald notes this problem regarding Eliot's notion of tradition and Leavis's Great Tradition, but does not explain how his OWN proposed 'solution' to the double-bind might work out. The struggle is real, people.
I also worry about his insistence that criticism must go back to being evaluative. Again, this probably has to do with political differences. Now, obviously if you find some set of criteria by which 'great' writing can be determined, it is THEN possible to evaluate whether a work is 'good' or 'bad'. I don't have any problems with this. But I do not think this should be a primary concern of the critic. Certainly, if indeed such a non-biased set of criteria exists, it is possible for us to make value judgement of work. For instance, as a literary critic, I can say that Twilight is a shitty book. But this does not make for very interesting criticism. The standards for good criticism (again here Angsty McDonald confuses the assessment of literary merit in works of literature with the assessment of merit in literary criticism, that is, critical works written ABOUT literature, and no the dude does NOT ever sort this out. They're connected but not the same, ok?) should not be to sit in a corner judging books. Certainly I think we should be writing on the merits of 'good' work, but only because we feel its merit, and our critical investigation, while underpinned by that sense of respect and connection we have for the text, should rather explore interesting issues that we have been provoked to think about as opposed to spending the majority of our writing trying to tell others why a work is good (or not).
February 17, 2017
"氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 賰購鬲賾丕亘 丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丕鬲 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 賲賳 丕賱氐丨賮賷賷賳 貙 賯丕胤賳賷 丕賱卮亘賰丞 丕賱毓賳賰亘賵鬲賷丞"
賲赖賱賸丕!
賲丕 爻亘賯 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵鬲賮氐賷賱賸丕:
賰鬲丕亘 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿貙 賷毓丿 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賵囟丨丞 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀丿亘賷 亘賵噩賴 禺丕氐貙 丕賱賳賯丿 毓丕賲丞.
丕賱賳賯丿 賷賯賵賷 丕賱毓賲賱 廿賳 兀禺匕 丕賱賲購賳鬲賻賯丿 亘賴貙 兀禺匕 亘兀爻亘丕亘 囟毓賮賴貙 賯賵賾丕賴丕貙 賴購賳丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 賱爻丕賳 锟斤拷賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵丕噩賴 丕賱賳購賯賾丕丿貙 丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿.
丕賱賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱賴丕賵賷貙 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷貙 賳購賯賾丕丿 丕賱廿賳鬲乇賳鬲貙 丕賱匕賷 兀賰賵賳 賵丕丨丿 賲賳賴賲貙 賲毓 賲乇丕毓丕丞 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 亘賯丿乇 廿爻鬲胤丕毓鬲賷貙 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿賸丕 賱賲賳 賷賴鬲賲賵賳 亘丕賱賳賯丿.
賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 賰丕賳 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷貙 丕賳丨氐丕乇賴 賮賷 噩賴丕鬲 賲丨丿丿丞 丨丿賷孬賸丕貙 廿賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱賳購賯賾丕丿 丕賱廿賱賷賰鬲乇賵賳賷賷賳貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賮卅丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賵兀毓匕乇賵賳賷 賱廿爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱賱賮馗 丕賱毓丕賲賷賾 "胤亘丕賱賷賳" 貙 賴丐賱丕亍 賷賰賵賳 賲丿賮賵毓 賱賴賲 賱賳賮丕賯賴賲貙 賳賯丿賴賲 丕賱夭丕卅賮.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿貙 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賯乇丕卅鬲賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕貙 賷爻鬲丨賯 禺賲爻 賳噩賲丕鬲貙 兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕卅鬲賴.
1/10/2016
賲赖賱賸丕!
賲丕 爻亘賯 丕賯鬲亘丕爻 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵鬲賮氐賷賱賸丕:
賰鬲丕亘 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿貙 賷毓丿 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賵囟丨丞 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀丿亘賷 亘賵噩賴 禺丕氐貙 丕賱賳賯丿 毓丕賲丞.
丕賱賳賯丿 賷賯賵賷 丕賱毓賲賱 廿賳 兀禺匕 丕賱賲購賳鬲賻賯丿 亘賴貙 兀禺匕 亘兀爻亘丕亘 囟毓賮賴貙 賯賵賾丕賴丕貙 賴購賳丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 賱爻丕賳 锟斤拷賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲卮賰賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵丕噩賴 丕賱賳購賯賾丕丿貙 丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿.
丕賱賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱賴丕賵賷貙 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷貙 賳購賯賾丕丿 丕賱廿賳鬲乇賳鬲貙 丕賱匕賷 兀賰賵賳 賵丕丨丿 賲賳賴賲貙 賲毓 賲乇丕毓丕丞 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 亘賯丿乇 廿爻鬲胤丕毓鬲賷貙 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿賸丕 賱賲賳 賷賴鬲賲賵賳 亘丕賱賳賯丿.
賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 賰丕賳 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷貙 丕賳丨氐丕乇賴 賮賷 噩賴丕鬲 賲丨丿丿丞 丨丿賷孬賸丕貙 廿賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱賳購賯賾丕丿 丕賱廿賱賷賰鬲乇賵賳賷賷賳貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賮卅丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賵兀毓匕乇賵賳賷 賱廿爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱賱賮馗 丕賱毓丕賲賷賾 "胤亘丕賱賷賳" 貙 賴丐賱丕亍 賷賰賵賳 賲丿賮賵毓 賱賴賲 賱賳賮丕賯賴賲貙 賳賯丿賴賲 丕賱夭丕卅賮.
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿貙 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賯乇丕卅鬲賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕貙 賷爻鬲丨賯 禺賲爻 賳噩賲丕鬲貙 兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕卅鬲賴.
1/10/2016
March 3, 2019
丕賱丕賳丕 毓賱賶 賵卮賰 兀賳賷 兀毓賲賱賴 (賰鬲丕亘丞 乇賷賮賷賵 毓賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賲賵賯毓 丕賱噩賵丿 乇賷丿夭 兀賵 賲賲丕乇爻丞 丿賲賯乇胤丞 丕賱賳賯丿) 賴賵 亘丕賱馗亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟丿賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賱賵貙 賱賰賳 賲卮 毓亘賯乇賷. 賴賵 亘賷賯丿賲 爻乇丿 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱鬲乇丕噩毓 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 賵亘賷賯丿賲 賱賷賴 賳毓賷 毓賳賷賮 睾丕囟亘 丕鬲賮賯 賲毓丕賴 丕丨賷丕賳丕 賵丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓丕賴 丕丨賷丕賳丕貙 賱賰賳賴 賲毓賲賱卮 丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 丕賱賯乇賷鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓卮丕賳賴丕 賵丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賯丕賱 丕賳賴 賴賷丨丕賵賱 賷毓賲賱賴丕 賲乇丕乇丕 毓賱賶 賲乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丕馗賴丕乇 賯賷賲丞 丨賯賷賯賷丞 賱賱賳賯丿貙 賵賮卮賱賴 賮賷 丿賴 賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 賮卮賱賴 丕賱丨鬲賲賷 賮賷 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賯賷賲 賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 賳丨賰賲 亘賷賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賮賳賷 禺氐賵氐丕 丕賵 丕賱噩賲丕賱 毓賲賵賲丕.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲丨鬲丕噩 賲賳賷 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賵爻毓 賵丕賰孬乇 鬲賮丨氐丕 亘毓丿 賲丕 丕賰賵賳 賵爻毓鬲 賯乇丕賷鬲賷 毓賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱丕夭賲 賱丕夭賲 丕乇噩毓賱賴 賮賷 賷賵賲 賵丕賰鬲亘 乇賷賮賷賵 丕胤賵賱 賵丕賰孬乇 丿賯丞 賲賳 賰丿丕 ... 毓賳丿丕 賮賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 馃槀
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賱賵貙 賱賰賳 賲卮 毓亘賯乇賷. 賴賵 亘賷賯丿賲 爻乇丿 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱鬲乇丕噩毓 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 賵亘賷賯丿賲 賱賷賴 賳毓賷 毓賳賷賮 睾丕囟亘 丕鬲賮賯 賲毓丕賴 丕丨賷丕賳丕 賵丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓丕賴 丕丨賷丕賳丕貙 賱賰賳賴 賲毓賲賱卮 丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 丕賱賯乇賷鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓卮丕賳賴丕 賵丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賯丕賱 丕賳賴 賴賷丨丕賵賱 賷毓賲賱賴丕 賲乇丕乇丕 毓賱賶 賲乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丕馗賴丕乇 賯賷賲丞 丨賯賷賯賷丞 賱賱賳賯丿貙 賵賮卮賱賴 賮賷 丿賴 賳丕鬲噩 毓賳 賮卮賱賴 丕賱丨鬲賲賷 賮賷 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賯賷賲 賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 賳丨賰賲 亘賷賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賮賳賷 禺氐賵氐丕 丕賵 丕賱噩賲丕賱 毓賲賵賲丕.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲丨鬲丕噩 賲賳賷 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賵爻毓 賵丕賰孬乇 鬲賮丨氐丕 亘毓丿 賲丕 丕賰賵賳 賵爻毓鬲 賯乇丕賷鬲賷 毓賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱丕夭賲 賱丕夭賲 丕乇噩毓賱賴 賮賷 賷賵賲 賵丕賰鬲亘 乇賷賮賷賵 丕胤賵賱 賵丕賰孬乇 丿賯丞 賲賳 賰丿丕 ... 毓賳丿丕 賮賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 馃槀
March 8, 2011
A buddy had just finished a book I'd lent him, The Death of the Critic by Ronan McDonald, and was convinced that the theorists needed a severe pounding. His language was such that I had to put the phone down and answer the door for the pizza delivery man. When I got back and picked the phone up again, he was still ranting, unaware, it seems, that I was gone for a couple of minutes. He's a high school pal, someone who like no matter the contrasts in cultural preference, and he likes a critic to perform the service of being a consumer guide. He likes mysteries, Clive Cussler and true crime books, and all he wants is a synopsis and brief evaluations on whether he'll get his money's worth. I have no idea why he wanted to read the book, but he was fired up enough to be convinced that the Usual Suspects McDonald lays out for literary criticism's demise--French theorists, multi-culturists, feminism, variations on the postmodernist riff--had conspired to irritate him .One might understand the response, as in any of those times one volunteers a statement, heartfelt but visceral, not cerebral, about a book they read and enjoyed that might have happened to be the subject of conversation. Once you make your remarks, add your few pennies worth, some smart ass chimes in with caterpillar-length words and odd ideas from two or three different disciplines and leaves you there, lost and humiliated.
