My husband had been listening to Radio 4 on the way back from the school run and came in full of an interview he had been listening to which concerned the author of a book controversially calling for the return of the Great Critic. ‘It was somebody else complaining about the internet and saying it had provided a great democratization of information, but that criticism isn’t about democracy, it’s about meritocracy.’ I looked the author up (online) and found a piece he’d written for the Guardian arguing that the current state of affairs in which any old person can review on a blog means ‘that artistic value is simply a question of personal taste’ and that in consequence ‘the public are relying on a reviewing system that confirms and assuages their prejudices rather than challenges them.’ If only there were great, intellectual giants of critics ‘with sufficient authority’, they might be able ‘to persuade readers to give unfamiliar work a second chance.’ Now there are a lot of false assumptions buried in this thinking that concern what bloggers and internet users do when they read online reviews. The main one seems to be a fantasy of an internet reader who has always made up his or her mind before ever starting to read the opinions of others, and who will remain resistant to what is ‘just someone else’s opinion.’ If such people did exist, (and they do but why solely in the blogging world?) then would such a character be persuaded by any critic, no matter how Great and Authoritative, to change their views?
The other is the age-old problem of how to value the worth of what has been written in the absence of nice, comforting, authoritative screening systems. ‘What he just doesn’t understand,’ my husband (who was on a roll) said, ‘is that the internet is only about democratization of access. That has no affect on the merit of what’s written.’ Quite so. Oddly enough, most of us are pretty quick to recognize when something is well written, informative, balanced, non-partisan and insightful. It may be that education can give you a leg up when writing about art (although this is not necessarily the case), but it is, I think, much less relevant to receiving the information. A good argument, well expressed, is convincing if the reader is open to being convinced, and no critic in the world can win over the opinions of those who are entrenched in the opposing position. ‘He said that we needed a return to important critical figures like…’ my husband was forced to pause in his headlong exposition as he encountered unfamiliar data, ‘like…like…Jeff Leavey?’ I thought about this for a moment. ‘Would that be F. R. Leavis?’ ‘Yes, that’s the one!’ my husband cried. ‘That’s him! Who is he, anyway?’
Ok, now, as far as I can see Dr McDonald has his heart in the right place. I think fundamentally he is afraid of seeing art criticism knocked from its position of dignified importance by sheer mass of numbers, and is calling for some kind of public forum which would promote the kind of difficult art that the ‘general public’ might find off-putting and uninteresting. He’s a specialist in the work of Samuel Beckett, which tells me a lot about where he’s coming from. If this is his vantage point, then it’s not surprising he can only see the internet as a vast, proliferating beast, spawning endless chunks of quasi-critical discourse that mean you can find anything you’re looking for, except the one right and true answer. He wants to bring serious art to the public via the medium of well-respected critics who make us all sit up and take notice. This in itself is fine, but I am not convinced by his stance on the internet. Looking around I found another blogger who had responded to McDonald’s arguments in a very rational and reasonable post here, and had solicited a response from McDonald himself here. What intrigued me was the extract of his book which the latter put forward in that response:
‘Internet reviewers are not always as accountable as their counterparts in the print media; fact-checking and accuracy are not as audited. This is not to cast a pall over the standards of the many reliable and professional internet magazines and reviews, which are proliferating and growing in profile and prestige all the time. But they represent another danger. The internet provides space for criticism and analysis of niche interests, which because of space limitations, conventional publications do not. But this atomises cultural discussion, to the detriment of the wider public sphere. Those who want to joint the arena for, say, performance poetry or the work of minor film-makers or installation artists may well be drawn to relevant websites, but this will disperse the arenas for debate and evaluation. Non-initiates are unlikely to stumble on the relevant sites which may become, instead, hermetic discussion circles for those already won over to the cause. The danger, again, is that while everybody’s interests are catered for, nobody’s are challenged or expanded. The sheer size of the internet is, then, part of this problem. In order for there to be a public sphere, an arena for the sharing of ideas and cultural critique, the organs and venues of communication need to be limited. There need to be some voices heard above the din.’
