Skip to Content

Literary Criticism and Pearls Before Swine

Republibot 3.0's picture

Several years ago, I ran a review of "Microworlds" by Stanislaw Lem in which he defended Literary Criticism. This was a new idea to me, and I later ran a few other articles on the subject, generally with me taking the "Literary Criticism is keen" POV, and pretty much everyone else saying that literary criticism is evil, wicked, nasty, and altogether bad for your skin. Opposition generally takes the form of "Who the heck are you to tell me your opinion is better than mine, and anyone who feels 'literature' is better than my copy of Madballs #16 or that Star Trek/GI Joe fanfic crossover I wrote is *clearly* a pretentious fop who should be taken out and maimed."

Just the same, I'm once again gonna' take the 'pro' position on this one.

I used to think the way most of you do, though. In fact, it had never occurred to me to think otherwise until I'd read Lem's dissection of the subject. It went against every instinct in me, but ultimately I concluded he was right. I opposed "Literature" in concept, mostly because the heavy-hitters in the genre I liked most did so. Basically my thinking and Heinlein's thinking dovetailed, but that's hardly surprising as I was 13 and knew nothing of the world and was largely regurgitating Mr. H's own thoughts on the matter. Since then I've read a lot more, learned a lot more, beat my brains out writing enough merely-adequate fiction to realize how difficult writing the superlative stuff must actually be (I'm a housepainter at best, and the guys in the library are a bunch of Vermeers), and I've come to realize that the dude was kinda' fulla' crap on this specific issue.

Many of our readers would say - have said - that there is no difference between "Literature" and any form of "Fiction," excepting perhaps the smug self-satisfaction with which snobs cling to what they themselves have decided to classify as the former.

Well, let's think about this: is there a difference between a "Good" story and a "Bad" story? I mean, a story well told and a story poorly told? Is there a difference between Lord of the Rings and "Chicks in Brass Brassieres # 127: Bloodlust of the Lustful Blood"? Obviously there is.

So if there's a qualitative difference between a terrible book and a good book, it follows that there's an intellectual one as well, yes? I mean, I got a friend who feels that "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a really smart book, and I assume he, and everyone else, probably think "Fifth Column" is a pretty dumb one. So we're already dealing with a grading scale, admittedly subjective.

In fact, a lot of what we do, here and elsewhere, is bang our opinions of these off of each other. 'Did you read this book? Did you like it? Why not? See I liked it, but I felt it stumbled here..." or whatever. So we *all* do it, it's part and parcel of the process of reading. I don't think this is a smug thing at all, though obviously we've all had experiences where it has been.

So in this context, "Literature" simply means "Really really good" and "Not Literature" means "Everything else." Doesn't mean 'non-literature' is bad, just means it ain't that Pearl of Great Price. Likewise, it follows that when people insist that everything is the same, and that Pearls of Great Price don't exist, then you're dealing with a "Pearls Before Swine" situation: "do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6).

And of course they *do* try to tear you to pieces, don't they? We've all had some special book, or song, or whatever, that strikes us as especially brilliant, meaningful, emotional, trenchant, *better.* We've all held forth about it's merits, and we've all been met by philistines who insist it's no better than the latest 'Gor' book, and only effete elitists who smoke cloves cigarettes and wear patchouli would *ever* claim such a thing, and cast aspersions on you, personally: you're probably gay and drive an electric car. It's not enough that they tear down something special, they have to tear you down, too, for thinking it's special.

Maybe it's not what you do, but it's what a lot of people do. A Lot. Heinlein did it. Rand did it. A lot of people do it. It's egalitarianism taken to its dictatorial extreme. A lot of us - including myself for years and years - do it as a reflex, mostly because it's instilled into us by the stuff we read at an early age. Exactly why that should happen is a subject for a later date, however.

Getting back on track, however, the decision as to what is and isn't "Literature" is, of necessity, pretty subjective. What's special to me isn't the same as my liberal friend Carol, who's obviously far better read and educated than I. Likewise, your opinion is probably more valid than my friend mentioned a while back who claimed to like SF, but only really liked Trek. Realistically, it's not a question of whether or not some books are way the heck better than others, obviously they are, but how we scale them. That's always going to be wonky 'cuz we're humans and we really don't agree about anything. (For instance, most people would say PKD's "Valis" is literature. I think it's crap. I *do* consider his sequel, "The Divine Invasion" to be literature, but most folks who like Valis have never even heard of it).