That happened to me when I was younger , much younger, mouthing off my platitudes about arts and politics, but rather than getting angry and nurturing a resentment, I was determined to become one of those smart asses, or at least sound as though I belonged to the club. My friend, though, craved his resentments and continued variations of his anti-intellectual beef over the last forty-some years. I assume most of us have friends like that. It was an exasperating conversation. Finally I got him off the phone and made a mental note to not lend him any more books having to do with literary theory or the history of ideas. Rather, I'll offer him some Elmore Leonard. There is a writer we can probably talk about.
On the topic of the book ,it's not that the literary critics are dying as much as people have pretty much ignoring them, preferring the pseudo science of theory, which prefers to wallow in a choking , jargon-clogged solipsism to writing that actually engages a book and it's style, the author's intentions, and the successes or failures contained therein. At some point a generation of young academics hitched their fortunes on the diffusing forces of continental philosophy because they found a method through which they could abnegate their charge to aid readers to sharpen their skills.Literature, by whatever definition we use, is a body of writing intended to deal with more complex story telling in order to produce a response that can be articulated in a way that's as nuanced as the primary work, the factors that make for the "literary" we expect cannot be reducible to a single , intangible supposition.
Use is a valuable defining factor, but the use of literature varies wildly reader-to-reader, group-to-group, culture-to-culture, and what it is within the work that is resonates loudly as the extraordinary center that furnishes ultimate worth, varies wildly too; there are things that instigate this use, and they aren't one determinant, but several, I suspect. The goal of literary criticism, ultimately, is not to create the terms that define greatness, but to examine and understand what's already there, and to devise a useful, flexible framework for discussion. Ultimately, the interest in useful criticism is in how and why a body of work succeed or fail in their operation, not establishing conditions that would exist before a book is written
Some of us who toyed with deconstruction and the like , when we found that language in general and literary writing in particular couldn't address the world as is,remember the sweetly slippery issue of inter-textuality. Promoted by Derrida and deMan, if memory serves me (and it often doesn't), this was the fancy footwork that while books fail to address the nature things and make them fixed, unchanging situations, texts (meaning books) referred only to other texts, and the coherent systems writers seemed to uncover or create about how things are were in practice drawn from a limitless archive of each text that came before the one you might have in your hand and considering it's fidelity to your experience.
A futile concern, we find, since everything has already been written, everything has already been said. If this were true, we asked, how can it be that some theorists are using language to precisely describe what language cannot do, i.e., precisely describe things? I never read a response that made sense, as the the answers seemed even more steaming heaps of gobbledygook that made the unanchored theory before even more impassable.Interestingly enough, the entrenched theoreticians, reticent to use the metaphorical techniques they had interrogated and attempted to render inert, weren't able to have their ideas stand outside the limits of their terminology and secure a comprehending response from the interested nonspecialist.
A pity, since science writers and even literary researchers themselves were able to explain in easier parlance the purpose, technique and consequence of the minute and verifiable data science was accruing. But no matter, because at the time one had discovered a nice hedge against having to read a book; I am being grossly unfair to the good critics taking their cues from Continental thought, but deconstruction and intertextuality were choice methods of not dealing with what a writer was saying, instead giving a jargonated accord of how all writing and discourse cannot get beyond itself and actually touch something that terms signify.
