There's a lot here I agree with - I think - but much that's debatable.

You write, for instance:

[quote]Chairs and tables can be distinguished from books on the basis that they have a purely functional purpose. [/quote][/quote]

I take your point about functionality, but chairs are a bad example because you leave out the element of design which raises many a piece of furniture to the status of 'objet d'art.' Look in almost any museum for examples. As for functionality, during a period of 'modernity' in the 50s/60s furniture design interfered with functionality. There's a famous scene in a Jacques Tati film, 'Mon Oncle' for instance, where the hero tries to sit down on a chair that resembles a piece of curved wood. He continually slides off it.

Turned round, an argument can made for aesthetic value in carrots, which was my original example. Root vegetables can resemble sculpture, and scriptural texts have appeared in aubergines. 'Found' art was quite fashionable a few years ago, and people still collect driftwood and rocks.


Anyway, laying aside the complicated question of functionality, design and horticulture:

[quote]There is an element in writing that transcends the ordinary and reaches the cultural, artistic and metaphysical worlds. [/quote]

It's not at all clear what you mean here. Thinking about actual examples on bookshelves and to take crime novels as an example, I'd say none of this is the case except in a prosaic sense which I don't think you mean. Yes, if I read a crime novel it might be set in a a different country, where people behave differently, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by culture. I wouldn't expect too much 'artistry', again a vague term, although I'd expect craft - a proper structure to the tale and recognisable characters and settings with believable dialogue. If I suspected metaphysics, if you mean what I think you mean, such as you get in 'The Da Vinci Code',I'd put the book down. I can tolerate a certain amount of spookiness.

The statement I'd strongly disagree with is:

[quote]there may be books that you like or dislike, but this is purely subjective and there are no universally approved criteria to judge a piece of work. [/quote]

No 'universally approved', no, but local rules apply. You don't bring the same expectations to reading different authors, some of whom have aims which are very close to functionality. A case in point I know about, because I've been looking at them recently, is that of short stories for women's magazines. The rules are quite strict as regards content, mood and structure. It's clear that they serve a purpose, which, roughly speaking is to amuse or distract; to raise the mood. The readers might, and do, complain if a story depresses them.

On another level, a book that has clumsy sentences, a preposterous plot and offensive content might very well be complained of. There are lots of examples of books that have been banned after publication for being judged, for instance, as obscene, althought thir literary merit by other criteria is judged OK. They were 'unfit for purpose'.

A point in favour of your argument about no criteria is that Literature degrees would have taken a lot less time and trouble if the lecturers simply announced 'It's all subjective, so just describe your favourites and you'll all be awarded Firsts'.

But in fact you need to know the author's aims, hhe language of his time, the audience for the works and some cultural background, by which I mean ideas and belief systems, before you can even start. It's no good coming to Shakespeare or Dickens, and saying 'No good - unreadable'just because there's an unfamilar word in the first line or there are ghosts and witches involved. Subjective, yes, but not very satisfactory.

So, all in all, I think it's a bit more complicated than you seem to assume.

Sheila

<Added>

Sorry, this has strayed off the point. I've just remembered why I decided to keep out of these forums.

This is an interesting debate and you make some valid points about functionality and design in objects that I had not considered.

You also point out that my statement that literature is subjective, ignores the tools of analysing that literature, which must have reference to some kind of objective criteria or at least a comparison with similar literature written during that period of time. But I still think this element of critical analysis can be distinguished from a critique of a piece of furniture! I think this is self-evident and comparing books to furniture is a claim that does not stand up to deeper analysis.

Regarding my statement about literature transcending normal physical boundaries, I am trying to distinguish the use of furniture to that of a work of literature. Although, as you rightly point out, a piece of furniture may transcend its form by being considered a work of art - say a Philippe Starck chair, for example - a beautiful piece of furniture, it is not usual for furniture parade as art. Whereas a piece of literature will always reach out to the reader's mind, possibly influence them in some way and contribute towards the development of a literary tradition.

Ultimately, returning to my original statement regarding criticising literary works, perhaps there is a distinction to be made between criticising a work as a reader and with one's writer's hat on. As a reader, one has much more of a free rein to criticise a work. As a writer, I think we should not delude ourselves in criticising work of writers whose ability far exceeds our own and who have developed skills as a result of years of writing.

As a writer, I think we should not delude ourselves in criticising work of writers whose ability far exceeds our own and who have developed skills as a result of years of writing.

But as writers, we're continually in the process of learning how to write - so it's important to look critically at the work of other writers, ESPECIALLY the best ones and those we love. This helps our writing, also it makes reading - and discussions about what we're reading - more interesting.