This is where 'consensus' comes in. Buncha' well-read, well-educated types sit in judgement. Is it a timeless tale of existentialism that questions the nature of human existence and our desire to say 'I am" to an uncaring and ultimately dying universe that doesn't care, or is it just another Mack Bolan novel?

This, too, is fairly subjective, and *that's* where the system breaks down, as the nature of writing changes pretty darn fast, but I feel the scholarly types in the consensus-deciding-category tend to lag about 30 or 40 years behind the times. They also tend to be a bit self-congratulatory. This makes 'em a bit more like 'the grammies' than anyone's comfortable with. But even if the execution is a bit wanting (Let's admit it: the 20th century was a heck of a time. It was hard to keep up!), the basic concept is, I think, good.

This is the part where you guys sound off to tell me I'm wrong, likely gay, and drive an electric car...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
thank you

>>In shifting my position from 'Hell, no' to 'It's possibly a useful tool, but is also dangerous...'... I'll say that literary criticism, like any other tool is as good or bad as the tool using the too<<

Which still means "I won."

But seriously: I tease you a lot for being intractable, but in fact you are one of the few people I know who's actually capable of legitimately changing their mind based on logical argument as opposed to emotionalism or fashion or hype. So when you change your stance, it has a lot more weight than when most people do it. So thank you for that.

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

Republibot 2.0
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011
I'll be Swiss

In shifting my position from 'Hell, no' to 'It's possibly a useful tool, but is also dangerous...'... I'll say that literary criticism, like any other tool is as good or bad as the tool using the tool.

Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
We're not arguing

We're not arguing. I won.

The argument leading UP TO this point - the point where I won, I mean - is whether or not literary criticism AS A WHOLE was good or bad. I maintained that it was useful in spotting the diamonds in the turds, and R2 maintained that it was just highfalutin double-domed eggheads dissing everything they didn't understand (Science Fiction) because they don't understand it, 'cuz they're bad with math and stuff, and thereby making our crappy genre look crappy.

My stance has simply been that most SF authors can't write for sour apples, nor can most popular authors, and it's not fair to take the gloves off for US if you're not taking them off for any other genre.

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

Republibot 2.0
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011
Not odd, normal.

"Now, is it just me, or is it really odd that you guys are arguing about something that happened over a century ago?"

No, we argue about the significance of things that happened millennia ago. A hundred and fifty years is short game.

What is odd is that this one has come to a (sort of) resolution.

Mama Fisi
Mama Fisi's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/11/2011
Not Whether You Win Or Lose

As I see it, one influential person (Mark Twain, Oprah Winfrey, Al Gore) can make or break a person's career or a whole industry with a few quick remarks.

The majority of the Great Unwashed will believe and follow whatever its personal icons say and do. Few of them bother to go look things up and check the facts before making that snap judgement.

The tastemakers, the style setters, the opinionistas have always ruled the thoughts of society, creating trends and destroying that whuch had come before simply because it was "old fashioned."

It's easy to be a critic, all you have to do is be able to offer an opinion on something. There's constructive criticism as well as destructive criticism, but we mostly ever get exposed to the latter kind, because it's so much easier to do. Wits and wags specialize in it because it's far easier to get a laugh tearing something down than it is to do so while building something up. The Internet is full of self-proclaimed wits who offer their unsolicited opinions on any number of subjects, often quite volubly and with lots of obscenity.

I've enjoyed a lot of Mark Twain's works. I also disagreed with his travelogue of the Hawaiian Islands, which were rather bad-tempered and ascerbic because that was what his audience had come to expect. He eventually invents a character to be having a rotten time on the trip, because Twain himself started to realize how nice it was in Hawaii.

Now, is it just me, or is it really odd that you guys are arguing about something that happened over a century ago?

Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.
Magpie House Comics
http://www.hirezfox.com/km/

Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
[Speachless]

I won?

I WON?

[Dropjawed]

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

Republibot 2.0
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011
Wish I had more time

I don't have a lot of time, so if this comes through as terse or unclear, I apoloogize in advance.

Yes, criticism is important. If you want to proclaim victory on this point, feel free. You've earned it.

My point is: Criticism is dangerous. I fault myself for not articulating it in this way previously, because the two are not exclusive- in fact, they go hand in hand. If criticism didn't have import, it wouldn't be a threat. And if it didn't have the capacity to change, alter or destroy, it would not be significant.

At the heart of this is one of the conflicts that has defined our relationship lo, these many years. I strongly believe that what is built should be respected; you have a tendency to attack sacred cows with a knife and fork, mixaphorically speaking. There is very little that's sacred in your view, much that is valuable in mine. I have no doubt that we both err in what should/shouldn't be left alone.

