Since criticism in all its flavors seems to be a hot topic here, these days, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the subject, and see what others think. So, here's my little anatomy of "criticism" in its broadest and most varied forms.

1. Trolling: This term usually refers not just to online provocation for the sake of it, but to provocation out of purely malicious or mischievous motives. Generation of heat is always the aim, never of light. Provocation isn't trolling, in my view, when the aim is to incite serious reflection on what are perhaps unexamined assumptions, nor is it equivalent merely to strong statements of personal taste or opinion.

"Needling" isn't really an instance of trolling, either. My personal policy is to get out the needles only when I am in the presence of too many hot-air balloons.

2. Ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks and fallacies are actually much rarer than is commonly assumed. Ad hominem attacks are not simply personal attacks, sarcasm, or even personal abuse. They are attacks upon a person because that person's identity or values are intimately related to his argument. For instance, an unidentified man objects to abortion rights. Someone replies, "You would say that; you're really a Catholic priest".

3. Personal essays and other expression of opinion: Clark Ashton Smith's own brief essays (mostly in the form of letters to the editor) are an excellent example of these. Although they touch on literary matters, they are not full-scale literary criticism, because of the brevity and comparative superficiality with which they treat their subject, and because of the author's candid admission that they reflect merely personal views.

4. Literary criticism: In the contemporary sense of the term, "literary criticism" tends to refer mainly to the professional activity of university professors who must "publish or perish". Modern literary criticism tends to be heavily theory-driven (although usually the theories are more current than, say, Victorian/Edwardian-era Freudianism), and often skewed by personal ideology and identity politics to which the critic has undue emotional attachment.

Of course, the above categories can and do overlap, in places.

In general, critical disagreements are seldom matters of logic, but of perception and values. Also in general, critical and persuasive writing tends to be of little objective value, because it usually represents only one particular set of values. For instance, one can write criticism within or without a given framework. Stepping outside a given framework and critiquing it externally is the easiest sort of criticism to make. To do this, one simply identifies the frame of reference and moves outside it. The sole purpose of this sort of criticism is either to convert the infidel, or to comfort the choir. Constructive criticism from within has more potential positive value, but can be vitiated by too much identification with the subject matter.

These are just my very general thoughts on the topic. Feel free to agree, disagree, amplify, correct, or ignore. At a minimum, they might make the philosophy and perspective behind my own posts a little clearer.

Were it not for critics, we would have no idea what the good stuff is. For instance, it is unlikely that I would have found my way to Smith purely by chance.

Quote:

it is unlikely that I would have found my way to Smith purely by chance.

Neither would I, but I discovered CAS through the Surrealists and Lovecraft, and not through any sort of critic. Good literature is a surer guide to other good literature than any sort of secondary discourse, in my view.

It may be, and I think it is true, that Lovecraft mentions Smith somewhere in his fiction, but it seems to me more likely that you would find it in his critical writings.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It may be, and I think it is true, that Lovecraft
> mentions Smith somewhere in his fiction, but it
> seems to me more likely that you would find it in
> his critical writings.

Certainly. Smith is mentioned in "The Call of Cthulhu", "Pickman's Model", "Medusa's Coil", "At the Mountains of Madness", "The Horror in the Museum" and, as "Klarkash-Ton", in "The battle That Ended the Century" and "The Whisperer in Darkness".
He is also mentioned in "Supernatural Horror in Literature" and "[Review of Crystal and Ebony by Clark Ashton Smith]", and probably elsewhere in HPL's essays.

Thank for filling in the blanks, Martinus. That serves as ample evidence that one needn't have recourse to formal criticism to get a referral to CAS from Lovecraft.

My point, in any case, could have been made more clearly. I meant that formal literary criticism is not necessarily the best gateway to an author, nor are professional critics necessarily the best guides. Of course, if one accepts jdworth's extremely broad definition of literary criticism to include book reviews and the like, then that is a different matter.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if one accepts jdworth's
> extremely broad definition of literary criticism
> to include book reviews

You know, I really think one should. If book reviews are not literary criticism, what in the world are they?

Quote:

If book reviews are not literary criticism, what in the world are they?

They are book reviews.

In fairness, though, some do consider more in-depth book reviews to be a form of literary criticism, and there is some controversy and debate about the subject. I remain on the side that does not accept them as such, although I would certainly admit exceptions.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If book reviews are not literary criticism, what
> in the world are they?
>
> They are book reviews.
>
> In fairness, though, some do consider more
> in-depth book reviews to be a form of literary
> criticism, and there is some controversy and
> debate about the subject. I remain on the side
> that does not accept them as such, although I
> would certainly admit exceptions.

Generally speaking, I tend to draw a line between reviews (as such) and criticism, but it is a notoriously misty line, I'm afraid. For me, I suppose the difference may be broadly defined as a review which is simply a reviewer's assessment of the book as something of interest (or not) for readers/potential buyers; and a review which actually goes into some depth in analyzing the work in question, or expresses some form of literary theory with a more general application (whether it be to a particular genre or to literature as a whole).

While most of Smith's pieces were closer to the former, he did on occasion dip into the more theoretical side of things a bit, just enough I think to slip over that line; and, of course, his letters in general also discuss such matters in a bit more depth here and there as well.

Yes, this is a rather broad view of criticism, but I think it, on the whole, a valid one. Certainly the bulk of criticism by writers such as Poe, Brockden Brown, James, etc., fell into this category, yet such is recognized as contributions to the critical field, and not always minor ones....