That happened to me when I was younger , much younger, mouthing off my platitudes about arts and politics, but rather than getting angry and nurturing a resentment, I was determined to become one of those smart asses, or at least sound as though I belonged to the club. My friend, though, craved his resentments and continued variations of his anti-intellectual beef over the last forty-some years. I assume most of us have friends like that. It was an exasperating conversation. Finally I got him off the phone and made a mental note to not lend him any more books having to do with literary theory or the history of ideas. Rather, I'll offer him some Elmore Leonard. There is a writer we can probably talk about.
On the topic of the book ,it's not that the literary critics are dying as much as people have pretty much ignoring them, preferring the pseudo science of theory, which prefers to wallow in a choking , jargon-clogged solipsism to writing that actually engages a book and it's style, the author's intentions, and the successes or failures contained therein. At some point a generation of young academics hitched their fortunes on the diffusing forces of continental philosophy because they found a method through which they could abnegate their charge to aid readers to sharpen their skills.Literature, by whatever definition we use, is a body of writing intended to deal with more complex story telling in order to produce a response that can be articulated in a way that's as nuanced as the primary work, the factors that make for the "literary" we expect cannot be reducible to a single , intangible supposition.
Use is a valuable defining factor, but the use of literature varies wildly reader-to-reader, group-to-group, culture-to-culture, and what it is within the work that is resonates loudly as the extraordinary center that furnishes ultimate worth, varies wildly too; there are things that instigate this use, and they aren't one determinant, but several, I suspect. The goal of literary criticism, ultimately, is not to create the terms that define greatness, but to examine and understand what's already there, and to devise a useful, flexible framework for discussion. Ultimately, the interest in useful criticism is in how and why a body of work succeed or fail in their operation, not establishing conditions that would exist before a book is written
Some of us who toyed with deconstruction and the like , when we found that language in general and literary writing in particular couldn't address the world as is,remember the sweetly slippery issue of inter-textuality. Promoted by Derrida and deMan, if memory serves me (and it often doesn't), this was the fancy footwork that while books fail to address the nature things and make them fixed, unchanging situations, texts (meaning books) referred only to other texts, and the coherent systems writers seemed to uncover or create about how things are were in practice drawn from a limitless archive of each text that came before the one you might have in your hand and considering it's fidelity to your experience.
A futile concern, we find, since everything has already been written, everything has already been said. If this were true, we asked, how can it be that some theorists are using language to precisely describe what language cannot do, i.e., precisely describe things? I never read a response that made sense, as the the answers seemed even more steaming heaps of gobbledygook that made the unanchored theory before even more impassable.Interestingly enough, the entrenched theoreticians, reticent to use the metaphorical techniques they had interrogated and attempted to render inert, weren't able to have their ideas stand outside the limits of their terminology and secure a comprehending response from the interested nonspecialist.
A pity, since science writers and even literary researchers themselves were able to explain in easier parlance the purpose, technique and consequence of the minute and verifiable data science was accruing. But no matter, because at the time one had discovered a nice hedge against having to read a book; I am being grossly unfair to the good critics taking their cues from Continental thought, but deconstruction and intertextuality were choice methods of not dealing with what a writer was saying, instead giving a jargonated accord of how all writing and discourse cannot get beyond itself and actually touch something that terms signify.
January 19, 2024
賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 賮賷 丕賱賲卮賴丿 丕賱丕丿亘賷.
胤丕賱毓鬲 丕氐丿丕乇 丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 賮禺乇賷 氐丕賱丨
丕賱氐乇丕丨丞 鈥� 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 夭賷丕丿丞 毓賳 丕賱賱夭賵賲 ..
乇亘賲丕 賱賵 兀賲爻賷鬲 禺乇賷噩丞 丿乇丕爻丞 丕丿亘賷丞 賱丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賷爻乇 賵爻賴賵賱丞 :)
賱賰賳 貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賱賯賷 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕丿亘賷貙 賵賰賷賮 賷鬲噩賱賶 亘兀賮囟賱 氐賵乇丞貙 賲賲丕 賷賲賰賳賴 丕賮丕丿丞 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丕賱毓丕丿賷 丕賱賲鬲毓胤卮 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐 賮賷 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賲鬲乇丕賰賲丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯.
賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 賱賮鬲 丕賱賷賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳 丕賮鬲賯丕丿賳丕 賱賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳丨賳 丕賱賯乇丕亍 賮乇賷爻丞 賱丿賵乇 丕賱賳卮乇 丕賱鬲賷 睾丕賷鬲賴丕 賮賯胤 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕乇亘丕丨 賲賳 亘賷毓 丕賱賰鬲亘
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 賷賮賷丿 賯丕乇卅 毓丕丿賷 - 賲孬賱賷 - 賷賵噩賴賴 賱丌賱賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丨氐賷賮貙 賵丕賳 兀噩丿 匕賱賰 丨賰乇賸丕 賱丕賴賱 丕賱鬲禺氐氐 .
兀馗賳賳賷 鬲賵氐賱鬲 丕賱賶 鬲爻賲賷丞 賲丕賳賯賵賲 亘賴 賰賯乇丕亍 毓丕丿賷賷賳貙 亘賲丕 賵氐賮賴 賴丕夭賱鬲 亘丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓賷! 賵賴賵 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丿 亘卮賰賱 丕爻丕爻賷 毓賱賶 亘孬 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 賵丕賷氐丕賱賴丕 .
# 丕賳 賲賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賰購鬲丕亘 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 毓丕賮賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 鈥�. 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賳 鬲鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱丨賷丕丞
胤丕賱毓鬲 丕氐丿丕乇 丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 賮禺乇賷 氐丕賱丨
丕賱氐乇丕丨丞 鈥� 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 夭賷丕丿丞 毓賳 丕賱賱夭賵賲 ..
乇亘賲丕 賱賵 兀賲爻賷鬲 禺乇賷噩丞 丿乇丕爻丞 丕丿亘賷丞 賱丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賷爻乇 賵爻賴賵賱丞 :)
賱賰賳 貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賱賯賷 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕丿亘賷貙 賵賰賷賮 賷鬲噩賱賶 亘兀賮囟賱 氐賵乇丞貙 賲賲丕 賷賲賰賳賴 丕賮丕丿丞 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丕賱毓丕丿賷 丕賱賲鬲毓胤卮 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐 賮賷 丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱賲鬲乇丕賰賲丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賵賯.
賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 賱賮鬲 丕賱賷賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳 丕賮鬲賯丕丿賳丕 賱賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳丨賳 丕賱賯乇丕亍 賮乇賷爻丞 賱丿賵乇 丕賱賳卮乇 丕賱鬲賷 睾丕賷鬲賴丕 賮賯胤 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕乇亘丕丨 賲賳 亘賷毓 丕賱賰鬲亘
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 賷賮賷丿 賯丕乇卅 毓丕丿賷 - 賲孬賱賷 - 賷賵噩賴賴 賱丌賱賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丨氐賷賮貙 賵丕賳 兀噩丿 匕賱賰 丨賰乇賸丕 賱丕賴賱 丕賱鬲禺氐氐 .
兀馗賳賳賷 鬲賵氐賱鬲 丕賱賶 鬲爻賲賷丞 賲丕賳賯賵賲 亘賴 賰賯乇丕亍 毓丕丿賷賷賳貙 亘賲丕 賵氐賮賴 賴丕夭賱鬲 亘丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓賷! 賵賴賵 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丿 亘卮賰賱 丕爻丕爻賷 毓賱賶 亘孬 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 賵丕賷氐丕賱賴丕 .
# 丕賳 賲賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賰購鬲丕亘 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 毓丕賮賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 鈥�. 毓賱賶 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賳 鬲鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱丨賷丕丞
August 22, 2021
賰鬲丕亘 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿
賱賱賰丕鬲亘: 乇賵賳丕賳 賲丕賰丿賵賳丕賱丿
鬲乇噩賲丞: 賮禺乇賷 氐丕賱丨
爻賲毓賳丕 毓賳 賲賵鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 賱賷亘丿兀 丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 亘賰丕賲賱 丨乇賷鬲賴 亘毓丿 丕胤賱丕賯 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賰鬲丕亘賴貙 賵賱賰賳 賴賳丕 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賳賯丿 賵鬲賯賷賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘貙 賵賱兀賳 丕賱夭賲丕賳 丕禺鬲賱賮貙 丨鬲賶 睾丕亘 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丨鬲乇賮 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲禺鬲氐貙 賵賱賳賯賱 兀賳 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賮賷 睾丕亘 丿賵乇賴貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇 兀賳 丕賱賰賱 兀氐亘丨 賳丕賯丿賸丕貙 賵賱丕 賷賳鬲馗乇 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賰賱賲丞 丕賱賳賯丕丿. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 賷賳賯賱 亘賷卅丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賵賱丕 賷賳賯賱 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賱丕 賷禺賱賵 賲賳 丕賱賮賵丕卅丿貙 賳鬲胤賱毓 賱賲胤丕賱毓丞 賰鬲丕亘 丌禺乇 賱賱賲丐賱賮.