In your previous post, you argue that one data point does not a case make. True enough, but that's not my intent. If you'll excuse the expression, my 'case in point' was that Literary Criticism can be a deadly weapon when wielded by someone who carries an agenda, by someone who is undisciplined in it's application or by someone of celebrity, seeking to amplify his reknown. In the case of Mr. Twain, it was all three-- and a grave injustice was done to someone on whom a great portion of American literature rests, unbeknownst.

My primary issue with criticism is like a game of Jenga. I gently push and prod at a piece, looking at it's context, examining what forms its foundation and what is dependent on it for structure. You come and shake the table.

Too much criticism these days is agenda driven. Let's take, for example, the current state of Mr. Twain's own work-"Huckleberry Finn". Although it is clearly a work of it's time, it's judged so harshly by current agenda-driven criticism that I dare not type the full name of one of its characters here. Perhaps that's History's way of evening the score with Mr. Twain for his injudicious criticism.

Has anyone been lifted up by criticism? Well, by Mr. Twain, no. He tried this character assassination on a couple of other occasions with less success than his attack on Mr. Cooper. By others? Well... that sort of depends on your definition of 'help'. Larry Niven sort of endorsed your last book (technically, he endorsed a story, but...). This could be seen as help. He read your story, he liked it, he allowed you to use this sentiment in marketing your book. Harlan Ellison has given you support, and endorsement as a human being... again, not too shabby. Heinlein endorsed Niven and Gerrold, Rudy Rucker has done nothing for us, but I understand he's pretty helpful to folks who don't have 'Republi' as part of their name. Charlie Starr has criticised my work, and made it better. You have criticised my work, and I've disagreed with your assessments :) but it has made me at least rethink some approaches and characters.

Is criticism important? Well, C.S. Lewis thought so, but he, himself, sometimes found the process uncomfortable. If skillfully, carefully and with due respect for the work, the critical knife is wielded, it is like surgery. If not, it is butchery.

I am anti-butchery.

I suspect that Heinlein and his contemporaries feared the critical knife because they did not trust the 'surgeons', nor did they have any reason to. The critics of the day did not have the engineering chops to examine the premises of his stories and on the basis of characterization, plot, etc., would've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In the fledgling S-F community, critics who trashed these stories were missing the point completely, and costing writers their reputations (good or bad, the jury's out on that one) and money (not good).

On another level, perhaps I'm trying to define the line between judgmentalism and honest assessment. Because to tear down a work, you have to judge and condemn it as being completely unworthy, as opposed to assessing it to see if there is something of value within.

(Apparently, I had more time than I thought)

Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
One example does not a physical law make

>>1) GEEZ. 1200 words (more or less) to re-rehash an ancient argument and then a hundred or so to say you couldn't suss out the point of the links I posted...<<

That wasn't the only reason I was writing.

>>And you wonder why I have an inferiority complex....<<

Why would you have an inferiority complex? You're a freakin' nuclear technician, a musician, a good-but-incredibly-nonprolific author, you provide for your family. Show me someone you're inferior to. I, on the other hand, have a HELL of a lot to feel inferior for. And I do. But I hide it behind low-key hostility and underhanded sarcasm, so I don't think anyone notices I'm a total loser.

>>2)The first link WAS literary criticism, done right. They took and examined Mark Twain's essay and Mene, Mene ,Tekel Upharsin... one of the most famous literary criticisms of all time was proven to be extremely dishonest, probably intentionally so.<<

And again I say: What do you want me to say? I already admitted that Twain's assholish tendencies were dominant in that period. Ok, he wrote a mean review slamming someone everyone liked, and ruining the guy's reputation. Fine. I'll accept that. But this *ONE* point of data does not justify the whole "Literary criticism is bad" viewpoint that the fen community keeps religiously putting out there.

>>3) The second link, which you had trouble following (Yes, it was meandering, but the argument was well thought out)<<

You can see how that's a bit of an oxymoron, right?

>>compared Tarantino's recent anti-John Ford rant to Twain's essay, with the point being that we shouldn't allow the popularity of the critic to determine the weight or value of the criticism.<<

I agree, but this in no way relates to Literary Criticism. You've got one example by a pissy old man more than a century ago, which I can counteract with one example of a pissy young man (Heinlein) saying any club that won't have him as a member isn't worth joining.

