As a layperson who likes to read texts or reviews by critics and search on google - top 10/30 critics of all time/alive- before spending money on the books recommended by them, this was a great source of information. I took some notes.
Had never heard of Leo Robson and his comments reads so well , no fluff , every sentence providing info / wisdom.
For other laypeople, War against Cliche by Martis Amis and The Art of Personal Essay by Lopate , that Leo mentions are accessible reads. It was my first introduction to Amis and yes he is funny. Serious Noticing by James Woods is just one level up in terms of vocabulary and ideas. Nowadays, reading essays by critics is also useful because these are shorter pieces on different topics. One can jump around if they didn't like a take or couldn't identify with a subject . With our brains completely distracted , and unable to read a long novel , essays are less risky options in terms of time and money to be spent . It is my last fight against harmful tech, before AI completely takes over the utility of reading with its summarization of texts and takeaways.
Thanks for this, Henry, and can't wait to delve into the whole Robson piece—he is an excellent critic. I am inspired also to check out that Updike/K. Amis review. I think Updike was a very, very good critic, and my sense is that what Lanchester might have considered JU being patronizing was often rather his effort to be what he would have considered appropriately civil, not an unwelcome quantity here in the post-Twitter era.
Like others in this feedback section, I value Henry Oliver’s takes and insights on all aspects of literature and writing— he knows far more than I ever will. His commitment to genuine dialogue on key topics is superb. No easy task in a world today where there is often only stagnant pools of intransigent thought, and no real sense of fair debate or discussion on anything. “In Henry We Trust”, or something like that. And even when one might disagree, his voice is unique to Substack —- an accomplishment not many here or elsewhere can make!
Once upon a time, James Wood excelled at this. Not so much these days, although a more sensitive reader than I might say his sensibility has softened with age, like leather or a good Scotch. I miss the years when he was spit-roasting Paul Auster as a banal hack in the pages of The New Yorker or, more broadly, railing against the pretension and faux profundity that flourished in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Robson is, of course, right that the 1980s were the good old days. I read the New York Review of Books cover to cover, even the letters—and sometimes especially the letters. It felt like holy writ. They were different times.
Now the very idea of a capital Cultural capital Arbiter is gone, perhaps for the better in some respects but to our detriment in many others. There is still a great deal of superb criticism, arguably more than ever, but too often inclusivity and sensitivity have displaced literary judgment as critical lodestars, a development that would have struck Nietzsche as mightily familiar.
Just maybe, writers might most resent critics who type out the history of veterinary practice in the 1920s, or whatever else, complete with erudition, competence and humour so that it is unnecessary to buy any of the three books mentioned in the piece. These people are, however, invaluable to everyone else with what is called a passing interest.
On the other hand, we dislike those critics who exaggerate the all-round goodness of their cryptic chum’s book so wildly that we shuffle-out and buy it, only to find that it is, ahem, not even a tiny bit as described. There should be a law, but in the meantime, beware the words ‘achingly well-written’ or similar.
Agree re frankness/rudeness. I would also say good criticism should be direct. Blunt another good quality. But I appreciate what Robson is saying re closer to rudeness than snideness, re that particular scale. And let me say I appreciate being in a space where drawing the fine distinctions between blunt, frank, rude, and snide is very welcome.
As a layperson who likes to read texts or reviews by critics and search on google - top 10/30 critics of all time/alive- before spending money on the books recommended by them, this was a great source of information. I took some notes.
Had never heard of Leo Robson and his comments reads so well , no fluff , every sentence providing info / wisdom.
For other laypeople, War against Cliche by Martis Amis and The Art of Personal Essay by Lopate , that Leo mentions are accessible reads. It was my first introduction to Amis and yes he is funny. Serious Noticing by James Woods is just one level up in terms of vocabulary and ideas. Nowadays, reading essays by critics is also useful because these are shorter pieces on different topics. One can jump around if they didn't like a take or couldn't identify with a subject . With our brains completely distracted , and unable to read a long novel , essays are less risky options in terms of time and money to be spent . It is my last fight against harmful tech, before AI completely takes over the utility of reading with its summarization of texts and takeaways.
Thanks for this, Henry, and can't wait to delve into the whole Robson piece—he is an excellent critic. I am inspired also to check out that Updike/K. Amis review. I think Updike was a very, very good critic, and my sense is that what Lanchester might have considered JU being patronizing was often rather his effort to be what he would have considered appropriately civil, not an unwelcome quantity here in the post-Twitter era.
Like others in this feedback section, I value Henry Oliver’s takes and insights on all aspects of literature and writing— he knows far more than I ever will. His commitment to genuine dialogue on key topics is superb. No easy task in a world today where there is often only stagnant pools of intransigent thought, and no real sense of fair debate or discussion on anything. “In Henry We Trust”, or something like that. And even when one might disagree, his voice is unique to Substack —- an accomplishment not many here or elsewhere can make!
Once upon a time, James Wood excelled at this. Not so much these days, although a more sensitive reader than I might say his sensibility has softened with age, like leather or a good Scotch. I miss the years when he was spit-roasting Paul Auster as a banal hack in the pages of The New Yorker or, more broadly, railing against the pretension and faux profundity that flourished in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Robson is, of course, right that the 1980s were the good old days. I read the New York Review of Books cover to cover, even the letters—and sometimes especially the letters. It felt like holy writ. They were different times.
Now the very idea of a capital Cultural capital Arbiter is gone, perhaps for the better in some respects but to our detriment in many others. There is still a great deal of superb criticism, arguably more than ever, but too often inclusivity and sensitivity have displaced literary judgment as critical lodestars, a development that would have struck Nietzsche as mightily familiar.
Just maybe, writers might most resent critics who type out the history of veterinary practice in the 1920s, or whatever else, complete with erudition, competence and humour so that it is unnecessary to buy any of the three books mentioned in the piece. These people are, however, invaluable to everyone else with what is called a passing interest.
On the other hand, we dislike those critics who exaggerate the all-round goodness of their cryptic chum’s book so wildly that we shuffle-out and buy it, only to find that it is, ahem, not even a tiny bit as described. There should be a law, but in the meantime, beware the words ‘achingly well-written’ or similar.
Agree re frankness/rudeness. I would also say good criticism should be direct. Blunt another good quality. But I appreciate what Robson is saying re closer to rudeness than snideness, re that particular scale. And let me say I appreciate being in a space where drawing the fine distinctions between blunt, frank, rude, and snide is very welcome.