.
| Hearsay: |
Shirley Dent has balls. Big brass ones. They chime while she walks. And she’s not afraid to chuck ‘em in your face.
My idea: it kind of helps if you know some stuff about history when tackling literature. It helps even more if you have a sense of what history is. Oh – and a good dollop of critical judgment, coupled with the courage to tell people they are wrong, never goes amiss.
This apparently was too much for some of my peers. It seems the spectre of relativism – the idea that there is no such thing as an objective judgment, everyone’s opinion having the same value as everyone else’s – is roaming free once again. The notion that some ideas in history matter more than others was sniffed at. My assertion that Enlightenment ideas were a step up from what went before was greeted with horror. And as for the concept that academics really should challenge and push their students – well, what kind of loon was I?
I heartily support ballsy critics, but only when what they’re doing is reasoned criticism instead of academic jargon-laced posturing or wallowing in jealousy or contrarianism. In Canada, our critical culture is somewhat subdued by our over-sensitive tendency to take everything personally, as well as a general sense of horror at anything that seems like conflict. There seems to be a growing caste of writer/critics (though I’m not one of them), some of whom are the real deal and others who are just self-styled superheroes, fighting Injustice (see posturing/jealousy/contrarianism above) in their own cartoon universe. You know, the kind of people who have their own anthem running in their heads when they write. I’m more of a book reviewer and very occasional essayist than an actual critic, but I support the work of the best of these people — think, in fact, that it’s invaluable. I sometimes think of the more painfully confrontational essays as “taking one for the team” — like stopping a puck with your face or taking a particularly vicious crosscheck — a victory that’s sure to start another fight. Some of my favourite ballsy critics in Canada are Carmine Starnino, Philip Marchand, Bert Archer and Zach Wells. Actually, I think that may be all of them. Oh wait, there’s Henigan at Geist and James Grainger in the Star. Out here on The Rock, Mark Callanan has been known to let fly with a fearless barage or two. Can you think of anyone else unafraid of risking limb and career on their criticism?
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
August 8th, 2007 at 8:23 am
David Solway has some ball-swinging essays that give me gooseflesh they’re so harrowing and well written. Some of the best are collected in Director’s Cuts.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Oh, sorry, let me amend that: “Can you think of anyone else unafraid of risking limb and career on their criticism, who isn’t doing it for one of the cited wrong reasons (posturing/jealousy/contrarianism)?”
:)
August 8th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Having “the balls” to say something provocative belongs to the realm of punditry (located somewhere across the loch from the mythical realm of your choice). There’s a reason Colbert’s always asking if someone has the balls to agree with his utterly immoveable position.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Solway may be guilty of posturing and contrarianism but it’s a tough sell to say categorically more so than Starnino. Plus his taste is pretty impeccable and for every poet he knocks he’s usually got (a worthy) one to tout — Peter van Toorn’s Mountain Tea and Eric Ormsby’s Araby are perennial favourites. His critical prose might be self-indulgent and he has the unsavoury tendency to come across like a jerk, true, but I don’t think all of his criticism can be written off as mean-spirited ax-grinding.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Never mind the bollocks. I think it’s more interesting to read her assertion that students of literature should have some knowledge of history. It’s a realization I’ve come to only after two degrees and the growing realization that I’m a bit of a fraud, because I might know about theory and shit, but I can’t place a work in the proper historical context if my life depended on it. I don’t know if students should even be allowed to study English lit until they’ve got some significant history under their belts.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
No, but who has time to wade through all the self-indulgence, jerkiness and pomposity just to find a morsel of praise for Peter Van Toorn? And don’t get me wrong. I love Van Toorn’s work, but one can only eat so much salt for a spoonful of sugar.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Please since when does it take balls to repeat the status quo? Starnino and Marchand say nothing new. They repeat ad nauseum some old ideas they think stand for ´great literature´. As if literature is fixed in ether or as if any great writer practicing in his time is ever approved by hi contemporarycritics. We should all run in the opposite direction to the clanging of their balls.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Of course. Big brass curlies would be pretty noticeable if stuck in one’s teeth.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Me.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
What about all those who make snide remarks about Margaret Atwood, even when they are reviewing someone else?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
They’ve all mysteriously disappeared.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:41 am
and all those who made snide remarks about ondaatje even when reviewing someone else.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:12 am
This discussion about “ballsy critics” presupposes that it’s possible to have a career, and one that can be advanced or hindered.
The infrastructure of reviewing and criticism in Canada is so scattered, inchoate, and insubstantial that reviewers or critics who seek to make use of it will quickly find themselves on the road to nowhere.
By “infrastructure” I mean not just the paucity of outlets for reviewing and criticism but the absence of meaningful dialogue between writers and readers, or between writers, so that standards,judgement, and taste are reduced to shallow opinions, self-promotion, and the joining of lineups for prizes and grants.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
A little new thinking would go a long way to making a career F. Touting Les Murray as the best poet in the english language just because he is anti-left is a joke. Not meaningful at all. A little cold war warrior. What would you have said about Lorca!
But I give you that about the paucity of outlets and the low level of talk among people who seem to want to imitate – what, they´re not sure of – so they´re careful not to say much. But let me add that the editors of the outlets that do exist seem lazy and afraid of that talk, no? And those that have careers are probably holding on for dear life so no new blood comes in.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Book reviewing also doesn’t pay very well. The lousy pay is another disincentive to writing good book reviews.