>>(yes, there's a reason I do that. No, I'm not telling you.)<<

I assume it's condescending.

>>when Cooper's name came up, Twain's critique stuck to his work like a stubborn tick. It was far easier to read Twain's piece than actually read Cooper's novels... so it almost functioned as a cover letter. When I read Cooper in High School, we were required to read the Twain essay first.<<

Well, then shame on him, and shame on them, and shame on Cooper's fans for not putting up a better fight. Assuming Twain was wrong. I've never actually *read* any Cooper, so I can't say, but I'll assume it's better than Twain said.

>>Everybody assumed that Twain's criticisms were valid... maybe because they were acerbically funny, perhaps because of the extreme claims.<<

He was basically a really funny stand up comedian who was making his living by going around the world and saying outrageous, mildly dickish things. I assume this was probably an example of that. Just sayin'.

>>And here's my point-- Criticism is important (heck, a large percentage of what we do is criticism); but it must be tempered with discipline. It must be honest. It must be fair. Axe-grinding, showboating and other selfish considerations need to be kept in check- or great wrongs can be done. Like Cooper not getting his due credit for the foundations of American Literature (and he doesn't. Do NOT argue that he does.)because of one acid-penned essay
<<

[Dropjawed]
[Long pause]
Unless you do something to take it back, I'm going to have to take this as a victory for my side, in that you just said "Criticism is important" and didn't automatically poo-poo academia. This is a first. I think possibly after five years of this argument, I may have just won. Wow.

So here's a question for you:
Cooper was destroyed by Twain. Was there anyone who was *Built* by Twain? I mean, was there anyone of midlin talents who Twain raved about, and who hence got the reputation of 'genius' even when undeserved? Theoretically it's possible.

Let's not limit ourselves to Twain, specifically: can you think of an author that critics have been undeservedly kind to? I started reading Lem because Harlan Ellison said nice things about the guy back in college, and had I not already started reading Dick by that point, I *definitely* would have started reading him as a result of Lem's essay "Science Fiction: A hopeless case with one exception," the exception being ol' crazy-assed Phil. All these acolades are more-or-less deserved, but can you think of someone who really totally didn't deserve it, but was built by celebrity endorsements?

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

Mama Fisi
Mama Fisi's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/11/2011
The Definition Of Criticism...

A Couple Of Opinionated Guys Sittin' Around Talkin'.

Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.
Magpie House Comics
http://www.hirezfox.com/km/

Republibot 2.0
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011
I hope the point didn't hurt someone else as it whizzed by you..

1) GEEZ. 1200 words (more or less) to re-rehash an ancient argument and then a hundred or so to say you couldn't suss out the point of the links I posted...

And you wonder why I have an inferiority complex....

2)The first link WAS literary criticism, done right. They took and examined Mark Twain's essay and Mene, Mene ,Tekel Upharsin... one of the most famous literary criticisms of all time was proven to be extremely dishonest, probably intentionally so.

Boring, yes. But important.

3) The second link, which you had trouble following (Yes, it was meandering, but the argument was well thought out) compared Tarantino's recent anti-John Ford rant to Twain's essay, with the point being that we shouldn't allow the popularity of the critic to determine the weight or value of the criticism.

Twain savaged Cooper, to the point where in lit'rary circles (yes, there's a reason I do that. No, I'm not telling you.) when Cooper's name came up, Twain's critique stuck to his work like a stubborn tick. It was far easier to read Twain's piece than actually read Cooper's novels... so it almost functioned as a cover letter. When I read Cooper in High School, we were required to read the Twain essay first.

Everybody assumed that Twain's criticisms were valid... maybe because they were acerbically funny, perhaps because of the extreme claims.

The second link also deals with the consequences. James Fenimore Cooper was stripped of any serious consideration in the literary world-- mainly due to this essay, in spite of the fact that he may well have been the first great American novelist and the creator of a handful of distinctly American genres.

And here's my point-- Criticism is important (heck, a large percentage of what we do is criticism); but it must be tempered with discipline. It must be honest. It must be fair. Axe-grinding, showboating and other selfish considerations need to be kept in check- or great wrongs can be done. Like Cooper not getting his due credit for the foundations of American Literature (and he doesn't. Do NOT argue that he does.)because of one acid-penned essay.

Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
Feet of clay is why we keep a towel by the door

>>One thing we haven't quite touched on is that sometimes, for whatever reason, Lit'rary Critics Lie, and in doing so, can irreparably harm the subject of their 'review'.<<

Why would you spell "Literary" as "Lit'rary"? The apostrophe doesn't save you any keystrokes.