So, two points to make here. The first is that whilst accuracy in print is highly desirable, there is little hope in looking for it in the print media. Last week I finished Maggie O’Farrell’s novel, The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox (post to come) and rushed off to the internet to see what other mainstream reviews had made of it. I read five reviews all from broadsheet newspapers, The Independent, The Sunday Times, and so on, and three contained serious factual errors. Journalists had mixed up character’s names and misrepresented what had happened in the story. I would never be so shockingly inaccurate on this blog. The second point is that whilst arenas in which to debate the work of niche artworks are indeed desirable, what exactly are they going to look like in this day and age? The internet provides the perfect place for those interested in minority art forms to find one another. But to think that inevitably they will conduct discussions in which all participants are in agreement all the time is a little naïve. And if they do share fundamentally the same opinions as to the work’s value, well who gets involved in minority forms of art that they dislike? It would be perverse and unreasonable. And if such an arena as McDonald dreams of were ever created, a truly public arena presided over by a great critic who held respect and maintained a broad-based audience, can you imagine the competition to get different forms of art represented on it? There would be many an art form that found itself frustrated and sidelined, and all would be held hostage to the opinions (however educated) of one individual.
Finally, a word about that Great Critic, Jeff Leavey… sorry, F. R. Leavis, and how his work was received in his own time. Undoubtedly Leavis was a figure of distinction and importance in English literary studies, but his life was chequered and troubled. He never occupied the kind of position at Cambridge that his writings should have assured for him because, he claimed, of enemies within the university. Enemies he certainly had, and dissenters and people said shockingly aggressive and unpleasant things about him. This is inevitable in the kind of person who is so sure of his own opinion that he will single-handedly turn the tide of critical appreciation. I found this excellent description in an article by Paul Dean (available here):
‘He was a tireless antagonist—“Eight stone, fighting weight” he would say of himself proudly—and unbeatable in discussion. He never simply won: he annihilated. His sense of professional responsibility offended the Cambridge worship of “good form”; he wouldn’t play the game, wouldn’t be hypocritical for the sake of getting on with people. The inevitable accusations of paranoia combined with his and Mrs. Leavis’s suspicion of former friends and colleagues; there were accusations of betrayal and painful scenes from which no one emerged with credit.’
My point is that at the time that F. R. Leavis was writing his challenging, original and ultimately authoritative critical works, he split those around him into disciples and attackers. He was by no means recognized as a great figure until late in life and if he is relatively well-known to the small world of literature studies now, it is because his work and its value has filtered down into the system over decades. The even smaller number of students and colleagues who were around him at the time would not necessarily have known that they were making critical history, and by the time Leavis was an important name, new forms of criticism were rising up rapidly to replace his own work in the spotlight. My point is that he was by no means an unproblematic critical hero in the field of the arts, by no means able to sway all and sundry to his opinion, and whilst he was highly influential in shaping the way literary studies developed, his influence was, and still is, contained to a relatively small circle of initiates.
I’m not at all against Great Critics. Anyone who has a platform from which they can encourage others to explore as widely as possible in the field of the arts should use it as honorably and enthusiastically as they can. But why should a platform that doesn’t exist culturally at the moment be so much more worthwhile than the one we have available and to hand? I see no reason why this should happen at the expense of the internet, when we have it as a tool with immense potential that is still mostly untapped. I feel the real question is whether we want people to be interested in art, or to be right about it. For me that’s no question at all; let’s get everyone reading, everyone going to the theatre, everyone feeling that delicious urge implanted by good art to think more about the experience you’ve just had. That’s the important thing for me, and I do believe that insightful analysis grows out of that kind of situation, no matter what. The more ways we can increase the audience for art in its infinite variety, the more conduits we have for discussions and debates and new experiences the better. It’s a big, dynamic world out there and there’s room for valuable artistic appreciation in every last corner of it.
Tales from the Reading Room 
As always I read the criticism of the dreaded internet and wonder whether its prime opponents have a clue about what they’re talking about. This dreaded spectre of “atomised” magazines all devoted to early 20th century marionette theatre in some little known French town, or perhaps published Catalan novellas from 1901 – 1905 does not, in any way, match what’s actually happening. What’s actually happening is that we are getting internet magazines that are quite similar to its print cousins in form, that mix fiction with non-fiction and have “diary” columns/personal pieces.
What’s different is that (most) show a marked concern for reviewing fiction, have a more international focus, and, like the new one on short stories, focus on highlighting the kind of art that print is determinedly ignoring. If print critics are oh so concerned about the “dispersion of debate” they have only the publications to blame, the print media that have methodically narrowed their point of view, and seem perfectly willing to do so until they become irrelevant. That’s something I can safely predict based on what’s happening in the real world.
