On critics, again

One question I’m often asked is how a critic can be impartial. Short answer is they can’t, and if anyone says they are they’re an idiot. The best a critic can hope to do is be honest about their partialities. Personally – and at the moment, since tastes change over time – I prefer work that reflects complexity, innovation and experimentalism. But being open about preferences is not the same as being merely subjective. Any decent critic will judge a book firstly by its own internal aesthetic, and only later on the value of that aesthetic. (That’s where someone like Dale Peck goes wrong in my opinion). These musings were in part prompted by reading Michael Chabon’s wonderful book of essays, Maps and Legends, which has a fantastic piece on Arthur Conan Doyle (one of the history of literature’s great never-readers: he couldn’t bear to re-read the Holmes stories, which is why Dr Watson’s wound keeps migrating all over his body).



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “On critics, again

  1. Hi. Yes and yes and er..yes again. Partialities maketh the critic. Have just written a piece for Eleutheria on just this issue of deskinning the critic of her/his attitudes platitudes and pithy preferences.
    The piece will be published online early March.
    Gratified to read this posting, McShandy. Apposite indeed.

  2. This post, although clearly expressed, lacks the tonal intricacies of previous posts. It seems to mark a transition between the frenetic enthusiasm of ten hours ago, and the slick concision of two hours ago. An underwhelming effort.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s