In Praise of Negative Reviews
February 23, 2018 3:22 PM Subscribe
I'm guessing this applies to a different world of books and reviews than the ones I'm used to.
posted by Artw at 3:30 PM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:30 PM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
Ohhhhh.... I see what they are up to:
This new ethic of book reviewing is offered up to protect and assist the unprivileged and the marginalized; and, yes, those whose context and cultures may not be easily relatable may require a bit of extra work from the reader. Yet from there the anti-negative book review cadre argues for limitations on all book reviews. Writing a critical review that dares wonder about the writer’s biography, that goes beyond the page into the suggested and imputed, is not only “textual violence” but a tacit endorsement of inequality, of exclusion, and marginalization.
It is a clever sleight of hand, stemming in some part from the predilection toward taking offence on behalf of marginalized others while simultaneously suggesting that a lowering of standards, or in this case a deliberate abridgement of the negative review, is what is required to correct the inequities of under-representation and misinterpretation. This is simply not true; for those who belong to these marginalized categories—and I speak as someone who does—critical and informed engagement with their work, along with dialectical challenges to it, is a sign of equality or inclusion. The idea that all Native American or Muslim American women must be praised for the very fact of publishing a book smacks of the worst sort of condescension; the idea that their public positions must receive gentle pats insures their intellectual exclusion.
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
This new ethic of book reviewing is offered up to protect and assist the unprivileged and the marginalized; and, yes, those whose context and cultures may not be easily relatable may require a bit of extra work from the reader. Yet from there the anti-negative book review cadre argues for limitations on all book reviews. Writing a critical review that dares wonder about the writer’s biography, that goes beyond the page into the suggested and imputed, is not only “textual violence” but a tacit endorsement of inequality, of exclusion, and marginalization.
It is a clever sleight of hand, stemming in some part from the predilection toward taking offence on behalf of marginalized others while simultaneously suggesting that a lowering of standards, or in this case a deliberate abridgement of the negative review, is what is required to correct the inequities of under-representation and misinterpretation. This is simply not true; for those who belong to these marginalized categories—and I speak as someone who does—critical and informed engagement with their work, along with dialectical challenges to it, is a sign of equality or inclusion. The idea that all Native American or Muslim American women must be praised for the very fact of publishing a book smacks of the worst sort of condescension; the idea that their public positions must receive gentle pats insures their intellectual exclusion.
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
Whoaaaaa this essay is painfully overwritten
posted by blue t-shirt at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by blue t-shirt at 3:46 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Oh and its thesis is poop
posted by blue t-shirt at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by blue t-shirt at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
I struggled with this when I was a music critic for a national NPR show. They (understandably) wanted to use their limited air time as an opportunity to bring to wider attention and celebrate some of the music that didn't fit on mainstream music radio. But after a while I felt like I was getting cavities from only being allowed to offer sweetness, and I begged to be able to do at least one negative review...
posted by PhineasGage at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
If there is a book (or any other product) I think I might buy, I follow this work-flow:
1. Read the top 2-3 negative reviews.
2. If they describe flaws that I can live with, buy the product.
Negative reviews, especially well-written ones, are the most useful ones.
posted by Triplanetary at 4:09 PM on February 23, 2018 [23 favorites]
1. Read the top 2-3 negative reviews.
2. If they describe flaws that I can live with, buy the product.
Negative reviews, especially well-written ones, are the most useful ones.
posted by Triplanetary at 4:09 PM on February 23, 2018 [23 favorites]
Negative reviews, especially well-written ones, are the most useful ones.
QFT
posted by chavenet at 4:26 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
QFT
posted by chavenet at 4:26 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Honest reviews are VERY important.