Anyway, if *CRITICS* lie, well, so do fans. A proponent of an author can fanatically misrepresent stuff. Authors often misrepresent their own work after the fact to ensure more notoriety or popularity or claim things were there that they never intended ("Dumbledore was gay"), publishers lie, college professors lie, defenders lie, critics lie, everyone lies. So your argument that litcrit is invalid is itself invalid in that EVERYONE'S estimation of a story or book or whatever is equally likely to be just as untrue. That being the case, then what's wrong with one more? It would be disingenuous not to use the same criteria for EVERYONE that you use for critics, and other groups do demonstrably the same thing. SO what you're really saying is "I don't agree with critics because they don't agree with me, I only agree with the people who's opinions are the same as mine about Ambush Bug # 36 being High Art, and Shakespeare is just pretentious highfalutin' crap." That's perfectly fine, that's a valid opinion, and you're welcome to it, and, hell, if we're comparing Ambush Bug to Titus Andronicus, I'm even likely to agree with you. Also, for the most part, Shakespeare's comedies suck.

My point being merely: be honest.

The point of litcrit is, as I said, to attempt a peer review of fiction to determine what is genre ("Do androids dream of electric sheep," "Sixth Column") and what is literature ("Valis," "Stranger in a Strange Land.") That is to say: that which falls into an easy-to-categorize box is genre, and that which rises above the limitations of genre to become more than the sum of its parts is literature. We can and do disagree with this. I personally think that Valis and Stranger are both piles of shit, and I hurled the former across the room at least half a dozen times when I read it. It's probably the only PKD book I've *never* revisited.) Peer review of *ANYTHING* is far from perfect, but it is a commonly used for doctoral theses, grant aplications, evaluations of doctor's performance and decisions, and for evaluating both software and technical developments. Is it ideal? No, but it is a functional system that works for a LOT of other really important stuff at least passably well, so why *wouldn't* it work for something as non-life threatening as deciding whether or not "White Sluts On Dope 2: Dope on a Rope" ranks up there with Nabokov's "Lolita" or Vonnegutt's "Slaughterhouse Five?"

Again, come on, be honest.

I know, R2, that you *always* take the position that critics are bad and have no right and their opinions are invalid, but honestly, "Those who create" are the ones doing the reviewing. People who've published books are, by your own implication, better equiped to judge than those who don't create. Doctors judge the performance of other doctors, cab drivers dont' get to judge doctors. The Lit Crit types are themselves published, so, yeah, they probably do know a bit more than me. I may disagree with them, I may see flaws in their reasoning, I frequently do, but at the same time, this bias is *easily* circumvented by simply using a larger sampling for the peer review process.

And again, it's disingenuous to assume "Those who create" are the only ones who get to make judgements if you automatically reject the decisions of "Those who create," and simultaneously embrace the fact that *WE* (Or just me if you're feeling self-conscious) regularly talk trash about TV shows, movies, music, and whatnot without *EVER* having made a movie or TV show or record myself. If I like ROger Ebert's reviews - who never made a movie, and who wrote only one, which by his own admission sucks - then it's wrong to say "Only Martin Scorcese can review films."

You see what I'm getting at here?

Here's where I think I have a slight advantage: I've actually *read* books on literary criticism, and I've actually read literary criticism itself. I have actually seen and petted the beast we're talking about here. I don't know if you have or not, but I suspect you have not. If that's the case, then I'm working off of experience and you're working off of reputation, which limits our discussion, much as a discussion between someone who's read the Bible would have a hard time discussing it in detail with someone who's only heard of the Bible, has no interest in reading it, but feels the need to offer profound observations on it based on heresay. (And believe you me, those discussions are madening. There was this German guy I used to argue with on the Larry Niven Mailing List....Grrr!)

You've often mentioned (A) your love of Heinlein and (B) Heinlein's flagrant hatred of Literature and (C) your own hatred of literary criticism. I can only assume these are related, at least in their genesis. If I recall correctly, Heinlein's own resentment stemmed from him getting "The Green Hills of Earth" published in The Saturday Evening Post, and it gettign slammed in comparison to the other fiction in the issue. Heinlein was poorly reviewed, and as a result he had a poor opinion of reviewers. "How dare they dislike me, those fools! I'll show 'em! I'll show 'em all!" This is the worst kind of sour grapes.

Ok, so can criticism tarnish the reputation of a great work? Sure. But has Heinlein's sour grapes tarnished your opinion of an entire category of writing? Hmmmmm? Maybe just a little? Hmmmm?

