I think criticism is good when it is legitimately constructive, when the author substantiates his viewpoint. One thing that's bothered me about film criticism in the last 20 years is how it felt that most critics had stopped trying to actually prove their points, sometimes boiling down their works to 'it sucks, it sucks so much' but offering no evidence or making their critiques personal, attacking the author rather than the work.
I sometimes think this kind of criticism happens because too few critics have the breadth of knowledge required to explain why something succeeds or fails, whether it be literature or film or whatever else.
I find this especially with books, where praise is almost always universal and negative reviews are discouraged (when I was a book reviewer, I had multiple venues tell me they didn't want to publish negative reviews). But so I'll read a book with mountains of praise (sometimes award winners!) for its originality, the freshness of its voice, etc and I'm often left wondering if these critics have ever read a book published before 1990.
On one hand, I understand it. So many books go quietly unread and forgotten that people don't want to rub it in.
Of course, one of the primary drivers is that most book reviews are written by fellow writers and there may be professional consequences for negatively reviewing one of your peers.
For the most part, you really only see negative reviews of writers of a certain stature. Eviscerating Joyce Carol Oates' new novel, for example, may actually catapult your career, and since JCO is already famous and well established, she's fair game.
There are things I just won't read (or watch) anymore, no matter how well done. I appreciate the critics who understand that and can send out a warning along with whatever appreciation they have for the creator's work.
I haven't read A Little Life (yet?) but I already have the impression that's its just like you say - trauma porn. Now, I don't think having trauma in a book is bad in and of itself, and sometimes might even make the reader reflect upon what they are reading and the world around them, but I don't really like it when it's just use as... idek what to call it. Plot bait? I'm sure there are other things of A Little Life that are good, but that gets completely overshadowed by the trauma. It's all I hear about - one of the top suggestions on Google is "A little life trigger warnings". Everyone on BookTok says it will "break your heart" and you'll "cry your eyes out" - and what bothers me is that most of those are white teen girls. Nothing wrong with white teen girls ofc but it makes me think: is this book not only trauma porn, but also fetishising gays/queer ppl and our (very real!) struggles? As a queer person I don't want to be fetishised or infantilised, which is something that has been happening to us for a while now on the Internet. It's weird to me if a woman author exclusively writes about gay teen men with hard lives. Or rich gay men who need to keep their relationship secret lest they be found out as homosexuals *gasp*! (looking at you, Casey McQuiston). Maybe I'm taking "write what you know" to the extreme here, but it would be nice to have queer media for queer people BY queer people! (not saying Yanagihara isn't queer - I really don't know her). Anyway, good piece as always Ryan. I don't think I'll pick up A Little Life any time soon, but I miiight be persuaded to read To Paradise if I see some exceptionally good reviews.
Thanks so much! I totally agree that trauma in a book is not inherently negative. I don't even care if a book is wallowing in it like this one seems to do. My problem is when that just seems to be used for cheap/quick emotional payoff. Throwing torture spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks and pull on a reader's heartstrings. It's almost like the literature version of exploitation cinema, the difference being that exploitation films don't pretend to be something they're not. As for the "right what you know stuff. . . " I tend to be really torn about that. I have no problem with a writer creating characters that don't match their own identities (otherwise all books would be filled with tedious characters, and I think there should be room for writers to explore and even occasionally get those identities wrong/learn), but it does start to weird me out when all of their characters in every book are about that different identity. I agree that it comes off a little fetishistic (is that a word?). Sort of like when a straight person watches a bunch of Drag Race and suddenly tries to talk to you using slang they picked up from the show. If you end up picking up Paradise, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!
Hahah "torture spaghetti"! And yeah, I don't mind authors writing characters that do not match their own identity and life experiences - otherwise the literary world would be very boring! - but I think some writers take it too far. When there is little to no difference between characters or the author writes an overwhelming amount of work about a single character type/trait/identity (such as tortured gay men, to say an example) I start to think it's getting a little weird... Like "he lamented homosexually in his dead secret lovers arms" is the new "she walked breastly down the stairs with her huge feminine breasts" to me.
Great piece! Totally agree that the refusal to engage with "problematic" art is counterproductive to critique, and I think that good criticism works from the opposite impulse -- even eviscerating a pice of art like Chu does is a way of meaningfully engaging with it.
Love it! I’ve never been a professional reviewer but for a while Boardgames we’re my primary hobby and I met a theater critic. I loved his boardgame reviews because he always brought something else to the table.
It was more than here’s the rules, here’s the gameplay, thumbs up/down....which is especially unnecessary in the era of ubiquitous video reviews.
On my own blog, I try to write a little something about every book I read - the good reads level of criticism - but I really get excited when my brain spins off and uses the text as the basis of other related thoughts.
Totally! And I should clarify that when I say professional review, I don’t necessarily mean someone who is paid to write in a paper of record. I just mean any review that goes into more substance or detail than the average few sentences of a product review
Ahh! Makes sense. Bringing something new to the table is my goal every time I write my notes. Otherwise what’s the point? There back of the book and inside flap already covered all that!
But I’m not above blaming the book as mundane if I don’t get there - even if it’s more often the fault of the reader for not paying close attention as I read!
