It's an interesting issue, but it comes from the notoriously snobby and ungenerous Chris Cleave, the same guy who ridiculed passionate readers for no good reason:
Conrad Aiken was one of the best reviewers of all time. His reviews of T.S. Eliot remain pertinent, for example. Every reviewer ought to read his "Collected Criticism" at least once or twice.
As for the criticism of Yvor Winters, that's some of the most wrongheaded stuff I've ever read. He often seemed to completely miss the point. One often feels as if all Winters is seeing to review is his own ideas ABOUT something, rather than what is actually there.
So, the answer is, as always: It very much depends on the writer.
It's an interesting issue, but it comes from the notoriously snobby and ungenerous Chris Cleave, the same guy who ridiculed passionate readers for no good reason:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/feb/21/writers-met-bloggers-lunch
Would one care to do without the criticism of Pound, Eliot, F.M. Ford, Yvor Winters, Louis Zukofsky, Randall Jarrell, and so on?
ReplyDeleteConrad Aiken was one of the best reviewers of all time. His reviews of T.S. Eliot remain pertinent, for example. Every reviewer ought to read his "Collected Criticism" at least once or twice.
ReplyDeleteAs for the criticism of Yvor Winters, that's some of the most wrongheaded stuff I've ever read. He often seemed to completely miss the point. One often feels as if all Winters is seeing to review is his own ideas ABOUT something, rather than what is actually there.
So, the answer is, as always: It very much depends on the writer.