Possibly of related interest is this post I wrote back in 2015, on why our critics and filters are crucial in an age of self-publishing.
posted by orange swan at 4:28 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Possibly of related interest is this post I wrote back in 2015, on why our critics and filters are crucial in an age of self-publishing.
posted by orange swan at 4:28 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
So it seems not all publications deem it necessary to have a "positive" review. Just today I was reading this gloriously biting review of Steven Pinker's new book in the New Statesman. I'm not a huge fan of Gray, but I was quite pleased with him taking Pinker down a notch, because they are generally arguments I agree with vis-a-vis the neoliberal business-oriented left, who talk a great game of supporting the little guy, but seem to be totally fucking lost as how to do it.
And even if I didn't agree with any of his arguments at all, let's be real, a good intellectual take-down is far tastier than an intellectual brown-nosing. Glowing reviews are downright boring to read.
posted by deadaluspark at 4:32 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
And even if I didn't agree with any of his arguments at all, let's be real, a good intellectual take-down is far tastier than an intellectual brown-nosing. Glowing reviews are downright boring to read.
posted by deadaluspark at 4:32 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
Glowing reviews are downright boring to read.
Positive reviews are hard to write. I always feel like I'm going to come across as a mindless fan, or as though I just phoned it in, if I write a wholly positive review.
Negative reviews are a lot of fun to write. I must admit I do enjoy riffing on how bad something is.
posted by orange swan at 4:41 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Positive reviews are hard to write. I always feel like I'm going to come across as a mindless fan, or as though I just phoned it in, if I write a wholly positive review.
Negative reviews are a lot of fun to write. I must admit I do enjoy riffing on how bad something is.
posted by orange swan at 4:41 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
The idea that all Native American or Muslim American women must be praised for the very fact of publishing a book smacks of the worst sort of condescension
Yes, which means it doesn't speak well for you that it's a specter conjured up almost entirely in your own feverish brain, buddy.
posted by praemunire at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
Yes, which means it doesn't speak well for you that it's a specter conjured up almost entirely in your own feverish brain, buddy.
posted by praemunire at 4:46 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
yes, those whose context and cultures may not be easily relatable may require a bit of extra work from the reader
WHAT DOES THE READER YOU ARE IMAGINING LOOK LIKE, I WONDER
posted by praemunire at 4:47 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
WHAT DOES THE READER YOU ARE IMAGINING LOOK LIKE, I WONDER
posted by praemunire at 4:47 PM on February 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
slight tangent:
I shared a New Yorker review piece covering three "television" (actually one premium cable channel with a streaming-only option, one broadcast network, and one streamer-only) series to an interest group I belong to on FB and the most considered and thoughtful response came from a peer who is indeed considered and thoughtful. But he hated the piece, and percieved what I read as measured praise of a couple of the shows as actual attacks.
Personally, I often prefer reading criticism to actually consuming the source material, so I was truly taken aback. Whatever.
posted by mwhybark at 5:03 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
I shared a New Yorker review piece covering three "television" (actually one premium cable channel with a streaming-only option, one broadcast network, and one streamer-only) series to an interest group I belong to on FB and the most considered and thoughtful response came from a peer who is indeed considered and thoughtful. But he hated the piece, and percieved what I read as measured praise of a couple of the shows as actual attacks.
Personally, I often prefer reading criticism to actually consuming the source material, so I was truly taken aback. Whatever.
posted by mwhybark at 5:03 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
I work in a field where reviews can make a huge difference. And as the recipient of many recent very good, high profile reviews that have greatly benefited the success of my work, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I want criticism so that I think about the work I'm doing now and the criticism for past work can inform future work. But I also know from experience that taste is arbitrary. I may not do the thing that you would do, and that's not necessarily a sign of failure.
I agree that in some markets the pressure has increased to be more positive about commercial work specifically. And I think thoughtful and sharp criticism has an important cultural function in molding reception and future work. But I don't really mourn the loss of critics whose careers were built on what is essentially snark. If there are fewer of those, I don't think culture will suffer.
posted by Stanczyk at 5:19 PM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
I agree that in some markets the pressure has increased to be more positive about commercial work specifically. And I think thoughtful and sharp criticism has an important cultural function in molding reception and future work. But I don't really mourn the loss of critics whose careers were built on what is essentially snark. If there are fewer of those, I don't think culture will suffer.
posted by Stanczyk at 5:19 PM on February 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
One of my many freelance gigs is to write book reviews for our local newspaper. In order to write any sort of review, I need to read a book on average two or three times and then spend at least a couple of days honing my thoughts into something fit to print. If I don't like a book or if a book is truly awful, that amounts to too many hours of my life that I can't get back. (As a side note, they're also too many hours of actual work that I'm being paid peanuts for.) Those are the books I take a pass on reviewing.
