Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!reiher From: reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: critics Message-ID: <3383@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 02:58:30 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3383 Posted: Thu Aug 22 02:58:30 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 17:06:59 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 62 From: Peter ReiherKen Moreau writes: >But I won't depend on some pompous critic >(or even you, Mr. Tucker) to tell me that some piece of sh** is art >simply because I don't immediately like or understand it. If it is >art (and to me that is a very select, very praiseworthy term), then >it will be immediately obvious to everyone. If it is not, then it >fails the test, and no critic can sneer at my taste enough to make >me admit it is art. I hope that you don't mean that, once you've decided that it doesn't meet your qualifications for art, then you cannot be persuaded. If you do, then you are being rather narrowminded. Good critics persuade, they do not browbeat. I disagree that great art is immediately obvious to everyone. You yourself said earlier that you don't believe that there are absolutes in art, so how can you be sure that anyone else will agree with you when you say something is great art? If it's only great art if everyone agrees, then I imagine that nothing is great art. What I find most disturbing is your contention that, if one doesn't immediately recognize the value of a work, or if a book isn't a good read, then it is not a great work of art. The reason I find it disturbing is because I know, from my own experience, that this isn't true (for me, at least). Therefore, I suspect that you are denying yourself some of the deeper pleasures of reading in favor of shallower and more transitory pleasures. (I could, of course, be wrong. Perhaps you have read books like "The Sound and the Fury" and "Ulysses" and been immediately blown away by what good reads they were. I had to work at understanding and appreciating them, but I don't regret a moment of that labor.) If, of course, you really don't care about such books, if you only are interested in reading works which appeal to you from the moment you pick them up, that's your prerogative. My objection is that, despite your claims that you don't believe in absolute standards, you impugn those who disagree with you, by suggesting that they are pretentious, that they have less understanding of art than you, that they don't really like what they say they like, etc. If you are secure in your beliefs, than perhaps a less emphatic and sneering tone would be better. And Power.wbst@Xerox.ARPA writes: >Finally, as you can see by my definition, it doesn't include >reviewers, archivists, or SF-librarians. A close examination of his entire posting suggests to me that Mr. Powers' definition of Critic (his idea of a insulting term) is any person making comments on a work of art whose comments he consistently dislikes. I, for one, do not agree with his article, nor with his veiled suggestion that Critics have caused writers in the mainstream of fiction to lose their inventiveness. True, there is little enough originality on he bestseller list, but if one looks, one can find interesting, stimulating, original writing outside science fiction. For those who haven't tried looking, I suggest doing so, and will be happy to provide a list of authors to start with. Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher