“Doesn’t the integrity of the critic become compromised when their writings are consistently plagued with negativity? When the public is no longer surprised or excited by the unpredictability of the writer, but rather has grown to expect the same cynicism from the same cynic? When we can predict the same predictable review from the same predictable reviewer? Accomplished creators of fashion and music have a visceral effect on the world, which is consequently why they are publicly distinguished. So why do so many notable critics seem so impervious to the emotion of the work? Why such indifference? Does intellectualism replace feeling? It’s so easy to say something is bad. It’s so easy to write, “One star, hated it, worst show of the season.” It’s much more challenging to reckon with and analyze a work. It requires research, but maybe no one does their research anymore. So my question, V readers, is this: when does the critique or review become insult and not insight? Injury and not intellect?”
About Michael J. Faris
Assistant Professor of English with research areas in digital literacy, privacy and social media, and queering rhetorics.
This blog serves as a place to think through things, record thoughts, share interesting stuff, and hold conversations. Welcome!
Visit my electronic portfolio
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Elizeth on Bersani (2010): Is the Rectum a Grave?
- Joe Schicke on Robert Brooke on ‘underlife’
- Teaching/Learning in Progress: Thinking about the “Backchannel” – Liz Ahl on Robert Brooke on ‘underlife’
- Ariane on the idea of a writing center
- Editorial Pedagogy, pt. 1: A Professional Philosophy - Hybrid Pedagogy on Miller’s “Genre as Social Action”
Currently Reading
Last.fm Recent Listens