This isn't to say that I won't note a book's limitations, but, really, I review books that I like or that I find interesting enough to grapple with -- and those aren't the books to which I'll generally give bad reviews.
Also, that article contains some gross -- and false -- b.s. about the ethical considerations that go into reviewing books that come from marginalized cultures, especially those that are not one's own: As a critic, you owe it to the creator of a work -- and the potential readers of that work -- to consider the work on its own terms, and part of that involves considering the context that surrounds its creation, the tradition and genre constraints in question, and what the work claims to be trying to do. It's not like there's such a thing as an Ideal Book against which all other books can be measured.
posted by platitudipus at 5:44 PM on February 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
This isn't to say that I won't note a book's limitations, but, really, I review books that I like or that I find interesting enough to grapple with -- and those aren't the books to which I'll generally give bad reviews.
Also, that article contains some gross -- and false -- b.s. about the ethical considerations that go into reviewing books that come from marginalized cultures, especially those that are not one's own: As a critic, you owe it to the creator of a work -- and the potential readers of that work -- to consider the work on its own terms, and part of that involves considering the context that surrounds its creation, the tradition and genre constraints in question, and what the work claims to be trying to do. It's not like there's such a thing as an Ideal Book against which all other books can be measured.
posted by platitudipus at 5:44 PM on February 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
When it comes to e-books, I find the one star reviews to be the most useful. All the five star reviews start to sound alike. Reading the one star reviews, and what people dislike about a book, is often a quick way to figure out whether it’s something I want to read. If the complaints are about "shoehorning representation in" or "I wanted a cozy romance but they insisted on discussing class and racial issues" I’ll probably one-click on the book in question.
posted by Lexica at 6:03 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Lexica at 6:03 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
yes, those whose context and cultures may not be easily relatable may require a bit of extra work from the reader
WHAT DOES THE READER YOU ARE IMAGINING LOOK LIKE, I WONDER
She may be imagining the reader you think she's imagining but I think her perspective on this may be different than you seem to be implying.
posted by atoxyl at 6:53 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
WHAT DOES THE READER YOU ARE IMAGINING LOOK LIKE, I WONDER
She may be imagining the reader you think she's imagining but I think her perspective on this may be different than you seem to be implying.
posted by atoxyl at 6:53 PM on February 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Also, that article contains some gross -- and false -- b.s. about the ethical considerations that go into reviewing books that come from marginalized cultures, especially those that are not one's own: As a critic, you owe it to the creator of a work -- and the potential readers of that work -- to consider the work on its own terms, and part of that involves considering the context that surrounds its creation, the tradition and genre constraints in question, and what the work claims to be trying to do. It's not like there's such a thing as an Ideal Book against which all other books can be measured.
Per my other comment, when I look up her other work it makes me think this is unlikely to be an accurate interpretation of what she's getting at. However I do think this would be much clearer if she provided more specific examples of the kind of thing she finds unhelpful.
posted by atoxyl at 7:01 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Per my other comment, when I look up her other work it makes me think this is unlikely to be an accurate interpretation of what she's getting at. However I do think this would be much clearer if she provided more specific examples of the kind of thing she finds unhelpful.
posted by atoxyl at 7:01 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
It is simply not true that people don't publish negative reviews anymore. I have literally just handed in my first book review to a publication highly esteemed in my field, for whom I have never before written in any capacity. The book they sent me was terrible and I told them so, and they encouraged and supported me in writing and polishing a thorough, arguments-based brutal takedown. I am sure the author is not going to be happy (and they do have a very high chance of seeing it), but this publication's policy is for the reviewers to be honest, as that is what gives the reviews value.
