
By Gage Henry
By Gage Henry
The role of a critic is both a privilege and responsibility, and a good one finds the agreement between the two. It is a privilege in that one is able to revel in the arts, mull over their impressions and opinions about their subject and then get paid to write about it. However, it is also their responsibility to see that their particular voice acts as a guide to help the reader find their own thoughts about the matter at hand-- not to spoon feed how they should think about it. A critic's personality is a beautiful and powerful tool that is often abused, hording the focus on the critic rather than the actual review.
This means the critic must do two things. Firstly, for the sake of what is being reviewed, the reviewer's goal must be to critique rather than judge. The process of a review is always constructive, picking out the good and bad from a book or film rather than harping on only one of these traits. While an overarching opinion is necessary for the critic's flow, one should never be swayed into the notion that something is flawless or without any redeeming qualities. Flexing such absolutism is the best way to lose credibility.
Secondly, the critic should present their verdict in a fashion that most intelligent human beings can understand-- ahem, that means you, Times book critics. This is where the critic must be confident, but not condescending. Every publication has a target audience, but a review can stray only so far from the conversational tone before its words fly over the readers' heads.
Bottom line: the critic should never elevate themselves above their subject or audience, but should be working to fan the flame of the publication or genre they are reviewing.
No comments:
Post a Comment