Frances

Yes, Frances, I'm just trying to address the gut-feeling I have that most critics, are basically failed writers. You can be a great critic and a rubbish writer and vice versa. I may be generalising here, but I often find that people who are pedantic critics are often not very good at the writing thing themselves! All I'm saying is that people should look at their own writing BEFORE critiquing others' work. And also take account of how far their own writing is inferior to people like Banville and McEwan, before slating them.

Maybe American writers are more hard-headed or less timid about declaring a commercial interest. Here's Jodi Picoult writing in the Independent New Review Magazine last Sunday:

'Early on I had to choose whether to go towards literary or commercial fiction. Literary fiction gets you the acolades and awards but no marketing budget, a small print run and no one can find your books in a bookstore. Commercial fiction has marketing, advertising, larger print runs, and you are reaching people which, ultimately, is what I wanted to do. If I happened to slip them a well-written book at the same time, then so be it.'

'Commercial' seems much more acceptable when expressed as 'reaching people'

Sheila

That's interesting Cornelia - I'm sure it's indicative of the choices many writers have to make in the UK too. I wonder whether one can worry too much about these things though - I know, Philip Pullman, who is v commercially successful advises against thinking about commerce when writing.

It seems to me entirely appropriate, for the reasons given, but I'd be interested in any counter arguments I didn't follow this at the time - busy writing my new novel! But I shall attempt to show how the analogy is wrong. A manufacturer of a product such as a chair and table is creating a functional object to be used by customers. Chairs and tables can be distinguished from books on the basis that they have a purely functional purpose. Although a book is a physical object, its pages consist of "literary work" which can be distinguished from an object.

Grrr... You're not getting hold of it at all, are you? Though to be fair I didn't quite connect up my points. Dr Johnson's comments about badly-made tables - which was the start-point of this discussion - were not literally aimed at clumsy carpenters. He was talking about literary criticism & using the carpentry thing as an analogy.

Yes, you're right of course that literature is more subjective than tables, but I don't think that strengthens the argument. Subjectivity leaves more scope for criticism. While I take your general implied point that there's no merit in dissing authors just for the heck of it, I still find the idea that just because a particular author writes better than wot I duz I shont be aloud ter crit em naive and facile.

Imagine if I'd responded to al ten degree finals : 'Well, sorry I am not going to criticize .........(Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austen etc - fill in as appropriate) because (to paraphrase) 'their ability far exceeds my own and they have developed skills as a result of years of writing.'

What a cop-out!

Traveller, going by your guidelines wouldn't WriteWords groups be a bit pointless? Or should be confine our comments to those members we consider to be worse writers than we are? I can't see that going down well.

I see you recommend looking at our own writing first - well, I don't suppose you want me to review my complete oeuvre because I'd be here till bedtime and beyond, but perhaps you mean look on the works of Banville (?) and McEwan and despair, i.e. don't dare to comment adversely or otherwise unless absolutely sure that one's own output is superior.

As you said yourself, though, it's all subjective and of course any opinion is just that, an opinion.We don't have to keep reminding readers that we are flawed human beings with a full set of prejudices as well as glaring deficiences when it comes to writing, because that's very apparent. By the same token, not all published writers are perfect, but pointing out weaknesses doesn't mean to say we completely reject their talent.

I think the clue to the misunderstanding is in your use of the word 'slating', implying it means the same as criticising.

Sheila

RJH, some structure to your arguments would be helpful instead of simply asserting things to be true.
I would suggest that you carefully read through my comments and understand them before posting an ill-thought out "knee-jerk" reaction.

I'm not saying one is forbidden to criticise others' works, but that one should be mindful of one's own deficiencies before seeing fit to offer advice on how others should improve their work. To give you a work analogy, as a lawyer, if a trainee started picking holes in my work, I'd be quite amused given their lack of experience.

I hope that the above clarifies matters.

I'm confused, Traveller, are you saying, as Cornelia suggests, that on forums such as this, that one should not critique one's peers work if one's own writing is defficient in some (unspecified) way...does that mean only the published experts on WW are deemed fit to critique unpublished writers work? Or, genre writers should not attempt to critique Literary fiction?
Or are you simply saying that us unpublished writers should not review/give an opinion on the work of published authors? - so much for book reviews.

It reminds me of the story of a very successful Literary Agent who realized back in college that she did not have the talent necessary to be a successful author. However, she was an excellent editor; she had a talent for seeing what was and was not working in a narrative, and she knew how to guide the author into putting it right. There are a lot of published, prize winning authors out there who owe their success to editors like her.


- NaomiM

Yes, I absolutely agree with you Naomi.

In relation to your first paragraph - I would say, my intention is to stimulate debate on this matter. I'm not saying that what I say is necessarily correct - I'm exploring ideas here. I'm trying to address an issue that I feel needs tackling. I, of course, accept that book reviews are necessary. But I wonder how infuriating it must be for a published author who has spent years writing and shaping material (not least searching for an agent and publisher) to be knocked down by a journalist reviewer in a few sentences. I'm sceptical about critics - do we really need them? And a separate issue, but what is odd too, is how some writers are allowed to review books of their competitors? Should this be allowed?

I'm not saying one is forbidden to criticise others' works, but that one should be mindful of one's own deficiencies before seeing fit to offer advice on how others should improve their work. To give you a work analogy, as a lawyer, if a trainee started picking holes in my work, I'd be quite amused given their lack of experience.

Oh come along... This passage neatly illustrates the defect in your own argument. You are saying, by way of example, that the trainee shouldn't pick holes in your work on the basis that you are more experienced than the trainee. But in fact the difference in levels of experience is strictly beside the point. The trainee's criticisms are either valid or they are not valid - and if they are valid they can't be harrumphed away purely on the basis that you, the senior lawyer, are more experienced. Even experienced pros make mistakes sometimes & even inexperienced whippersnappers get it right sometimes. The focus should be on the criticisms made & not the people who made them. (I was, many moons ago, a whippersnapper trainee solicitor myself - & then jaded assistant solicitor - have seen this analogy put to the test, fail to stand up & am not having any of it...)

As to your crits of my argumentation technique - true, I'm not pretending to have created a thorough & watertight case. I'm taking a slightly provocative & Johnsonian approach to the matter, which nonetheless is informed by the feeling that some things are so self-evident that to build up a case in order to prove them is simply a fool's errand - and that this is one of those issues. Cornelia's exam paper analogy, in particular, make clear why this is.

Of course everyone has the right to say, write whatever they like about an author's work (so long as it's not defamatory, naturally), but whether any of it sticks comes down to whether the crit actually identifies a weakness in the author's work. If it does not, then surely it should be water off the back of any reasonably robust author.

Er, well I'm stunned, traveller. I admit to my post being rather on the provocative side, but I did not expect you to agree with me, so I can only assume you did not read it fully, especially as your argument centres around published authors being criticised by journalists, presumably in the book review pages of the national papers. Although quite a lot of those reviews are written by published authors, earning a crust on the side, so I guess they have earned the right to criticise their peers, if they see fit.
As RJH says "The focus should be on the criticisms made & not the people who made them".
- If an author is unable to defend their work then it doesn't say much for their authorial abilities. It is easy to bask in the glow of awards being heaped upon you, but the true metal of a person comes in their defense of their work, be it to their reader, or to their peers. I have seen authors publically poke fun or even rant at readers who hate their work, but it means their work has generated a strong emotion, and what s wrong with that. Far worse for the author are the volumes that readers have simply set aside out of boredom, not even having the energy to complain that it's rubbish (eg, on Amazon).
All views are valid, but each of them are only one person's opinion. One should aim for a concensus of opinion, and not simply take one or two out of context.


- NaomiM

As somebody who thinks of myself as a reviewer rather than a critic, I am a bit bemused. It's not just books I 'crit' but films,plays, exhibitions and talks.

In your blanket condemnation of critics , Traveller, you miss out one of the functions that Naomi touches on - the role of the critic as informant. In my own case it's to the fore - who else is going to write about some obscure Chinese Hip Hop concert or report on a talk about Dragons on Imperial Silks? The readers want to know where it's on, who's performing and what to expect. In the case of the talk it might have been a one-off so the reader wants a kind of condensed version. For a performance,some kind of evaluation is required so readers know whether or not it's worth spending their money even though the genre etc. has been identified. It's in the evaluation that the so-called 'slating' might appear,and where the reviewer might give an honestly negative opinion.


Another use for critics that needs mentioning: enthusiasts for any art form like to read the critics for their own sake. I'm a subscriber to the TLS and London Review of Books, and I like reading the long evaluative articles because they're about topics that interest me. I'm likely to read only a fraction of what's covered. Similarly with Sight & Sound and the art gallery publications sent out by the RA,etc. The contributors are experts in their fields who can compare current works with past ones by the same artist or in similar styles.

At the very least, the critics are publicising the works they are writing about.

I agree that writers are less reliable when writing about other writers in their field. In fact, artists generally can't often see the merit in work other than their own and the bias is entirely understandable. Rivalry seems to play as big a part as personal taste. Writer-ritics like Philip Larkin and TS Eliot are not common, and it's no accident that the two are both poets. So I'd say no, that being a participant in the field is at times a definite disadvantage. I'd say the proper question is not how well have you written yourself but how widely read are you when it comes to books in general.

Sheila

I'd say the proper question is not how well have you written yourself but how widely read are you when it comes to books in general.

Excellent point, sheila.