Of course, possibly we don't count to this article-writer due to being, gasp, genre. But if we don't, I'd like to see that specified, as there is more to literature than 'literary' fiction; I'd also like to see some numbers on positive vs. negative reviews at various major venues.
This article looks to me like a thinly veiled political screed, and it doesn't come off too well as a result. 2/5, thumbs down.
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 7:05 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Of course, possibly we don't count to this article-writer due to being, gasp, genre. But if we don't, I'd like to see that specified, as there is more to literature than 'literary' fiction; I'd also like to see some numbers on positive vs. negative reviews at various major venues.
This article looks to me like a thinly veiled political screed, and it doesn't come off too well as a result. 2/5, thumbs down.
posted by Rush-That-Speaks at 7:05 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
I have grown to quite like Maureen Corrigan's reviews on Fresh Air.
posted by bz at 7:25 PM on February 23, 2018
posted by bz at 7:25 PM on February 23, 2018
You can't mention bad book reviews without mentioning Mark Twain's essays on James Fenimore Cooper. Twain wasn't punching down since Cooper was a phenomenally successful author, and Twain's essays are still good for demonstrating how to avoid writing horrible prose [although I do admit to loving James Fenimore Cooper].
The last real furor I remember, however, is about Joe Queenan's review of A.J.Jacobs's "The Know it all". And Jacobs's rebuttal. That review encapsulates what is great about a bad book review. It may seem churlish to go after harmless A.J. Jacobs, but it was not punching down. Jacobs inflicted preview segments of this book on Weekend Edition radio listeners for months before the book was published, and the difference between books and radio is that you can avoid reading a book, but it's harder to avoid a radio segment. And this book was less a book than a book pitch: Jacobs pretended that he was going to become smart by reading the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. He went on to write up more stunts of this sort, which, mercifully, I could just ignore because I wasn't forced to have them enacted on the radio for me. However, this type of book project has become epidemic now that everyone starts a book by starting a blog.
And Queenan also wrote an essay on the joy of reading terrible books that says that book reviews have become too nice.
posted by acrasis at 8:10 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
The last real furor I remember, however, is about Joe Queenan's review of A.J.Jacobs's "The Know it all". And Jacobs's rebuttal. That review encapsulates what is great about a bad book review. It may seem churlish to go after harmless A.J. Jacobs, but it was not punching down. Jacobs inflicted preview segments of this book on Weekend Edition radio listeners for months before the book was published, and the difference between books and radio is that you can avoid reading a book, but it's harder to avoid a radio segment. And this book was less a book than a book pitch: Jacobs pretended that he was going to become smart by reading the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. He went on to write up more stunts of this sort, which, mercifully, I could just ignore because I wasn't forced to have them enacted on the radio for me. However, this type of book project has become epidemic now that everyone starts a book by starting a blog.
And Queenan also wrote an essay on the joy of reading terrible books that says that book reviews have become too nice.
posted by acrasis at 8:10 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I guess this is a somewhat fitting thread to note that I Don’t Own a Television has reached its 100th episode and is celebrating by absolutely trashing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
posted by Artw at 8:43 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:43 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I know someone who used to write book reviews for a totally mainstream, middlebrow publication. He told me that he didn't write bad reviews, because there are a billion books published every year and really limited space for reviews, and he didn't want to waste space to tell people about books they wouldn't want to read. If he didn't recommend the book to at least some readers, there wasn't any reason to devote space to it. But I think he saw reviewing as service journalism, and you could argue that there are other reasons to review a book. I definitely enjoy reading terrible reviews, although it's a somewhat guilty pleasure.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:54 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:54 PM on February 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
there are a billion books published every year and really limited space for reviews, and he didn't want to waste space to tell people about books they wouldn't want to read.
