tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post1866150095398882656..comments2023-06-27T01:34:35.359-07:00Comments on Ted Burke LIKE IT OR NOT: Some notesTED BURKEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-30602340550108817262010-08-23T07:20:33.604-07:002010-08-23T07:20:33.604-07:00The critic is no longer the sage presence who is a...The critic is no longer the sage presence who is above the whys and hows of history , concentrating solely on deteriming artistic value and forms of worth; as other humanities have come to the fore, the craft of criticism has had it's boundries extended tremendously, which is to say that there seem to be no limits as to what aspect of literature--or any product of culture, really--one can discuss at length and depth. A sociological/anthropological emphasis has arisen in the field, and the theorization of literary investigation is no a permanent part of the plan. Certainly the issues are more complex than they've been before--the goal of liberal democracies has been to enfranchise groups formerly at the margins of our concerns and bring them into what is called the mainstream, and one of the results of that incorporation, the broadening of what it means to be a citizen has altered the study of literature. Issues far beyond what Hazlitt, or Arnold considered worthy are part of the fold; so investigating why certain authors and books are popular or have appeal is among the critic's quickly complicated tasks. Over all I cannot say that this is a bad thing--the reason we read, write, love narratives or otherwise make art is nuanced and impossible to isolate within a narrow set of hard philosophical conceits, but I am always searching , still, for those writers who want to argue for value, quality, art, the essesntial things that we seek when we browse the shelves of stores, new or used.TED BURKEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-11511743238117551732010-08-22T08:16:31.804-07:002010-08-22T08:16:31.804-07:00“Books can have an extraordinary appeal to a vast ...“Books can have an extraordinary appeal to a vast public, and it is among the critics tasks to study what the basis of the appeal might be…” This is an interesting thought, Ted, but I wonder if this really is an important task for a critic, if I take what you say here literally. Is everything that is appealing to a vast public worth talking about? To go back a couple of decades, for instance, would huge tomes of analysis dealing with Eric Segal or Richard Bach or (naturally) Rod McKuen really be worth the trouble to write, even if works by these authors are read by millions? This may be the task of a sociologist rather than a critic. Isn’t the relationship between the critic and the book the key issue here – the one-on-one interaction between an informed reader and a worthwhile text? How can a critic really know what the nature of a book appeal might be to the faceless mass of readers? A forced attempt to do so can lead to the critic straining to find the source of the public’s fascination with a work of pure dreck. I much prefer the Van Wyck Brooks’ method: searching through the past for writers the contemporary public has never heard of in hopes of improving the public's collective mind. It may be elitist, but it isn’t nearly as condescending.Barry Alfonsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14624298347392911828noreply@blogger.com