A standing ovation to you Litlove! What a very nicely reasoned post.
And I agree with Imani, print sources are cutting back coverage and their focus is becoming so narrow (supposedly because of cost) that the Internet has become the place to go for more than just niche topics. The “great critics” should be complaining about their bosses and the huge companies that pay their salaries rather than wasting their breath on attacking the Internet.
“Official” print media (and its internet editions) are often chock-full of mistakes and lack of research – including book reviews. I don’t think that a book review in, say, the Sunday Times is of greater worth than a book review I read here or in another “literature blog”, in fact in many cases I find these sites have far better, more insightful reviews than the “official” media.
The big difference is money. Print media relies on its readers to continue existing, whereas the internet is free. Free access could mean that more people can get information about art, which can only be a good thing.
Sounds like snobbery and control freakery to me!
To weigh in with my canadian two cents, it seems McDonald is in part echoing the fear of those who deplored the translation of the Bible from latin into every other tongue, the invention of the printing press, photography, radio, and so on.
Good critics do exist, but their number has never been high. They may have been more respected than they are now, but it’s harder to identify them in the print media alone. Those critics who specialize on one field – I like the catalan lit. 1901-1905 example – are not read much, unsurprisingly; those who write for general audiences are looked down on, or are envied, by some (not all) of their colleagues, and perhaps aren’t read by too many for too long. How many people outside a course of studies read McLuhan, or Derrida?; how many will, in the future, read James Woods? If Leavis (either Jeff or his sister, Queenie) could be consumed by the culture, then surely lesser critics, and criticasters, have been and will be also, and that present and future culture includes the Internet and all those who write on it.
McDonald is correct that critics are not respected like they once were. We don’t respect doctors, lawyers, priests, etc. any more either, and for some darn good reasons. Why does he think critics – not Internet critics, but real ones – are exempt from the general toppling of other authoritarian figures?
The Internet contains many dreadfully written things, and many “dangers,” to use McDonald’s world. So does the academy, any church, any government, and the regular media. I’d like to see McDonald address the area he knows best and attempt to clean that up, before decrying a media he’s afraid of, or challenged by, or unable to regulate, or influence, and before tarring with one brush those who are slapdash, say, and those who present quality sites with grace and goodwill (litlove, for example).
imani – I couldn’t agree more. Literary journals on poetry (for instance) have moved to the internet because they are not commercially viable in print and so businesses won’t do them any more. At last people who really love art have a place to express themselves and make contact with others without needing to starve in a garret. And as you rightly say, literary journals online are essentially the same as they ever were, only with more scope, more possibilities, more space. Stefanie – exactly right – why is the internet the baddie? I blame people like OUP who cut their poetry lists because they weren’t commercial enough – and they’re supposed to be a university press dedicated to ensuring the survival of the arts! I don’t understand why the internet is such a scapegoat (and thank you for the applause – I took a little bow!). Yaeli – I must say I was astounded at the level of inaccuracy I found in those print reviews. I’ll have to do the same thing again with another book and see whether my experience was representative. I think McDonald is more worried about the concept of ‘rightness’ – are we appreciating the ‘right’ kind of art, are we hearing the ‘right’ things about it that would be helpful. But this notion of right always makes art appreciation messy. It inevitably descends into a fight in which the art itself, what it does, what it says, what it desires, is lost from view. You are quite right that the difference is money; it’s called all the shots for the past 30 years. JB – when are you going to get a blog?? We need you out here! You’re quite right – critics come and go; they’re cheap at the price. And when Leavis was teaching and writing, English studies was in its infancy. The canon was relatively very small, so promoting someone like Eliot could be a big deal. How could any one critic, even a handful of great critics, sift through the thousands and thousands of artworks produced across the globe and promote ‘the best’? No one could do that nowadays, the world is just too big. And I agree, rather than mourn the death of ‘authority’, let’s see all the literary critics out there doing their thing to the very best of their ability and actually talking, and thinking and spreading their ideas about literature. That would be great.