Look, I used to think like you do. I really did, and for the same reasons: Nazi Bob said so, and I just seig-heiled along with him and railed against the eggheads. Then I realized that Bob was *FREQUENTLY* full of shit, which led me to re-examine his opinions. This led me to actualy read some of the criticism by Nabokov and Lem, and quite frankly, it's smart stuff. Nabokov's views on Don Quixote basically cut through 500 years of disingenuous mommy-coddling. Lem's learned views on SF - he's one of the best SF authors of the 20th century - are insightful.

>>Take, for example, the famous essay "Fenimore Cooper's Literary ....of Cooper's work to the point where Cooper's real and pervasive influence on American literature has been degraded to the point where it's unrecognized.<<<

I'm a geek. I'm uncomfortable with things that don't involve ray guns, at least in passing. I've never read any cooper. I can't speak to his merits, but I assume he's got bunches since a lot of people seem to have liked him, and a character from M*A*S*H* was named after one of his characters.

What do you want me to say? That one point of reference invalidates centuries of literary discourse? No. Of course it doesn't. You want me to say Mark Twain was an asshole? Most people would agree that he was in his later years, when this was written. He was an angry man, lost his family, lost his hope, spastically lashed out at people and things for no good reason. You want me to say - as one of the links you provided suggested - that he might have just been having a bad day? What?

>>On Twain's offenses (a bit academic, but full o' good stuff)
http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/articles/other/1988other-schachterle.... <<<

Boring.

>>And where the lightbulb went off- Do read this. It's important, especially when it comes to those of us who create--
http://theroundplaceinthemiddle.com/?p=1259
<<

Perhaps it's just the day I'm having, but I found it *REALLY* hard to follow this guy's writing. Maybe my concentration is off, but it seemed very disjointed to me.

What am I supposed to be getting from this one? What made the lights go off? I read it, and I'm not seeing anything...

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

Republibot 2.0
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011
Lies, Fabrications and Criticism

One thing we haven't quite touched on is that sometimes, for whatever reason, Lit'rary Critics Lie, and in doing so, can irreparably harm the subject of their 'review'.

Take, for example, the famous essay "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" by Mark Twain. It is ostensibly criticism- however, in fact, it's literary character assassination. Mr. Clemmons makes numerous assertions that are not supported by the texts in question (or reality). In doing so, he distorted the public perception of Cooper's work to the point where Cooper's real and pervasive influence on American literature has been degraded to the point where it's unrecognized.

On Twain's offenses (a bit academic, but full o' good stuff)
http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/articles/other/1988other-schachterle....

And where the lightbulb went off- Do read this. It's important, especially when it comes to those of us who create--
http://theroundplaceinthemiddle.com/?p=1259

Kevin Long
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2012
Winnowing

Well, there's a natural winnowing process that takes place over time. Listen to an 80s ration station, and there's about 100 songs you'll hear over and over again, which everyone knows, but everyone's forgotten the 90000 other crappy songs. It's even more true of 60s music, where there's aout 50 songs you hear on the radio oldies thing, and about a million crap songs that have been forgotten.

Time filters out the drek (Whcich is a shame as I quite like drek) and tends to make the past look better than it was as a result. This applies to books, too.

Kevin Long
(The Artist Formerly Known as Republibot 3.0)

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
Age matters

Even the critics can't agree on what is literature and what is not when it comes to anything published after 1980. It seems that the older a book is the more literary interest there is in it. Sure their are some books declared literature before the public has a chance to it read it, but those books mostly fade form the scene quickly. It seems to stay literature a book must age so the generation that grew up with the book can become the critics that decide what literature is.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Status

Bleeding Heart does not have a status.

Latest Status Updates

Ginrummy Ray Harryhausen, Visual Effects Master, Dies Aged 92 1 week ago
SheldonCooper Iron Man 3 review will be live first thing in the morning! 2 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Second, it reminds us to never stop looking to the future and trying to make it better. Everything Trek's ever stood for 2 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Observing a fictional event like First Contact Day is, first and foremost, just fun. 2 weeks ago
Kevin Long @SheldonCooper: can you comemorate an event before it happens? Or what about celebrating an event that didn't, like September 13th, 1999? 3 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long according to Star Trek, April 5, 2063 will be the day we make FC with the Vulcans. Thus, April 5 is FC day 3 weeks ago
Kevin Long @SheldonCooper: Huh? First contact day? 4 weeks ago