World Class Poetry Blog

Why Book Critics Are Losing Their Dog Gone Influence
3 February 2008, the poet @ 6:15 pm

There is an interesting discussion going on about the state of literary criticism and blogging. It was started by William Skidelsky of Prospect Magazine. I found this little gem through Bud Parr’s blog, Chekhov’s Mistress, though I was disappointed to find that the quote Parr borrowed from Skidelsky was nowhere to be found at this URL. The following snippet was actually borrowed from the Prospect magazine blog:

“A healthy literary culture is one where books can be publicly discussed in a serious and informed way. I don’t think the blogosphere comes close to providing such a space at present, largely because it is completely unregulated, but also because blogs are so bitty. What you get is little snippets of opinion and gossip—the virtual equivalent of a conversation in a pub. That is a valuable thing, of course. But sustained critical evaluation of books is different—and to my mind it is even more valuable.”

Bud Parr does a great job of responding to this overly shallow analysis. One would think, by reading Skidelsky’s comments above, that he had nothing good to say about blogging at all. But a careful reading of his longer, more critical essay on book reviewing reveals a different attitude. That doesn’t mean he’s not wrong in his analysis.

Parr’s take was to defend blogging. As well he should since he is himself a literary blogger. But I’ll take a different approach. Though I do appreciate Parr’s staunch defense of the literary blogging phenomenon, which appears to be picking up speed. In his own words:

It is here where translation is not a dirty word. It is here where the publicity schedule means little. It is here where literary authors from independent presses get equal or better attention than whatever hotty the New York Times is billowing about this week to accommodate the tastes of myriad general readers. This is where being bitty becomes an asset. It’s specific, it’s personal, it’s opinionated. Those traits aren’t mutually exclusive with being critical; in fact they are the very assets that gives criticism life and probably why so many professional writers are finding themselves writing online, inviting comments from their readers, discovering others who happen to share their interests, no matter how specific.

I couldn’t agree more, and neither can one of my favorite politerary bloggers, Andrew Sullivan, who writes The Daily Dish for The Atlantic. I was glad to see Sullivan get in on the discussion because it takes the defense of lit blogging out of the fringe and puts it in the mainstream where it belongs. Sullivan says:

The ridiculous Hollywood-style roll-out of books - in which they have seven days to make it, or else - does not reward reading or writing. It rewards marketing. The blogosphere can give books - especially those with more to say than gimmicks to flaunt - the time and space to breathe and gain discerning readers.

He then promises to provide that breathing room. I’m sure that he’ll deliver on that promise.

Skidelsky’s Premise, My Rebuttal
Getting back to Skidelsky, I think he does an outstanding job of covering the larger topic of book reviewing and its virtual decline. He compares the literary landscape in the U.S. to that of Britain, claiming that UK readers place a higher value on the critic. I’m sure that’s true. Since President Theodore Roosevelt put a fist in the face of critics everywhere, claiming that the man to admire is the one in the ring rather than the one with the microphone, Americans have been more interested in glorifying violence than in critiquing its exploitation. That’s a shame.

The problem with Skidelsky, however, is that he does criticize blogging and its shortcomings, claiming that it doesn’t provide the depth that real book reviewing provides. This is where I diverge from the path in the woods.

I agree that literary criticism is a form of journalism. But journalists have not always been the powder room elitists they seem to be today. H.L. Mencken, if he were alive today, would make a great blogger. G.K. Chesterton as well would have his moments. The problem with journalists today is that they believe that only they can save the world from itself. There is this attitude among the corporatist news hijackers that the public should rely upon them alone as the sole source of news, commentary, and all things literate. But how that can be? Journalists are taught to write toward a sixth grade audience.

It appears that journalism has done just the opposite of what it claims to do. That includes literary criticism and book reviewing. Reviewers tend to write mostly toward an academic audience. Unless they are writing about sports or fashion. But try to get one to engage the average reader on a gut level and it’s worse than trying to pin a ring on the finger of a boar hog.

The state of book reviewing has declined for more than one reason. It’s difficult to say it’s because, as Skidelsky does, technology has changed the balance of power from the literary priests to everyone else. That’s much too simple an explanation.

