home

Media Laziness In All Forms

Time critic Richard Schickel wrote:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Does this requirement apply to Critcis writing about other subjects, like say, blogging? For Schickel clealry knows nothing about blogging. He writes:

D.J. Waldie, among the finest of our part-time scriveners, in effect said "fine." But remember, he added, blogging is a form of speech, not of writing. I thought it was a wonderful point. The act of writing for print, with its implication of permanence, concentrates the mind most wonderfully. It imposes on writer and reader a sense of responsibility that mere yammering does not. It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.

I take it Mr. Schickel has never heard of teh Google? The idea that dead tree versions imply permanence whereas online versions, which truly are accesible for years on end, are not, tells you that Mr. Schickel is lacking in the credentials, knowledge and seriousness about blogging to be a reviewer or critic of it.

For what has Schickel offered in this "permanent column"? Hypocrisy:

. . . [W]e have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance. We need to see their credentials. And they need to prove, not merely assert, their right to an opinion.

If this is true, Schickel's column fails as he does not prove his expertise on blogging. Indeed, he proves his ignorance. He is exactly that which he condemns - the idle opinion monger. He knows not of what he speaks - blogging. As an act of criticism, as a "review" of blogging," Schickel is precisely that which he condemns. And to think he knew he was writing for the posterity of Monday's fishwrap when he did it. If Schickel had considered the true permanence of his column, brought to you courtesy of the Internet, perhaps he would have taken greater care to know of what he "spoke."

The irony of course is, for Schickel, literary criticism is more important no doubt than political reporting and commentary. Wars and such are so transient. But literature? Ah, literature is forever. Schickel could not care that his Managing Editor, Rick Stengel, is an unadulterated hack. The politics of our nation are a secondary concern to his important missives on Shrek 3 or Spiderman 3 or . . .

< Specter Predicts Alberto Gonzales Will Quit | Agreeing With The WH on Gonzo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Media Laziness (none / 0) (#1)
    by TomChicago on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:28:06 AM EST
    Funny, but when I want to speak, I open my mouth and start pushing out the words.  When I want to write, I go to my blog, and for all the vicissitudes of Blogger, I can still see the stuff I wrote years ago.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    isn't it?

    Parent
    What is that NRA Saying? (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    Guns don't kill people do?

    Well keyboards don't write people do. Bad writing, and sloppy ideas are pretty equally distributed througout all media.

    Schickel has just proved the cliche to be true.

    Those who CAN'T criticize (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    Oh, I love this, for it touches upon the elements that so vex those who aspire to the art and craft of writing.  It's important to note that writing (in whatever its form) is almost always a combination of those two elements art and craft.  One can most definitely be learned, the other perhaps cannot, though that is a debatable point.

    If you read between the lines of this piece, it's easy to discern exactly where Richard Schickel is coming from.  It's a dark lonely place, a place inhabited almost exclusively by writers, though I imagine many other forms of expression have some type of similar experience.

    To put it bluntly, writers as a group, regardless of what they write, have historically been viewed by human society as being a dime a dozen, and the modern world of writing is no exception to this rule.  Critics especially inhabit a unique type of writers hell, for as we all know there is no lower form of writing, at least that's what some would have you believe.  Though I would say that the New York Times Book Review stands in opposition to that rather vicious criticism, especially when you consider that many of those reviews are far better than the books which they address.  But of course no one reads the New York Times book review, except writers, and a select few readers.

    Schickel's little attack here on bloggers is nothing more than a rather desperate attempt to separate himself, and see himself as engaging in some kind of "elite" art form, which to his mind has been polluted and diluted by the blogging world.  As if the world of criticism itself were anything more than a cesspool inhabited by the failed, who finding themselves unable to do, inevitably resorting to criticizing those who can, or at least those who continue to try, and as of yet have not been so disillusioned as to give themselves over to dismantling the work of others.

    Perhaps not everyone can write a review of merit which brings insight and enlightenment, but almost anyone can criticize, it is an innate part of being a human being, the ability to see the flaws, whether you voice those observations or not we all do it, some just do it a little more eloquently and with greater alacrity.

    What Schickel doesn't write about here is the plethora of fantastic writers out there who for various reasons will never be read by anyone other than a lucky few.  They toil in obscurity, writing their little blogs about their little lives and observances, often delivering a literary agility which would be the envy of Mr. schickel and many a published author who make their living churning out mediocre crap for the limited minds of mediocre readers, desperately seeking anything to take them away from the drudgery of their daily lives.  

    I've run across some of these authors myself, who write a few lines every few days.  They work nights at Wal-Mart in Kentucky and babysit their drooling little cousins during the day, while simultaneously producing some of the most entertaining and deeply insightful blurbs you could ever want to read.  No doubt many of them will go almost completely unread judging by the zeros in the comments section, until perhaps a thousand years from now when there blogs are discovered in some forgotten database, or unearthed by an archaeologist who uncovers an ancient Iomega hard drive buried in the remains of a trailer park.

    That will be magic of the blogging world in the future, its ability to make star authors out of long dead writers whose words will become the best-selling most widely read fodder of some as yet unknown generation.  No doubt it will be some critic like Schickel who grudgingly recognizes this genius and finds a way to enrich themselves by compiling and arranging said authors work, telling himself that he alone had the ability to understand and appreciate this obscure authors words, while secretly hiding his jealousy and contempt for ability he does not possess, and could never truly understand.

    Shorter Shickel: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    "When I want your opinion, I'll write it for you, you ignorant peon."

    Ny Times Sunday Book Review section: (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    see the letters to the editor from authors who accuse the reviewers of "having an agenda," not actually reviewing the book, grievous errors, etc.

     

    Ironically (none / 0) (#7)
    by chemoelectric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    Ironically, Donald Knuth developed the computer typesetting system TeX mainly so he could have his own books preserved exactly in digital form, rather than disappear or be reprinted unreadably. That's the sort of person who ought to be writing literary criticisms.