Negative reviews help a reader calibrate a reviewer's taste, helping them to check if the reviewer is a fit. And if the reader trusts the reviewer, then the negative review plays a positive role as a deterrent to reading the book, saving time. Also, unless the reviewer has reviewed ALL books they liked from among the billion, omission of a book review doesn't indicate whether they haven't read it or they did but didn't like it enough or at all.
posted by Gyan at 10:51 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Negative reviews help a reader calibrate a reviewer's taste, helping them to check if the reviewer is a fit. And if the reader trusts the reviewer, then the negative review plays a positive role as a deterrent to reading the book, saving time. Also, unless the reviewer has reviewed ALL books they liked from among the billion, omission of a book review doesn't indicate whether they haven't read it or they did but didn't like it enough or at all.
posted by Gyan at 10:51 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's actually a little surprising to me that I hadn't heard of "I Don't Even Own A Television" before, and it reminds me of the Podcast where Mike Nelson (of MST3K/Rifftrax fame) and his buddy (whose name escapes me) read and make fun of Ernest Cline's Ready Player One.
It's even more surprising to me that reading bad books for enjoyment doesn't seem to be a widespread practice, but it can be just as enjoyable as making fun of a bad movie.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:22 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's even more surprising to me that reading bad books for enjoyment doesn't seem to be a widespread practice, but it can be just as enjoyable as making fun of a bad movie.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:22 PM on February 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
As somebody who's been book reviewing since 2001, just for his own amusement, I have opinions about this.
First, I'm glad that the pendulum is swinging back to "we need more negative reviews" rather than "reviewers hurt my feel-feels" from a few years back. Not so happy it seems to be mainly a dig at literature and reviewing becoming too diversity friendly.
Online and in fandom there does seem to be a mindset that if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything.
Second, looking at the big newspapers and similar venues for reviews is an excercise in frustration, as it's all people bigging up their friends, dishing their rivals and ripping apart anything that doesn't fit their category of literature.
But having written some reviews of friends' books, I can understand wanting to be more positive than negative, because, you know.
Positive reviews are hard to write. I always feel like I'm going to come across as a mindless fan, or as though I just phoned it in, if I write a wholly positive review.
Yes, this. How do you translate "reading this made me bounce up and down in my seat and I had to look out of the window at the passing landscape for five minutes because it's so good" to something that's interesting to read?
I try and tend to focus on one particular aspect of the book I liked, like e.g. here, where I talked about the protagonist being a black, working class, lesbian woman with a chronic disease and how well this was done.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:53 AM on February 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
First, I'm glad that the pendulum is swinging back to "we need more negative reviews" rather than "reviewers hurt my feel-feels" from a few years back. Not so happy it seems to be mainly a dig at literature and reviewing becoming too diversity friendly.
Online and in fandom there does seem to be a mindset that if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything.
Second, looking at the big newspapers and similar venues for reviews is an excercise in frustration, as it's all people bigging up their friends, dishing their rivals and ripping apart anything that doesn't fit their category of literature.
But having written some reviews of friends' books, I can understand wanting to be more positive than negative, because, you know.
Positive reviews are hard to write. I always feel like I'm going to come across as a mindless fan, or as though I just phoned it in, if I write a wholly positive review.
Yes, this. How do you translate "reading this made me bounce up and down in my seat and I had to look out of the window at the passing landscape for five minutes because it's so good" to something that's interesting to read?
I try and tend to focus on one particular aspect of the book I liked, like e.g. here, where I talked about the protagonist being a black, working class, lesbian woman with a chronic disease and how well this was done.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:53 AM on February 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
it reminds me of the Podcast where Mike Nelson (of MST3K/Rifftrax fame) and his buddy (whose name escapes me) read and make fun of Ernest Cline's Ready Player One.