The flood of work on the internet does make everything harder…
In a flood of work, I don’t know how any poet could be seen unless there happens to be a random tree branch sticking out in the flood waters for him to grab on to, and if the rescue helicopter crew will let him read his poetry in the rescue bucket as a newscopter films his performance. Otherwise, it’s hopeless. No? And
Tender is the red face, when
words blush past days
wordy sunsets smudged
without an honest critic
They say of me:
to be read
he must be dead;
an artist ditched
I will try
or hide with pen
I lay cold
in a ditch
papered over
It could be
a last pulse
a throb
Take the venue
of a graveyard
to read my verse
without a grand tombstone
I have never been
enough for inscription
for song
for crying
If I hide
will you buy
the book of
the dead man,
so I can come alive with a scandal
worthy of death by
debauchery
I’ve always thought
an orgy is
the best way to
die in bed
in camera,though
bleeding to death
wouldn’t seem so bad
if my
painting in red
had a publicist
a patron
and an honest woman
who would cry
as if
my last
self-indulgence
with her
were a gift
from the
whisper of desperation
Failing that
there are many wars to join
whichever ending is
finally
anything
could
suffice
as scream
“But why should a platform that doesn’t exist culturally at the moment be so much more worthwhile than the one we have available and to hand?” — excellent point! Critics of the internet seem absolutely blind to the good things the internet offers and they often make up problems with it that don’t actually exist, or not to the degree they claim. I like Imani’s point too — when people talk about the internet, they are often talking about their idea of it, their preconceived notion, and not the reality.
Doug – well, I hope you’ve got a little more audience for your poetry now. And if anyone knows of good internet poetry sites, discussion groups, collectives, etc, then do let Doug know. Dorothy – I am amazed myself by the way that critics write about the internet with so little first-hand experience of it. It’s so obvious to anyone who actually uses it and gets involved with it properly. Lots of fantasies abounding about usurpation and threat that say more about the person writing than the internet itself.
As always, I find myself saying, “Hear! Hear!” to you. I was going to point out that with the print media outsourcing so much of what it does these days, and so many jobs being cut, so that one editor now does the job of about three people, and with people being up against crazy deadlines, no one has time to fact check. Sometimes, it seems things barely even get copyedited or proofread. On the other hand, I fact check all the time when I’m posting on my blog. But then you went and mentioned all the errors you’d found in recent reviews, which just proves that point. I agree with JB: those who are so opposed to the internet are merely echos from the past against such things as the printing press.
Attention, Critics Great and Near-Great! Tired of fighting for ever-shrinking space in print publications? Squeezed from all sides by commercial limitations? Guess what: there’s room for you on the internet and an audience ravenous for your stuff! We’re all here. What’s keeping you? If what you have to offer is worth what you think, you’ll be fine. We’ll figure out ways to evaluate legitimacy and authority and while we do, wouldn’t you really rather have some readers for a change? And by the way, drop by the Reading Room for a peek. You might just find it an encouraging place to start.
‘that artistic value is simply a question of personal taste’? Since when was it any different? Most “Great Art” of the classical period was bought and paid for, not by Print-media-beatified arbiters of approved taste, but by the Captains of the Church or by the De Medici’s or by other captains’ of commerce. Art and artistic output was always a commercial effort. Based of the simple tastes of rich patrons.
Now the patrons are those who pay for a hard or a paper backed volume, those who wander the commercial art galleries and those who buy digitised discs of music or film.
What the purveyors of artistic snobbery are terrified of is that the internet may reveal the invisible threads of the Emperors of Criticism’ raiment. (hmmm – wrote myself into a corner there – where should the ownership apostrophickle go?)
I know I have criticised Critics (the capitalised, self-important ones) before but, really, they do provide an example to all of us. An ‘orrible example!
Oh – and up to #5 in seven weird things 🙂
Emily – you’re at the frontline of publishing on skeleton staffs with not enough time or energy in the day, I imagine! It is very hard nowadays to get quality when the pressure is constantly on for ever more speed in getting the product out. And yes, it really does seem to be the case that those against the internet are virtual strangers to it. David – I think your line ‘If what you have to offer is worth what you think, you’ll be fine’ is very acute. It’s one thing to get an argument past two peer review readers, quite another to pitch it into the sea of the internet. I do wonder how much established critics baulk at the thought of starting over in a new medium. But they should try, because the internet is so much fun, and full of such clever and interesting people. Archie – I do like what you have to say about patrons. Having the generally agreed opinion used to be all the thing, nowadays the key is to be controversial, but in either case, value is nothing more than subjective judgment and fashion. I quite agree. I do wish people would stop saying such negative, ill-informed things about the internet. I can’t think what good it’s supposed to do. And hurray for having reached 5! Bon courage and keep your eye on the finishing post!