Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner
From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Critics and how DID we form our dislikes for them?
Message-ID: <16463@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 10:24:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.16463
Posted: Mon Sep 16 10:24:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 05:00:50 EDT
References: <3630@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 50

[...]

I see an important point in Steve Zeve's comments about the anti-critic
bias.  FOR THE MOST PART, those with no formal training in literature
(say, those who have taken few university level courses) have only been
exposed to "backyard" critics: high school teachers, peers, and that
mouthy Arts major down the hall in residence.  FOR THE MOST PART,
those same people have only been exposed to national or international
writers: those who have managed to interest a major publisher.  Is it
any wonder that the writers come out looking better than the critics?

I mean no disrespect to high school teachers and the like -- in my five
years of high school (we go to grade 13 in Ontario), I had two good
English teachers (and three mediocre ones) which is a pretty good average.
But the writers we read have gone through a more extensive culling process
than the critics we listen to...unless we happen to find ourselves in
advanced literature classes where we can read the work of national or
international level critics.  Given the basic high school introduction
to literature, we are hardly likely to pick up a book of good criticism.

The only other place we could possibly see high level criticism would be
in newspaper and magazine book reviews.  I will certainly concede there
may be book reviews that treat SF in a competent way -- the New York
Times Review of Books has been mentioned several times on the Net as
one such publication.  However, the Times is hard to find in Southern
Ontario.  I can choose one of the local papers (which are just as bush
league as many high school teachers) or some newspaper/magazine which
has more national coverage.  Unfortunately, the newspapers/magazines
that I can get my hands on do not pay any sort of attention to SF.

As an example: the Toronto Globe and Mail (which is as close to a
national newspaper as Canada has) published a review a few months
ago of a new line of quality paperbacks that Penguin was bringing
out, featuring Canadian short story writers.  The writers were
W.P.Kinsella, Leon Rooke, Audrey Thomas, and Spider Robinson.  The
Globe assumed that any literate person would have heard of the first
three (highly unlikely outside Canada, and not so likely inside) but
felt they had to go to great lengths to explain who Spider Robinson
was.  To them, SF was some little-read literary ghetto that needed an
explanation.

Conclusion: the critics with which we have the most experience are not in
the major leagues; the writers are.  Of course many of the writers are
bad, but they are bad by major league standards (not to mention that
they have been edited by major league editors).  Is it any wonder that
some people develop a knee-jerk response against critics?

				Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo