| Author | Message | ||
     Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 82.210.134.81 |
Has anybody read the criticsim by Carmen.....forgot her surname, of Roth as a writer? It's about the Booker Man awards. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Nope. I've read a couple of Roth's novels, though, and they were very god - Sabbath's Theatre was excellent, in fact. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Yes, I've always admired his work. I try not to care about the criticism of the so-called elite of 'literature', as their in-fighting beggars belief sometimes, but this criticism baffles me. Without any clear explanation why (describing the fact he reuses the same theme over and over again to that of somebody sitting on your face, whilst an amusing comparison, does not in my book amount to a revealing breakdown of why Roth's work is not liked), is deeply disappointing. Naivety strikes again, on my part, that is. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
To be honest, Frank, I never read any form of literary criticism. I like what I like, and don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks. I don't even read film reviews these days. I don't care about anyone else's opinion - it's usually biased anyway. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I have a love-hate interest with serious criticism, as in somebody devoted to either literature or cinema. On the one hand I'm deeply fascinated by the history of a subject from which critics draw to make points and statements, but on the other hand, I see this precise, analytical 'ripping asunder' of the work as missing the point. I did once attend art history classes at university, which was utterly beguiling for me, but I also shuddered as the lesser wannbe critics in the room who couldn't put together anything worthy of serious comment at the expense of some seriously awe inspiring work. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.8.21.5 |
It was Carmen Callil, Frank, the Virago lady: http://life.time.mk/read/a168e0b5e9/97832d9053/index.html Well, I think she has the right to withdraw as a judge - not the same thing as literary criticism. On criticism, my insight into films would be much the poorer without the work of Robin Wood, for instance and above all. That isn't to say that I always agreed with him (nor would he have wanted to impose his views, I think; he favoured the Leavisite method of critical dialogue). | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
My attitude to criticism is to give an honest instinctive reaction to the work on a gut level. Fire it out there and take the reactions of people as they come back. Only then should one analyse one's own criticism and engage in open-minded debate, with the honest attitude that one's view may very well be swayed, and vice versa. I enjoy the process and find it a deeply personal one. I would never pretend that my view of any work of Art is the right view for the world at large but it categorically is the right view for Me and one that is capable of evolving with time. I find music criticism to be the most fluid. I mean we've all heard of the "grower" haven't we. Paintings too can grow on a person, I find. Literature, film and TV is less pliable in this regard because of the amount of time one needs to invest to enjoy them. But this does not mean one should set one's criticism in stone and not be open to reappraisal. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
That's the lady, Ramsey. I'm not against criticism, I'm against the way in which people deliver their criticism, or what they see fit to say, rather than offering a genuine study of criticism. If somebody were to use examples of dull prose, spurious use of grammatical constructions, etc, etc, I'd be able to understand their viewpoint a lot less critically myself. Then again, maybe I'm just dumb, and unable to grasp the entirety of the criticism summed up in one terse sentence. Though I'm sure Carmen Callil is quite capable of supporting her statement. I wouldn't past it the media to have simply quoted just that one 'significant' sentence. I've read plenty of critical analysis in writing, but nowhere as much as I have on cinema. I prefer reading about critical analysis of cinema as I feel it's far more realistic in examining the flaws as well as the perfections of the art, than literary criticism does. I find literary criticism sometimes leaves me cold, while criticism of cinema, while I may disagree, fires me up, and educates me. But that's just my viewpoint. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I get what you mean, Frank - I'm more likely to read incisive criticism on cinema than literature. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
That's a reverse coincidence, Gary; as I'm more likely to watch incisive criticism of literature on telly. Only joking. I don't have a telly. In response to accusations that his work was misogynistic, Roth said something like, "It's not part of a writer's brief to be nice." Very true. |