賱賱賰丕鬲亘: 乇賵賳丕賳 賲丕賰丿賵賳丕賱丿
鬲乇噩賲丞: 賮禺乇賷 氐丕賱丨
爻賲毓賳丕 毓賳 賲賵鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 賱賷亘丿兀 丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 亘賰丕賲賱 丨乇賷鬲賴 亘毓丿 丕胤賱丕賯 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賰鬲丕亘賴貙 賵賱賰賳 賴賳丕 賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賳賯丿 賵鬲賯賷賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘貙 賵賱兀賳 丕賱夭賲丕賳 丕禺鬲賱賮貙 丨鬲賶 睾丕亘 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丨鬲乇賮 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲禺鬲氐貙 賵賱賳賯賱 兀賳 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賮賷 睾丕亘 丿賵乇賴貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇 兀賳 丕賱賰賱 兀氐亘丨 賳丕賯丿賸丕貙 賵賱丕 賷賳鬲馗乇 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賰賱賲丞 丕賱賳賯丕丿. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 賷賳賯賱 亘賷卅丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賵賱丕 賷賳賯賱 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賱丕 賷禺賱賵 賲賳 丕賱賮賵丕卅丿貙 賳鬲胤賱毓 賱賲胤丕賱毓丞 賰鬲丕亘 丌禺乇 賱賱賲丐賱賮.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2021
Ik vind het een interessant fenomeen en zeker iets wat vandaag de dag relevant is, echter is McDonald meer een probleem denker dan een positief iemand, hij zoekt vooral veranderingen in de trends van vandaag zoals boekenblogs. Hij grijpt hiervoor terug in de geschiedenis van de kritiek op een heel uitgebreide en onnodig lange wijze. Al met al een goed overzichtsboek maar teveel met zijn mening doordrongen en te negatief.
June 23, 2013
Is one opinion "as good as another"?
It鈥檚 an indicator of how divorced literary discussions can be from the rest of the world that the question 鈥業s one opinion as good as another?鈥� can be taken seriously or even tabled for discussion. The answer is emphatically no. My opinion on how to fly the plane is nowhere near as good as the pilot鈥檚.
I bought this when it was first published and have been rereading it. It's a passionate, readable polemic in defense of the evaluative literary critic, which narrates the by now standard history of academic criticism in the twentieth century, the search for scientific rigor, the theory wars, the rise of cultural studies, and the gradual with drawl from evaluative criticism. A retreat from asking 鈥渋s this a good poem鈥� to a scrutiny of the perceived ideology of the text.
Along the way McDonald makes some thought provoking points. Without famous critics new work like Beckett鈥檚 may never have found its audience. The radical cultural critics who dissolved 鈥榯he canon鈥� were no less elitist, no less dismissive of popular culture, than the 'elitist literary critics' they claimed to replace.
Sometimes, he reduces the effect of his argument by over simplifying, for example in his dealings with Narratology, which is far more supple than he allows and can be used in the evaluative criticism he is advocating.
However, the absence of informed evaluative criticism which McDonald laments is a genuine problem. He doesn鈥檛 say this but it鈥檚 probably why Blurb writers get away with nonsensical claims on the back of poetry books, and the general atmosphere of jubilant historical ignorance which allows poets and publishers and critics to claim innovation for writing that is a stale echo of something done better a long time ago.
The book鈥檚 major flaw, however, is not whether you agree with him or not but that the argument operates exclusively within the terms of its own binary. On one side, evaluative criticism performed by the informed professional critic: on the other the mess of blogs and tweets and whatnots of internet opinionating.
The binary is not the only game in town, but once you play inside it you鈥檙e doomed, as McDonald or his critics are, to taking sides and trying to defend the indefensible.
Academic uses of literature are not synonymous with the thing itself. The book panders to the myth that what goes on in University Literary departments really matters to anyone outside them. It may have in the first half of the 20th century, and that may not have been a good thing, but it hasn't for a long time.
It does not matter that no act of literary criticism is ever one hundred percent objective. The idea that it could be so pure is a laughable comment on the mess Literary studies got themselves into when they entered the university. The desire for it to be so is totalitarian in so many ugly ways. This does not invalidate criticism.
On the other hand there is nothing worth celebrating in the ignorant opinionating of someone who cannot see that 鈥淚 like this book鈥� says nothing about the book and is of no value to anyone else beyond the writer鈥檚 circle of acquaintances.