In another thread, jdworth wrote:

Quote:

Again, thank you for the courteous nature of your response

The implication, though perhaps inadvertent, is that a courteous reply from me is the exception, rather than the rule. An objective look at the totality of my contributions here (under both accounts) will show this to be untrue, I think. Unfortunately, people tend to remember most vividly what stirs their emotions, which can then skew the memory of the countless posts that did not have that effect.

Of course, "courtesy" and its opposite are, like most such things, also in the eye of the beholder. For instance, adopting anything other than a reverential tone toward S.T. Joshi, or even, heaven help us, L. Sprague de Camp, seems to be a dreadful faux pas--in this forum, at least.

Some additional thoughts.

In my inaugural post to this thread, I tried to explain, for those few who might care, the philosophy behind the tone I take here. Bland inoffensiveness and the stifling of personal opinion do not represent the "high road"--far from it. It is the road of the lowest common denominator; the road of the sheep descending to the valley.

Of course, those who disagree are welcome to abstain from engaging with me on any subject. Before soaking me with personal invective, however--like Stanley's manly little outburst of Yiddish in the "Les Daniels" thread--it might be wise to tap one's walls to see what material they're made of. If they turn out to be glass, then one might want to reconsider hurling that stone. Stan, for instance, made a rude comment about the turns the Daniels thread took, then seemed genuinely shocked and outraged when he received a (comparatively mild) rebuke from me. Of course, hypocrisy is not front-page news, but it's worth noting in this instance, as an example.

As for blunt statements of personal opinion, those who are really so insecure and thin-skinned that my views, say, on kitschy horror book cover artwork or on the (de)merits of Dunsany sends them into apoplexy might want to consider that at least part of the problem lies with them.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before soaking me with personal invective,
> however--like Stanley's manly little outburst of
> Yiddish in the "Les Daniels" thread--it might be
> wise to tap one's walls to see what material
> they're made of.

If you think that was personal invective, you have not been around much. For one thing, it is formally impossible to be personal without using a person's actual name.

By the way, on the subject of criticism, ask me some time about how I discovered that Ramsey Campbell reads this forum.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In another thread, jdworth wrote:
>
> Again, thank you for the courteous nature of your
> response
>
> The implication, though perhaps inadvertent, is
> that a courteous reply from me is the exception,
> rather than the rule. An objective look at the
> totality of my contributions here (under both
> accounts) will show this to be untrue, I think.
> Unfortunately, people tend to remember most
> vividly what stirs their emotions, which can then
> skew the memory of the countless posts that did
> not have that effect.
>

Not quite inadvertent, as the tone there was at times rather acidulous; but I would agree that many of your posts are not of that nature. However, I was also referring to the tendency of such conversations (on the internet) to descend into mere bickering and backbiting... not to mention frequent childishness; hence it was also intended as a sincere thank you for avoiding what could (and so often does) take place. Add to that the fact that, given your previous statements, I was quite doubtful you would reply, and that I appreciated the response... and there you have it.

As for the comments which followed... while I agree that sarcasm, irony, invective, etc., have their use, in my view they should be used carefully with such a medium... not because they are offensive in and of themselves, but because they tend to lose their effectiveness if used as much as if often the case. Even if something turns into a spirited debate, my view is that if used judiciously, they can be quite powerful, and not only stir emotions, but prick people into thinking through their response... and perhaps learning something in the process; whereas overuse blunts their edge, making them merely seem obnoxious or tedious.

Note: I say "in my view". Others have a much different opinion on the matter, and I am sure will make use of their freedom to express it (as they should do). For myself, though, I come to such sites to have a discussion about things I enjoy or find interesting, and am rather bored with the sort of tactics one generally finds in such threads. Hence my own approach is to avoid (save for rare occasions) getting involved in this sort of tactic, unless the need for it seems pressing.

This is my personal approach to such things, and applies to myself only. While I appreciate a more reasoned tone in a discussion or debate, just about any approach has its uses. I would just prefer they be used in such a way as to retain their power, rather than falling into what I describe above.

Jojo Lapin X:

Quote:

If you think that was personal invective, you have not been around much.

Well, it certainly was personal invective, but you are quite right that it could have been a lot worse.

Quote:

it is formally impossible to be personal without using a person's actual name

I was using the word personal in the sense of "ad hominem", but Stan did specifically address me by my screen name.


jdworth:

I was half-kidding, really; as I mention, people tend to remember the dramatic, and to forget the less dramatic.

As to tone, I really cannot add anything to my explanations of tactics other than what I've offered to date.

Apropos of descending to the low level you mention, I would argue that I've seldom, if ever, done so here, nor do I ever recall offering a disproportionate reaction to anyone, but many others would likely differ--which brings us right back to the subjectivity involved in all these evaluations. You're right, though, about the hazards of overdoing any one approach. Profanity, for instance, has completely lost its edge in our modern age, which is a regrettable loss, I think.

I would also add that I almost never hold grudges in these sorts of exchanges. I am always happy to start over, and there's not a person here with whom I would not be happy to resume cordial discussions. Getting into a lather over disembodied Internet personages, to the point of treating them as real persons who inflict real injuries, seems eminently silly, to me. That does not mean that I won't scrap tooth and nail in a given exchange, as needed, but such scrapes leave no lasting impressions.

That seems an eminently sensible approach to the matter.