Asymmetrical Information

I found his "bitesized commentary, which is all the blog form allows" comment amusing. Apparently he's never read the old USS Clueless, or the still-running Neo-Neocon or Dr. Sanity. None of those bloggers' posts could be described as "bitesized".

That said, book reviewing *does* lag online, doesn't it? I read far more than I go to movies, but I could easily reel off a dozen film-related sites from Rotten Tomatoes to IMDB, while the only source of book information I can think of is Amazon.

A fine blog that often covers books and movies is Sheila O'Malley. Her style is quite different from the typical newspaper or magazine review, but who edicted that form as the only acceptable one?

Kind of makes you wonder about the value of "literary criticism" :-)

The newspaper in its present form is a product of several technologies: the high-speed printing press, the linotype/phototypesetter, the telegraph/teleprinter, and the wirephoto machine. People in this industry mistake the product of a temporary covergence of forces for something eternal.

In general, incumbent industries do not deal well with disruptive technolgies. Christensen & Raynor describe the phenomenon very well in their book "The Innovator's Solution." Their examples include minimills vs big steel, and the transistor vs the vacuum tube. The same principles apply to the current media situation.

My review of the Christensen/Raynor book here.

The bite-sized commentary of the Amazon reviews apparently has a large following. It is not literary criticism, but it does give people information that is useful to them.

Hold on...someone making an argument about elite literary criticism supports that argument by claiming that popularity determines value? I'm boggled. I'm gobsmacked. I'm highly amused.

For another, bitesized commentary, which is all the blog form allows

Steven Den Beste and Bill Whittle, among others, don't seem to have gotten this memo.

It seems as if it would be instructive to separate the ideas of 'Book Reviews' and 'literary critique' ... In terms of books, there is a whole world of online review out there, it's just that it often exists within an individuals personal sphere. In that sphere is a mix of people you know personally and people whose opinions you come to value on other topics, who happen to recommend a book. A peer review if you will. This is similar to the Way Amazon works as well, the pair forming the backbone of what many people listen to for reading suggestions. This is very different that the 'Expert pronouncement from on high, recited in Latin no doubt, far too difficult fo the average person to comprehend...' The average reader may not be interested in what is beyond the book review, Making the literary critique a small share of a market. I think Mr. Literary Culture fails to realize that the internets are the PRIME place for such niche writings in the future, and the person to embrace them early and move their readers to them, will dominate. Print media is contracting, and those that plan ahead will survive. [eww, what a cliche :D ]

The other strange point is how the blog form is not well suited... The blog is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be a quick run-and-gun thing, unless you make it that. There is no difference between the longform writing of print over blog in execution. How the reader reads it is another thing. That is where the ship is missed... You should do not only print, but also blog. So the fair reader who curls up to read in their favorite chair, gets what they want, and the person who spends much time at a computer also gets what they can use. There is virtually no difference in price to the Critic, and the potential of a much broader audience.

win/win?

perhaps everyone would be happier if we were forced to read by the romance of gas light as well, to set the proper mood...

Bite-sized commentary: literary criticism is the exclusive province of pretentious hacks who can't write for shit themselves.

Period.

Are we supposed to read a book length commentary by an expert about a book to decide if we want to read the book?

Literary critic is not going to be my post-retirement career.

"Are we supposed to read a book length commentary by an expert about a book to decide if we want to read the book?"

No, no, no. You read the book-length commentary to see whether or not you should like the book.

I think Mr. Kirsch's piece speaks to the arrogance of many literary critics.

"Literary criticism is only worth having if it at least strives to be literary in its own right, with a scope, complexity, and authority that no blogger I know even wants to achieve."

Think of all the assumptions that go into this single statement. Exactly what percentage of bloggers does he personally observe? The variety of formats and shear quantity of blogs available ensures that at least a few have a style that agrees with even the literary set's pretentious tastes.

How exactly does Mr. Kirsch wish to define "scope, complexity, and authority"? Many of the attributes of quality writing are dependent on the purpose and context of a work. More importantly quality of writing is in large part subjective. Mr. Kirsch implies that he and his ilk have dominion over judging the merit of literary criticism.

In my experience, English professors tend to see anything long winded and circuitous as "deep and profound" writing. Thus, keeping "literary culture" within the purview of those who have the time and patience available to dissect purposely obfuscated writing.

This mindset among those who define "quality literature" (i. e. literary critics and English professors ) has contributed to the decline of communication skills. High school students are forced to ignore good communication in favor of works declared "great" by the literary gate keepers. The general population and many professional literati could learn from the clear, concise writing style of the best bloggers (i.e. Tyler Cowen, Virginia Postrel, or the late Cathy Seipp).

I think Mr. Kirsch's piece speaks to the arrogance of many literary critics.

"Literary criticism is only worth having if it at least strives to be literary in its own right, with a scope, complexity, and authority that no blogger I know even wants to achieve."

Think of all the assumptions that go into this single statement. Exactly what percentage of bloggers does he personally observe? The variety of formats and shear quantity of blogs available ensures that at least a few have a style that agrees with even the literary set's pretentious tastes.

How exactly does Mr. Kirsch wish to define "scope, complexity, and authority"? Many of the attributes of quality writing are dependent on the purpose and context of a work. More importantly quality of writing is in large part subjective. Mr. Kirsch implies that he and his ilk have dominion over judging the merit of literary criticism.

In my experience, English professors tend to see anything long winded and circuitous as "deep and profound" writing. Thus, keeping "literary culture" within the purview of those who have the time and patience available to dissect purposely obfuscated writing.

This mindset among those who define "quality literature" (i. e. literary critics and English professors ) has contributed to the decline of communication skills. High school students are forced to ignore good communication in favor of works declared "great" by the literary gate keepers. The general population and many professional literati could learn from the clear, concise writing style of the best bloggers (i.e. Tyler Cowen, Virginia Postrel, or the late Cathy Seipp).

We've all written book reports in school. I can see someone doing that for a living - it sure beats wearing funny clothes and asking, "do you want fries with that" - but not for fun. Nor do I expect very many people to read such reports, aside from teachers grading them.

One exception: there are over-pretentious literary works that it would be fun to trash, and fun to read a well-written trashing. But somehow I suspect Adam Kirsch would not appreciate that kind of criticism.

And advertisers intentionally confuse circulation with the # of people that actually pick up the paper and read more than 2-3 pages of it.