I subscribe to (but rarely read) the Times, though I did see this piece yesterday! I appreciate your points here, and also thought it was strange that he swerved into a long Megapolis description and analogy...Almost like the article was a backdoor way to talk about the movie? Anyway, I was oddly delighted to actually recognize the name of William Henry Ainsworth, having recently read Zadie Smith's excellent historical novel, The Fraud :-)
Do you want to know something funny about that article? Salvatore Quasimodo is one of the major 20th century Italian poets and his works are, to this day, studied in every high school of the country; plus, his beautiful translation of a famous poem by Sappho is considered definitive. The fact that for Scott he's some obscure and deservedly forgotten name made me chuckle because it simply shows Scott's ignorance.
I am actually involved in a robust revival of vaudeville variety shows, for the record—people still love it.
But! Not the point: point is, I appreciate this rebuttal so much, especially the way you discuss the aversion to passing judgment. It’s as though we’re so afraid of offense that we no longer can admit someone is actually better, or knows more, or. It’s frustrating, as you put it so well.
The Times has rested on its laurels for far too long. The quality of journalism across the board has declined with each passing decade. Having a top name, whether it be a newspaper, an author, or a handbag, does not mean guaranteed quality.
Thanks for this. I'm really tired of the take that the Great Books are unenjoyable. Just the whole idea that some people might actually like to read them is inconceivable. It's like people hating vegetables or exercise. There must be zero hedonic pleasure for everyone because there's none for me. I expect this from regular people but not a critic from the paper of record.
“Try reviving vaudeville, music hall, and the like. Who cares now about the great Hollywood actors of the silent era?” — a great point and one that seems to go over the NY Times’s head, popularity doesn’t mean greatness the same way greatness doesn’t mean popularity, yet merit demands its own respect. To cast that aside is indicative of a kind of rot, or philistinism as you rightly put.
Seems in line with the general flattening of meaning and value at the NY Times, a dark strategy designed to obfuscate its own deeply troubling complicities. If anyone needs a sobering, qualifying dose of criticism, it’s the Times itself.
I read Jane Eyre for the first time last year and was surprised by how entertaining it was. It honestly reminded me of a tv show that you would binge watch!
Scott’s quotes are a sign of the times. The idea that you can’t read a book for pleasure speaks to our intellectual decline. It’s just a cheaper form of pleasure
I've stumbled into this issue — or something close to the issue you raise — in a number of contexts. The first is thinking about academic economics. In the academy, the role of critic is regarded as subordinate to the 'real thing'. Well in literature it's certainly the case that Shakespeare trumps any Shakespeare critic, but in academia I don't think that's true. So the skills of critical awareness have become more or less completely atrophied. As I tried to explain in this piece —
the result is that really intelligent people end up with a discipline that is little more than a jumble of intellectual artefacts. No-one gets any brownie points for the hard labour of working out the limits of their application — or to use the word you used — for showing superior *judgement* in the way they use the intellectual resources available. I note when Mary Midgley describes herself as a critic rather than as a philosopher. I think that's right and that shows how much similar atrophy of judgement has occurred in philosophy.
The other thing it puts me in mind of is recently learning of Stafford Beer's management cybernetics via Dan Davies excellent primer The Unaccountability Machine. As I discussed with him in this podcast, https://youtu.be/gf1iFIv9R64, disciplines like economics seem to be built without a 'System 4'. For the uninitiated, Systems 1-3 are parts of an organisation to do with day-to-day operations. Here's ChatGPT explaining System 4: "System 4 is responsible for ensuring that the organization can adapt and evolve over time by balancing day-to-day operations with future opportunities and threats."
System 4 can't function effectively without critical awareness.
'Is greatness overrated?' (from the NYT subheading) - there's the anachronism. How can 'greatness' ever be overrated? Surely, inherent in its meaning is something that cannot be overrated...
I agree, literary criticism should be about the books, not the pop cultural takes. Of course culture comes into it in some ways, but I want to read a review, if it's going to call itself such.
The more I read about The NY Times and its out of whack slant on things, the more I question the entire publication. Sigh.
But I would bring back some (obviously not the blatantly problematic elements)of Vaudeville, because I've got a great great great uncle who performed there, and he might want his mandolin and traveling trunk back. ;)
Scott's article isn't only frustrating; his aversion to greatness (which depends on judgement) is also wildly confusing given much of what he writes in his book on criticism, such as:
"Every child wants to hear that her finger painting is a masterpiece ... But every child also knows that some things are better than others, that being ranked and sorted is an intrinsic part of every public and worthwhile endeavour."
And:
"What I'm more interested in here is the general tendency – I would really say the universal capacity of our species – to find fault. And also to bestow praise. To judge. That's the bedrock of criticism."
And crucially, he argues that the over-abundance of "demands on our attention" requires the "winnowing and contrasting, the measuring and interpreting" – in short, the wise judgment – that he calls criticism. He's written his own argument in brief against the notion he defends in the recent article that popularity is its own measure of greatness.
Man oh man! It sounds like so much trite intellectual cynicism that is, I dare say, passé except among those who always feel they are too good for what’s good for them. Is New York literary journalism dead? Sigh.
okay but i care about silent movie stars…
Maria Falconetti forever!!!
lol me too
I subscribe to (but rarely read) the Times, though I did see this piece yesterday! I appreciate your points here, and also thought it was strange that he swerved into a long Megapolis description and analogy...Almost like the article was a backdoor way to talk about the movie? Anyway, I was oddly delighted to actually recognize the name of William Henry Ainsworth, having recently read Zadie Smith's excellent historical novel, The Fraud :-)
Still need to read that
I agree about the odd detour to Megalopolis. It didn’t belong.
