Some remarks on criticism

“The whole point of viewing something critically is the shock of recognition that comes from the intersubjectity of two unique sensibilities — the critic’s (or, ideally, every reader’s) and the artist’s. If the reader is merely a supplicant before the art, he’s doing neither himself nor the artist any favors. If he respects the artist and himself, the reader (the critic!) brings his own worldview, his own philosophical orientation to bear on the art and, in the event, perfection and idolatry ought rightly to be looked on with some suspicion. Heretical as this sounds, appreciation could be made even more pungent and challenging when there’s some friction between the reader’s perceptions and the artist’s expression.”
- Gary Groth, “A Bill of Goods (or ‘Why The Death of Criticism Couldn’t Have Come At a Worse Time’)”

“Lots of first-rate literary criticism has been written by people who are monolingual, or who read lots of novels but almost no poems, or who have no political concerns, or who are philosophically illiterate, or who have little sense of what happened in history. Good criticism is a matter of bouncing some of the books you have read off the rest of the books you have read. The greater number of books you have read, and the more various they are, the likelier it is that the criticism you write will be of interest. But there is no natural order of priority, nor is there any set of methodological precepts, that should guide your decisions about which books to read first. All you can do is follow your nose.”
- Richard Rorty, “Looking Back at Literary Theory”

