To discuss value: better than/equal to/lesser than, requires knowledge of the field. Some people鈥檚 knowledge is greater than other鈥檚, some people鈥檚 ability to apply that knowledge in ways that are useful to strangers is better than other鈥檚. Why is this a problem?
For readers, and writers, evaluative criticism is always useful to suggest what might be worth reading and why. Is it better than, equal to or less than and if so how and why? Great criticism either introduces you to new work, or sends you back to the text you thought you knew and invites you to reconsider it. But both McDonald and the people he criticizes miss the fact that every act of literary criticism is a statement open to consideration and evaluation, one part and nothing more than one part of a conversation between text and reader and critic.
If there were anyone who ever thought 鈥楲eavis or Eliot or Trilling wrote this, therefore it must be so and I have no need to evaluate their argument鈥�, then they excluded themselves from any definition of intelligence.
January 22, 2017
Reports of the Critic鈥檚 death have been greatly exaggerated
Contrary to what the title of Ronan McDonald鈥檚 new book may tell you, the critic is not dead. He鈥檚 alive and crowing on the Internet.
Today we can get all the criticism ever voiced in history, on the Web. We also get what rankles right now, real time, with many newspaper reviewers and bloggers posting their thoughts within moments of writing them down. The Gutenberg Project gives us copyright-free criticism at no charge, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Guardian, now The Atlantic, and many other sources provide free access to all that鈥檚 literary in their pages. Paid-for services give us the rest. We鈥檙e awash in criticism. Amazon and other book selling sites are crammed with reviews. New books of criticism seem to appear every week.
No, the critic is not dead. Thanks to blogs and burgeoning... read the rest here:
Contrary to what the title of Ronan McDonald鈥檚 new book may tell you, the critic is not dead. He鈥檚 alive and crowing on the Internet.
Today we can get all the criticism ever voiced in history, on the Web. We also get what rankles right now, real time, with many newspaper reviewers and bloggers posting their thoughts within moments of writing them down. The Gutenberg Project gives us copyright-free criticism at no charge, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Guardian, now The Atlantic, and many other sources provide free access to all that鈥檚 literary in their pages. Paid-for services give us the rest. We鈥檙e awash in criticism. Amazon and other book selling sites are crammed with reviews. New books of criticism seem to appear every week.
No, the critic is not dead. Thanks to blogs and burgeoning... read the rest here:
August 19, 2010
This contains a useful (if somewhat partisan) overview of the recent history of critical theory, but, ultimately, comes off as a willfully blinkered view of things. Even the history part has been done better elsewhere - Terry Eagleton or Herman Rapaport are two writers whose work comes to mind - and the rest of the discussion seems little more than an attempt to discredit emerging academic discourses. McDonald sees the borders of cultural studies as "impossible to draw", for example, completely missing the point that it is theory itself which helps to set investigative boundaries.
September 15, 2012
I had to read this book for a course in literary criticism, and as such it is very useful. Though the first chapter was dreadful to get through, it got better as the next chapters had more apparent narrative rather than theory. The last chapter contains a sort of rage against cultural studies, which was so personal it started to bother me. And there were A LOT of spelling mistakes - I don't mind one or two, but I noticed at least fifteen, and that's kind of ridiculous in a book on properly writing criticims, imo.
December 31, 2008
A very readable text which argues for the necessity of the critic. Perhaps it should be entitled, Long Live the Critic!, but the current title captures the urgency of McDonald's appeal. He contends that the open arena of public opinion written in popular venues, such as blogs, by non-specialists may seem like a democratic procedure. However, it leads, he argues, to conservatism in which uniformity and sameness is justified and none is challenged or expanded.
March 16, 2009
My manifesto. McDonald beautifully articulates the contemporary critical situation. It's written for laymen, but is probably not a great read if you're not fascinated by the dynamics of lit/art criticism.
September 19, 2016
乇亘賲丕 賱賲 賷賲鬲 丕賱賳丕賯丿 賵賱賰賳賴 鬲賲 鬲賳丨賷鬲賴 噩丕賳亘丕 賱賷兀禺匕 爻賳丞 賲賳 丕賱賳賵賲
賱賷毓賵丿 賷賯丿賲 賳賯丿丕 鬲賯賵賷賲賷丕
賱賷毓賵丿 賷賯丿賲 賳賯丿丕 鬲賯賵賷賲賷丕
Read
October 17, 2024I'm an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Reading in the UK, but I spend most of my time in the US, usually in San Francisco but currently in Washington D.C. (because my wife just got a job out here). I ordered a used copy of this book, which turned out to be a decommissioned library copy...from the University of Reading library! And the author, Ronan McDonald, was a lecturer (junior prof) at the University of Reading in the English department when the book was written.