In Skidelsky’s own words:

Creative writers may have some vestigial authority, but in the domain of opinion, the old hierarchies no longer hold sway. Bloggers, booksellers, prize judges, critics: nowadays all inhabit the same, frighteningly level playing field.

To be sure, capitalism itself is partly to blame for the decline in literary criticism. As Skidelsky points out, mergers, acquisitions, and other shames have led to a narrowing of the decision-making field at the top. That hasn’t helped.

But consumers, too, don’t feel that they need it. In the past, readers relied on critics to point out the worthy and not so worthy in the books they read so that they could make intelligent buying decisions. But so much has changed since those days. One of those things is that literary criticism itself has become nothing more than a shill for the marketing department of large publishing houses. The priests have gone beyond preaching to the choir and have taken up preaching to their wives and mistresses. So forgive me if I heap my criticism upon the receiver of my confessions from down below.

If the playing field is “frighteningly level” then perhaps it is because those who once stood at the top of the power ladder squandered what they had. Technologies change. I wonder what the scribes said when Gutenberg rolled out his famous printing press. Did they cry that the balance of power had changed? Too many journalists are so busy scorning the blogosphere that they fail to see its benefits. How much more could they themselves leverage its power and influence if they would only embrace it? Skidelsky has obviously seen its benefit because he criticized literary bloggers from the bench of his own magazine’s “bitty” digital platform.

The Value Of A Blog Is In The Market
One of the chief benefits of owning and writing to a blog is that it can be whatever you want it to be. If I choose to write little snippets then that’s what I write. If I choose instead to write long, critical essays then I can do that as well. It’s my blog. That’s how the blogosphere works. Or at least how it should. It isn’t so much the “democratization of opinion” as it is the influence of the market. Again, straight from Skidelsky’s own pen:

The idea that all opinions are equal, of course, pre-dates the internet. But the internet has given it a kind of tangible impetus. After all, before the internet existed, a measure of inequality was built into publishing. All opinions clearly weren’t equal, because while everybody could express a view on any matter, only those who were paid to do so could publish them, and thereby reach a wide audience. But blogging has removed this barrier. Now anyone can publish their opinion on any subject, and that opinion can (theoretically at least) be read by everybody. That time-honoured refuge of the unnoticed—self-publishing—has been reinvented as a vehicle of self-empowerment.

Skidelsky follows this bit by stating that just because a person is blogging doesn’t mean that anyone is listening - or reading. True enough. Just because you write a blog doesn’t mean that it’s worth reading. The same could be said of a book - just because you write one, or edited one, or published one, doesn’t mean that anyone should read it. That’s why critics were always of high value. An educated reader could tell those a little bit less sophisticated about all the qualities of a book and whether or not it was worth reading. That was a clear market force in earlier days. The market is different today.

One clear way the market is different is that more people are capable of reading on a higher level. People are more educated, better traveled, and more well read - even though, if you look at the latest statistics, fewer people are reading books. But the same statistics also tell that the ones who are reading books are reading more books. And they’re also talking about them. To their friends.

I was in a forum when a successful book jacket writer and publishing house cheerleader commented that Amazon.com book reviews were not to be trusted because they weren’t real reviews. They weren’t, after all, being written by real reviewers and educated critics. She missed the point.

Amazon.com book reviews are intended to be the equivalent of a friend telling a friend, “Hey, I like this book; I think you’ll like it too.” This is also one of the benefits of blogs. An avid reader can write about the books that he enjoys and tell his readers why he enjoys them. If he only gets 20 people a day to read his blog and he influences those 20 readers to either buy a book or not buy it then he’s done all he’s set out to do. He’s told his friends what he wanted them to know and they responded. At the end of the day, that blogger and his readers will decide if it is worth their time to continue that pursuit. Let the market decide.

I for one am glad to finally be, partially at least, in an environment where the market can have its influence for good or bad. We don’t need priests, particularly if the priests are simply going to stick their hands down our pants and cop a feel in exchange for a pat on the back from their mistresses at the big publishing houses. It’s time for the indie artist and indie critic to have his say. Don’t like what you hear? Change the channel. We promise not to kick you in the shins.

Submit a comment

Name

E-mail (not published)

Website URL

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail