Criticism and Principle

 Good piece by Daniel Green on essay collections by Lauren Oyler and Becca Rothfeld, which have been published in the larger context of a (general) tendency in contemporary criticism toward blandness. 

Green’s essay highlights the ways in which Oyler and Rothfeld intermingle critical assessment with personal confession. This is a trend that really started to gain traction in the 1990s, and it shows no signs of going away.

Green:

But it would not really be accurate to call either No Judgment or All Things are Too Small examples of personal writing above all. Both books belong to what is now called cultural criticism, by self-identification and by a fair accounting of the subjects they address. This classification seems to fit because of the wide range of cultural objects covered (most of the essays could not properly be called "literary criticism" since works of literature are only occasionally their focus) and because ultimately each of these critics is most concerned with understanding the cultural significance of the subjects they examine, not their value as aesthetic expressions. This at first seems paradoxical given both writers' penchant for making and valorizing judgments, but the essays included in Rothfeld's book are pretty consistent with her approach elsewhere, and even Oyler's most infamous negative reviews often wander away from pure aesthetic analysis, while in other essays she is as likely to consider trends and tendencies as closely assess individual works. 

Another trend that’s emerged (and that Oyler and Rothfeld resist) is an emphasis on moral judgments — moral judgments grounded in the philosophy we should be nice to (authorial) others. This has led to a movement in review discourse away from harsh criticism. Parallel with this has been moral judgment based on the perceived personality of the author/ artist.

This context now exists everywhere. But it’s particularly acute in some national literatures. The one I’m most familiar with is Anglo Canadian literature (I read French and am not excluding it; but lettres québécoises are very much ignored by the vast majority in Cdn publishing). This trend toward studious blandness has many causes; the cutbacks in book sections sure don’t help. But in recent decades there’ve also been movements (feminism, diversity, queerness, etc.) that have shifted the centre of crit discourse (which is fine) but also shut down critiques that offend people’s feelings (more problematic). 

A very, very good example of this is the extraordinary controversy surrounding the actions of Alice Munro. What we’re witnessing (in real time, as they say on news channels) is the immolation of a writer’s body of work because she, Munro, was complicit in hiding the molestation of her youngest daughter. The issue that I think needs discussing is the book review/ academic crit industry in Canada was also frequently complicit in this coverup. 

Munro’s place in the canon has shifted dramatically in one week. But the journalists who were also complicit in this whole sad story are furiously , passively aggressive silent, hoping the career damage doesn’t spread too far; the reputation of Munro’s second husband (who committed the crimes) was protected by some of the same journos who are now wrapping themselves in flags of morality. 

A critical culture based on feelings rather than articulated aesthetic standards and principles can behave in highly unpredictable fashions.