Critics With a Cause
My friend Felice posted me this link on Facebook: ‘Critical mess: whose ‘must see’ is it anyway?’ The article starts with a guy having a fight with his girlfriend because they have different expectations of art reviewers.
She likes to rely on her own curiosity when choosing the film she’d like to see, and her own judgement when deciding whether she liked it or not.
He is happy to rely on critics’ opinions when choosing, and then employ his judgement.
Fine, whatever. I don’t choose books by reading book reviews, and I only read reviews after I’ve finished the book – to compare notes.
Good for me.
What annoys me about this article is when the author, Alan Bissett, claims that critics have realised their only skill is determining whether they like or dislike something, and that because the public is in command of a similar faculty, critics must ‘tend towards the elitist’ opinion. To protect their jobs, see.
As a book reviewer who fervently believes in the value of empowering readers with discernment, I find this suggestion utterly unfathomable.
Does anyone have experience of a critic writing reviews for any reason other than to inform the public of art they might like to see?
No comments yet.