Criticism: Beyond Slamming and Mythologizing (WisCon 31 panel)

• 124 Criticism: Beyond Slamming And Mythologizing

Reading, Viewing, and Critiquing SF&F•Conference Room 3• Saturday, 10:30-11:45 p.m.

What constitutes good criticism? The panel will discuss what it is, and what it should do. Criticism and dialogue are a fertile ground for artistic production, but all too often what we get are sensationalist reviews or Internet skirmishes that devolve into ad hominem attacks instead of discussions of the work. How can we cultivate multiple responses to texts and authors? How do we express the range of our reading experiences? As we react with rage, delight, confusion, or awe, how do we put the works in context and deal with the author and their work?

M: Paul Kincaid, Andrea D. Hairston, Michael Marc Levy, Natasha Minnerly, Maureen Kincaid Speller

Partial transcript by Liz Henry

Partial transcript - I was very tired.--Liz Henry 00:18, 30 May 2007 (PDT)

criticism panel 10:30 pm saturday

Paul Kincaid reads a quote by Le Guin from 30 years ago about holding sf to the standards of all other literature.

Andrea Hairston Critic, academic, dramatist, novelist

Natasha Minnerly Student. "If I'm reading Piers Anthony or David Eddings I don't exactly have expectations, I am just reading it for enjoyment"

Maureen Kincaid Speller - reviewer for 20 years. recently a student and academic. It is possible to set piers anthony in a pop culture context and examine critically.

Graham - agree with panelists

Andrea - I don't think there is one set of standards - who sets the standards? whose values! why is this funny? popular culture. how long have we been teling the same joke? to me that's very interesting! theater. stump speech from rush hour 3. vaudeville 19th century minstrel show. chris tucker. it was funny in 1820, 1830. I can hand you a version from 1830! A very open question. Why do we enjoy what is entertaining? That's how I work as a critic. Chris tucker's really good at it. Why? What in our culture says it's funny? I want to question the standards.

Aud: I run into this a lot. I'm a very big fan of very bad movies. Not intended to be bad. People pour their heart into something and the movie just stank! I love that. It exposes what they were aiming for. Especially dvds with director commentary. They're always guys... they've thrown everything against the wall and they've just missed. Particularly in horror or other genre features. They clearly meant for it to withstand critical evaluation! They're willing to defend their topic. Often aiming for a technical set of standards that they missed. Technically bad. But often artistically bad.

Michael Marc Levy- Chrildren's lit classes. Curious George stories simultaneously. The point is taken together are enormously powerful for certain children at a certain age. Harry the Diggingest dog, same damn thing. Same with these bad movies. Soem human deep seated need. With curious george it's to screw up and be forgiven. Pyschological things are just as important as the literary things.

Paul Kincaid. What are book reviewers actually doing?

Andrea Hairston: The critic is offering a response. I sw this, I'm going to put the whole bit of me and history of my life into this dialogue and this response to art. It's like a conversation. All readers are critics on some level. Everyone can dance but not all people are Baryshnikov.

Maureen: radio show. conv between two or three old ladies who were avid romance readers. Fascinating discussion about what they did and didn't like about different romance authors. Sharing interest, enthusiasm.

Paul asks a room of 25+ people:

How many of us here write reviews? (everyone) How many of us here read reviews? (everyone) How many of us here write criticism? (almost everyone) How many of us here read criticism? (almost everyone) How many of us here read criticism FOR PLEASURE? (almost everyone) How many of us here read theory? (almost everyone) How many of us here read theory for pleasure? (still quite a ridiculous amount of us)

Andrea: I engage with things and write criticism and then think in the middle "Did I ***like*** that?"

...

Paul: I don't know why I write criticsm . I know why I do criticsm. it's because I can't stop myself from thinking that way while I read.

Andrea: what is the difference for you between criticm and reading? doing and writing? paul: I write it because someone asks me to writ eit

Michael : I write it ecause I'm not sure what I htink until I start writing.

(me too!)

Andrea: I like to be in it. If I'm criticizing while I"m reading I'm not in it. It's a performance. I'm experiencing it. And writing is also a performance for me. I perform meaning. As an actor or writer you are there in the moment and you'll have a different performance next time (she cites a theorist... get the name later)

Maureen: a lecturer she knows who stood up and said "I have 4 differnt lectures for this and I don't know which one I'm going to end with today" Some people lecture the same lecture every year to each class. This guy was rethinking the whole thing in the course of the 50 minutes. I found that quite extraordinary. He was respecting his audience, his students, by saying "here's what I'm doing, just what you're doing. you've got to keep working through the whole thing." The immutability of print becomes a bit of a worry. 20 years later I think a different thing that what I wrote in Foundation (magazine) about something. I find it very disturbing at times.

aud: Join the NBCC. Do you think reviewers shoudl read other reviews of books they are revieiwng? I try to avoid it because I want the fresh experience.

Paul: when I'm writing a review I want it to be my fresh, uninformed view of the work. When I'm writing criticism I'm seeing out as many different views of the same book as I can. They will have an effect on my opinion of the book.

Michael: If I'm writing for Publishers' Weekly I"m the firt person to review it. If I'm writing for NYRoSF then Gary Wolf has already reviewed it.

Andrea: you start reading Aristotle really early... You have 2000 years of reviews in your head, plus this performance of this play this night. When I got to the point where I said I can't see another version of Hamlet by 22 year olds. and I knew I had to take a break. And I went to a thing and nearly fell asleep! But the audience loved it! So I said "You need THAT person to write the review. Not me. " When I'm writing on new plays it's very different.

Paul: The most valuable tool in a critic's toolbox is the other books they've read.

...

Paul: Death threats!

Andrea: For plays it's different! The directors ask you to help and to be an assistant director! It's great!

Paul: Ohhhh for books it's ... not like that.

Andrea: It's so great! (stories about directors and great experiences!)

Maureen: Blogging puts us in contact in a more immediate way than having a reivew in a magazine. You get an immediate discussion. We're not really in it for the ego boost and gratification. But the instant discussion is very very welcome. I also love the fishing line and academic way and long slow development of a critical conversation.

.....

Maureen: Re-reading. Rereading Sarah Canary. I read it after years of a pause and then 3 times in quick succession.

...

Maureen: Goofs. The person who didn't notice that 2 of the main characters in M. John Harrison's [[Light were cats. *laughter*

Andrea: Theater... I have to stand behind what I thought that night for that performance. You know, I didn't notice they were cats! And I'd stand behind that!

....

Paul: When I started writing criticism I thought I was writing primarily for the author. *laughter* I was putting them right! *more laughter* It was like a public service!!

audience: No wonder you get death threats!

Andrea: you *can* have an impact on film makers and plays! they will re-rehearse it! and do it again.

Andrea: Bertold Brecht wrote a wonderful essay 5 ways of telling the truth in a fascist regime. be entertaining! be sneaky!

Because I have a big ego I want them to understand and not stop reading my wonderful criticism!

Mauree: I accept the need for jargon. Sometimes it's needed. But it can be presented in a way it's clear what is meant.