The "critic" whose death McDonald mourns in this book is someone willing to make strong, compelling evaluative judgments about literature in its broader cultural context, and someone people listen to: Susan Sontag, Raymond Williams, F.R. Leavis, Lionel Trilling, William Hazlitt. The heart of criticism in McDonald's sense is aesthetic judgment, and there are two parts to aesthetic judgment (at least in a vaguely Kantian/Cavellian sense): a feeling in response to the object being judged, and a "discipline of accounting" for that feeling, a willingness to argue, to give reasons for why the feeling should be shared. The death of criticism (and the critic who practices it) is caused by a fracturing of aesthetic judgment into those two parts: academic scholars of literature give up on the feeling side of aesthetic judgment in favor of purportedly objective or scientific approaches to the study of literature (psychology for I.A. Richards, a focus only on the text for the new critics, sign systems for structuralists), and "public critics" inherit the feeling-evaluative side of judgment but without the discipline aesthetic judgment calls for.
McDonald recommends (I think his intended audience is other academics in literature departments) a return to aesthetic judgment in its full blown evaluative sense. I feel fortunate that in philosophy there was never a full retreat from this kind of evaluative criticism鈥擲tanley Cavell is a good example of someone who practiced it consistently without overselling its potential.
The "critic" whose death McDonald mourns in this book is someone willing to make strong, compelling evaluative judgments about literature in its broader cultural context, and someone people listen to: Susan Sontag, Raymond Williams, F.R. Leavis, Lionel Trilling, William Hazlitt. The heart of criticism in McDonald's sense is aesthetic judgment, and there are two parts to aesthetic judgment (at least in a vaguely Kantian/Cavellian sense): a feeling in response to the object being judged, and a "discipline of accounting" for that feeling, a willingness to argue, to give reasons for why the feeling should be shared. The death of criticism (and the critic who practices it) is caused by a fracturing of aesthetic judgment into those two parts: academic scholars of literature give up on the feeling side of aesthetic judgment in favor of purportedly objective or scientific approaches to the study of literature (psychology for I.A. Richards, a focus only on the text for the new critics, sign systems for structuralists), and "public critics" inherit the feeling-evaluative side of judgment but without the discipline aesthetic judgment calls for.
McDonald recommends (I think his intended audience is other academics in literature departments) a return to aesthetic judgment in its full blown evaluative sense. I feel fortunate that in philosophy there was never a full retreat from this kind of evaluative criticism鈥擲tanley Cavell is a good example of someone who practiced it consistently without overselling its potential.
September 20, 2022
I remember handing an essay draft to some professor during my second year of undergrad. He immediately returned the paper and told me to start where I ended. Wishing someone had given McDonald the same advice.
Also don't feel like homage to Barthes was earned.
Also don't feel like homage to Barthes was earned.
April 6, 2023
賲賳 丕賴賲 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 丕賱丕丿亘賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘賷賳 丕賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 賵丿賵乇 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱丕賰丕丿賷賲賷 賵丕賴賲賷鬲賴 亘毓丿 鬲乇丕噩毓 丕賱賳賯丿 賵丕賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱賳禺亘賵賷 賵丨賱賵賱 賲乇丕噩毓丕鬲 毓賳 氐丨賮 丕賵 丕毓賱丕賲 亘丿賱 丕賱賳丕賯丿 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐 貙氐丿乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘胤亘毓丞 孬丕賳賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 毓賳 賲賳卮賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤 貙賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵賲乇噩毓賷 賱丕賴賲賷丞 丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱丕丿亘賷 賵丕賱賳賯丿 丕賱賮賳賷 .
April 21, 2018
亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇.. 廿賳 睾丕亘 丕賱賯胤貙 丕賱毓亘 賷丕 賮丕乇.
August 14, 2019
A useuful analysis of the history of criticism, focusing on academic literary criticism, but assessing the importance of 鈥渆valuation鈥� for criticism more generally to be relevant to a wider public.
October 4, 2008
Hmmm... have checked this out from the library now 2x's and I still marvel at the tidbits I glean.
*
*
September 20, 2015
His point is very interesting, but he is slightly repetitive.
January 2, 2016
賲賲鬲丕夭 賰賲丿禺賱 賱賱毓賳丕賵賷賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲 丕賱乇亘胤 亘賷賳賴丕 賮賷 爻賷丕賯賴. 毓乇囟 亘丕乇毓 賱賱賮賰乇丞. 鬲乇噩賲丞 亘丿賷毓丞.
September 7, 2016
賲賴賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丿丞
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.