Oh, you’re really going to like the IDOATV episode on Ready Player One.
posted by Artw at 6:10 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
Oh, you’re really going to like the IDOATV episode on Ready Player One.
posted by Artw at 6:10 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
Good quality reviews are helpful, bad ones are not. You can’t generalise about negative/positive. I’ve read negative reviews where the reviewer seemed not to have read the book. I’ve read positive ones that made me want to drop everything in excitement and run to buy the book (and rightly too). I’ve read negative ones that inadvertently made me buy, and positive ones that almost made me vomit.
posted by Segundus at 6:56 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Segundus at 6:56 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
The best negative book reviews I have seen are from a scientific journal that hands them out to peer reviewers who are often scathing in their takedowns of why and how this book is terrible in its science, writing, or otherwise. It helps that we're a small field that publishes a lot of articles but not many books, so they can afford to give time and space to the anti-recommendations.
posted by Flannery Culp at 6:58 AM on February 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 6:58 AM on February 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
The juicy Pinker takedown posted by daedaluspark makes me want to actually read Pinker‘s book (a rare feat). Via my FB wall, it also inspired some discussion about the hypotheses in the book. What more can a review accomplish? I certainly don‘t want a book report!
posted by The Toad at 7:19 AM on February 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by The Toad at 7:19 AM on February 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
She may be imagining the reader you think she's imagining but I think her perspective on this may be different than you seem to be implying.
Personal identity doesn't, unfortunately, automatically save you from the biases of a culturally conservative education. It may even push you to overcompensate. It's part of how, e.g., you ended up in midcentury America and later with a number of Jewish immigrant-child thinkers who felt that they had to be plus royaliste que le roi when it came to the Greatness of WASP Civilization. Even in liberal institutions, it's hard to escape the assumption in students of (what would be in the U.S., varying somewhat for local conditions) a white male native-English-speaking reader. The rhetorical strawmen she's setting up are sufficiently absurd that I feel reasonably confident in my assessment of them.
posted by praemunire at 10:17 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
Personal identity doesn't, unfortunately, automatically save you from the biases of a culturally conservative education. It may even push you to overcompensate. It's part of how, e.g., you ended up in midcentury America and later with a number of Jewish immigrant-child thinkers who felt that they had to be plus royaliste que le roi when it came to the Greatness of WASP Civilization. Even in liberal institutions, it's hard to escape the assumption in students of (what would be in the U.S., varying somewhat for local conditions) a white male native-English-speaking reader. The rhetorical strawmen she's setting up are sufficiently absurd that I feel reasonably confident in my assessment of them.
posted by praemunire at 10:17 AM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
I worked (for infinitesimal amounts of money, of course) as a critic of various media around 2002. Part of the reason I enjoy reading others' critical work is that I enjoyed writing it myself. My actual favorite reviews were when I enjoyed something and was able to critically analyze why the piece worked for me, specifically from my point of view. Occasionally I would get negative or challenging feedback to what I saw as celebratory pieces from an artist or an admirer of the artist who misperceived critical engagement for either attack (as my correspondent does upthread) or was dismayed that I had perceived the material in the wrong way, and that my appreciation and admiration was founded upon a violation of the contract between artist and audience. Pffft.
Mostly I don't write criticism anymore; there's a limited audience.
posted by mwhybark at 5:26 PM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
Mostly I don't write criticism anymore; there's a limited audience.
posted by mwhybark at 5:26 PM on February 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
“Criticism is the thing that’s going to make you better at what you do.”
posted by Stanczyk at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2018
posted by Stanczyk at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2018
> So it seems not all publications deem it necessary to have a "positive" review. Just today I was reading this gloriously biting review of Steven Pinker's new book in the New Statesman. I'm not a huge fan of Gray, but I was quite pleased with him taking Pinker down a notch, because they are generally arguments I agree with vis-a-vis the neoliberal business-oriented left, who talk a great game of supporting the little guy, but seem to be totally fucking lost as how to do it.
Another one, this time from The Nation: The PowerPoint Philosophe
posted by homunculus at 7:04 PM on March 9, 2018 [1 favorite]
Another one, this time from The Nation: The PowerPoint Philosophe
posted by homunculus at 7:04 PM on March 9, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older O.L.U. | “People hated me so much” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oprahgayle at 3:23 PM on February 23, 2018 [5 favorites]