Why we hate critics...

Jon Tveite (jontv@ksu.edu)
Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:34:58 -0500

I think there are a number of easily understandable reasons:

1). Life is short, and there are too many primary texts to read without
making criticism a requirement as well.

2). Critics force us to think about what we think, and that can be
painful, humbling, or just plain hard work.

3). Criticism would seem to be an abstraction, removing us from the
thing we love (Salinger's writing) by one level, with the critic
standing squarely between us and our object of affection.

4). Many critics are stupid.

5). By endeavoring to criticize something, one places oneself in a
position of authority over a text -- and most critics could never have
achieved what Salinger has achieved, so what right do they have?

6). Literary criticism itself would seem to be in dubious shape these
days, with the proliferation of cultural theory and all of its
obfuscation and double-talk.

HOWEVER:

1). Life isn't that short (time seems to stop when I'm in the presence
of wisdom -- whatever its source), and although -- no -- you can't read
everything, there's much to be said for having a deeper understanding of
a few great texts, rather than a shallow understanding of a few more
texts.

2). Hard work and humility are good things, and life is inherently
painful, so don't let any of these things stop you from examining your
own thought processes.  "An unexamined life is not worth living" -- is
that Emerson, or Thoreau?

3). Good criticism brings us closer to the text.  Even if you don't
agree with it, you will learn from good criticism -- or your reaction to
it, if nothing else.

4). Yes, many critics are stupid, but so are many novelists, musicians,
and philosophers.  Find the ones who aren't.  If they were all stupid,
there wouldn't be nearly so many of them; it's the good ones who inspire
the bad.

5). Good criticism doesn't suppose its authority over the text; it
establishes its own authority by engaging both the reader and the text
intelligently.  Recognizing the difference isn't a tough skill to
learn.  Writing is not the process of creating hermetic capsules of
aesthetic genius to be admired by the world: writing is a process by
which we discuss important things in a meaningful way.  What I'm trying
to say that good writing is good writing, whether it creates new
fictions or illuminates existing ones.

6). Literary criticism does seem to be on the decline, but there is
plenty of good writing about writing out there to be enjoyed --
especially on any author born before WW2.  That's what libraries are
for.  And if you can't find the kind of lit-crit you're looking for, you
can always write it yourself.

Will (who's living proof you can read criticism without losing your
soul) wrote:

> ps I don't see where my post expresses personal offense, though I will
> admit I'm  being defensive about criticism since I think some banafish may
> benefit from critical readings and because I don't agree with mr.
> salinger's bias against critics.

I think that criticism is a whole different ballgame when it's your
writing being criticized -- and JD is an author who seems to put his
whole being into the writing.  So I can definitely understand why
critics would be a problem for him.  So let's excuse him from reading
Salinger critics: he's self-conscious enough as it is (like most
artists).  But I know what you mean.

Jon