I subscribed to get access to the full cooking app. Lol. But sometimes an article pops up that intrigues me.
Do you want to know something funny about that article? Salvatore Quasimodo is one of the major 20th century Italian poets and his works are, to this day, studied in every high school of the country; plus, his beautiful translation of a famous poem by Sappho is considered definitive. The fact that for Scott he's some obscure and deservedly forgotten name made me chuckle because it simply shows Scott's ignorance.
Interesting thanks!
I am actually involved in a robust revival of vaudeville variety shows, for the record—people still love it.
But! Not the point: point is, I appreciate this rebuttal so much, especially the way you discuss the aversion to passing judgment. It’s as though we’re so afraid of offense that we no longer can admit someone is actually better, or knows more, or. It’s frustrating, as you put it so well.
The Times has rested on its laurels for far too long. The quality of journalism across the board has declined with each passing decade. Having a top name, whether it be a newspaper, an author, or a handbag, does not mean guaranteed quality.
Thanks for this. I'm really tired of the take that the Great Books are unenjoyable. Just the whole idea that some people might actually like to read them is inconceivable. It's like people hating vegetables or exercise. There must be zero hedonic pleasure for everyone because there's none for me. I expect this from regular people but not a critic from the paper of record.
“Try reviving vaudeville, music hall, and the like. Who cares now about the great Hollywood actors of the silent era?” — a great point and one that seems to go over the NY Times’s head, popularity doesn’t mean greatness the same way greatness doesn’t mean popularity, yet merit demands its own respect. To cast that aside is indicative of a kind of rot, or philistinism as you rightly put.
And now that we’re here… I’m so dang happy it was Han Kang this year.
I need to read her work...
I definitely suggest starting with The Vegetarian.
Seems in line with the general flattening of meaning and value at the NY Times, a dark strategy designed to obfuscate its own deeply troubling complicities. If anyone needs a sobering, qualifying dose of criticism, it’s the Times itself.
I read Jane Eyre for the first time last year and was surprised by how entertaining it was. It honestly reminded me of a tv show that you would binge watch!
Scott’s quotes are a sign of the times. The idea that you can’t read a book for pleasure speaks to our intellectual decline. It’s just a cheaper form of pleasure
Thanks for an excellent post Henry.
I've stumbled into this issue — or something close to the issue you raise — in a number of contexts. The first is thinking about academic economics. In the academy, the role of critic is regarded as subordinate to the 'real thing'. Well in literature it's certainly the case that Shakespeare trumps any Shakespeare critic, but in academia I don't think that's true. So the skills of critical awareness have become more or less completely atrophied. As I tried to explain in this piece —
https://www.themandarin.com.au/95353-nicholas-gruen-on-the-disciplinary-incentives-of-economics/
the result is that really intelligent people end up with a discipline that is little more than a jumble of intellectual artefacts. No-one gets any brownie points for the hard labour of working out the limits of their application — or to use the word you used — for showing superior *judgement* in the way they use the intellectual resources available. I note when Mary Midgley describes herself as a critic rather than as a philosopher. I think that's right and that shows how much similar atrophy of judgement has occurred in philosophy.
The other thing it puts me in mind of is recently learning of Stafford Beer's management cybernetics via Dan Davies excellent primer The Unaccountability Machine. As I discussed with him in this podcast, https://youtu.be/gf1iFIv9R64, disciplines like economics seem to be built without a 'System 4'. For the uninitiated, Systems 1-3 are parts of an organisation to do with day-to-day operations. Here's ChatGPT explaining System 4: "System 4 is responsible for ensuring that the organization can adapt and evolve over time by balancing day-to-day operations with future opportunities and threats."
System 4 can't function effectively without critical awareness.
'Is greatness overrated?' (from the NYT subheading) - there's the anachronism. How can 'greatness' ever be overrated? Surely, inherent in its meaning is something that cannot be overrated...
I agree, literary criticism should be about the books, not the pop cultural takes. Of course culture comes into it in some ways, but I want to read a review, if it's going to call itself such.
The more I read about The NY Times and its out of whack slant on things, the more I question the entire publication. Sigh.
But I would bring back some (obviously not the blatantly problematic elements)of Vaudeville, because I've got a great great great uncle who performed there, and he might want his mandolin and traveling trunk back. ;)
Scott's article isn't only frustrating; his aversion to greatness (which depends on judgement) is also wildly confusing given much of what he writes in his book on criticism, such as:
"Every child wants to hear that her finger painting is a masterpiece ... But every child also knows that some things are better than others, that being ranked and sorted is an intrinsic part of every public and worthwhile endeavour."
And:
"What I'm more interested in here is the general tendency – I would really say the universal capacity of our species – to find fault. And also to bestow praise. To judge. That's the bedrock of criticism."
And crucially, he argues that the over-abundance of "demands on our attention" requires the "winnowing and contrasting, the measuring and interpreting" – in short, the wise judgment – that he calls criticism. He's written his own argument in brief against the notion he defends in the recent article that popularity is its own measure of greatness.
Man oh man! It sounds like so much trite intellectual cynicism that is, I dare say, passé except among those who always feel they are too good for what’s good for them. Is New York literary journalism dead? Sigh.