<<Anyway, if a critic writes well, and backs up his or
her statements,
whether they like the book or not, chances are you'll be able
to decide
if you'll like it. A good critic should let you know whether
they liked
something, and leave it up to you to decide if you
will.>>
Certainly the critic cannot be criticized for
criticizing...However, a
book review should not be mainly an opportunity for the
critic to talk
about himself and his own problems and obsessions. I don't
think good
criticism is possible without some distance.
At the same time, unless the reviewer is a complete hack who
will give
an opinion on anything once the proverbial nickel has
dropped, one
assumes a certain affinity for the genre. If that affinity
becomes
complicity, we get a classic, worthless "you scratch my back,
I'll
scratch yours" review. If there is no affinity or, worse,
there is an a
priori hostility towards the genre, the review becomes a form
of public
denunciation.
Joyce Carol Oates=92s appreciation of the hardboiled genre
can be gauged
from her statement in her review of Chandler:
=93What is badly needed for the edition is an introductory
essay of some
depth, an overview of the mystery-detective genre and an
assessment of
Chandler's seminal place in it, and, still more, a balanced
assessment
of Chandler's significance, if any, in American literature.
Chandler's
use of Hemingway (whom he rather gracelessly parodies in
Farewell, My
Lovely) might well be investigated. The phenomenon of Raymond
Chandler
raises an interesting question: Can one be a "major" figure
in a "minor"
field?--a "great" writer in a genre in which there is very
little
competition for "greatness". There has always seemed an
element of
special pleading in Chandler criticism, as if the flaws and
infelicities
in his novels were somehow not relevant.Is the canonization
of Chandler
by the Library of America a sentimental gesture, a quirky
misstep?=94
Get that knife out. She also complains about the inclusion of
Chandler's
short stories from the pulps in the Library of America
collection,
saying that those crude stories really try the patience of
the most
generous reader. This leads me to believe that Joyce has
no
understanding of the genre - for Chandler's pulp stories are
among the
glories of that era. She also complains about Chandler's (or
rather,
Chandler's characters, a distinction she ignores) using
racist and
sexist terms. I understand her disgust at this, but
Chandler's usage is
not unlike that of many writers of that era - and much later.
If I
recall correctly, a classic like Hemingway's _The Sun Also
Rises_ is
quite offensive in this respect.It's sloppy of a critic not
to take
history into account. If there was rampant racism and sexism
(and there
was, undoubtedly), why condemn a writer for drawing
characters from the
world that he knew?
By the way, I did find the electronic file of this review,
and I'll
e-mail it to anyone who wants to read it. Posting it,
however, would
violate the copyright.
Regards,
MT
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.