Loved this as someone who has been in and out and back in and on and on of the review game, this perspective is so important. I’ve stopped reviewing almost completely because I’m just not wanting to deal with the people mad that I didn’t love the thing they did or that I enjoyed something they deemed not ok to like. It’s frustrating and frankly frightening a bit since, as you said, some of the backlash can get pretty serious and nasty. Great read!
Thanks! And that's totally understandable. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed your thoughts on Annihilation even though we have opposite opinions on the movie
Aww! I appreciate you saying that. And that's exactly how I wish things WOULD be more often, people able to not only be ok with others having different opinions but also appreciating those opinions even though they aren't shared. I'm sure I'll post reviews of other stuff soon, but you are spot on with your thoughts about criticism and it makes me nervous to want to get back in that pool!
I think one parallel problem to Stan culture online is the general reluctance to be negative with regard to books. Every book has the same kind of blurbs with nearly identical praise and generally positive reviews (assuming it even has an institutional reviews). When I was a book reviewer, I was often the *only* reviewer of certain books and the thinking among the magazines that published these reviews was best summed up as: Its hard enough to get people to pay attention to book, so why be negative?
And so my negative reviews were often turned into interviews with the author where I became sort of a neutral interlocutor.
Then there is the serious issue that criticism has become, for many venues, recommendations more than a serious endeavor to analyze craft, style, theme, etc. And this is across media types, but you especially see it in websites like Polygon or AV Club and so on.
Which then dovetails with financial incentives. Polygon, for example, is a subsidiary of Vox Media, which is owned by Comcast, which owns a bunch of production companies. And even the Literary Hub, which is where a lot of people now get their book news, is owned by Grove Atlantic.
And maybe these chains of financial incentives don't impact the work (lol), but it should give readers pause on what this means for criticism to consumers and artists, let alone whether criticism in these environments even attempts to be anything but a way to generate ad revenue.
I think criticism is good when it is legitimately constructive, when the author substantiates his viewpoint. One thing that's bothered me about film criticism in the last 20 years is how it felt that most critics had stopped trying to actually prove their points, sometimes boiling down their works to 'it sucks, it sucks so much' but offering no evidence or making their critiques personal, attacking the author rather than the work.
I sometimes think this kind of criticism happens because too few critics have the breadth of knowledge required to explain why something succeeds or fails, whether it be literature or film or whatever else.
I find this especially with books, where praise is almost always universal and negative reviews are discouraged (when I was a book reviewer, I had multiple venues tell me they didn't want to publish negative reviews). But so I'll read a book with mountains of praise (sometimes award winners!) for its originality, the freshness of its voice, etc and I'm often left wondering if these critics have ever read a book published before 1990.
Wow. I wasn't aware that negative book reviews are discouraged.
That explains some things.
On one hand, I understand it. So many books go quietly unread and forgotten that people don't want to rub it in.
Of course, one of the primary drivers is that most book reviews are written by fellow writers and there may be professional consequences for negatively reviewing one of your peers.
For the most part, you really only see negative reviews of writers of a certain stature. Eviscerating Joyce Carol Oates' new novel, for example, may actually catapult your career, and since JCO is already famous and well established, she's fair game.
Anyway, I wrote more about it here: https://brbjdo.substack.com/p/negative-reviews-are-good
There are things I just won't read (or watch) anymore, no matter how well done. I appreciate the critics who understand that and can send out a warning along with whatever appreciation they have for the creator's work.
Absolutely. Euphoria looks great, but I know it'll be too much for me, so I just read the articles about it.
I haven't read A Little Life (yet?) but I already have the impression that's its just like you say - trauma porn. Now, I don't think having trauma in a book is bad in and of itself, and sometimes might even make the reader reflect upon what they are reading and the world around them, but I don't really like it when it's just use as... idek what to call it. Plot bait? I'm sure there are other things of A Little Life that are good, but that gets completely overshadowed by the trauma. It's all I hear about - one of the top suggestions on Google is "A little life trigger warnings". Everyone on BookTok says it will "break your heart" and you'll "cry your eyes out" - and what bothers me is that most of those are white teen girls. Nothing wrong with white teen girls ofc but it makes me think: is this book not only trauma porn, but also fetishising gays/queer ppl and our (very real!) struggles? As a queer person I don't want to be fetishised or infantilised, which is something that has been happening to us for a while now on the Internet. It's weird to me if a woman author exclusively writes about gay teen men with hard lives. Or rich gay men who need to keep their relationship secret lest they be found out as homosexuals *gasp*! (looking at you, Casey McQuiston). Maybe I'm taking "write what you know" to the extreme here, but it would be nice to have queer media for queer people BY queer people! (not saying Yanagihara isn't queer - I really don't know her). Anyway, good piece as always Ryan. I don't think I'll pick up A Little Life any time soon, but I miiight be persuaded to read To Paradise if I see some exceptionally good reviews.
Thanks so much! I totally agree that trauma in a book is not inherently negative. I don't even care if a book is wallowing in it like this one seems to do. My problem is when that just seems to be used for cheap/quick emotional payoff. Throwing torture spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks and pull on a reader's heartstrings. It's almost like the literature version of exploitation cinema, the difference being that exploitation films don't pretend to be something they're not. As for the "right what you know stuff. . . " I tend to be really torn about that. I have no problem with a writer creating characters that don't match their own identities (otherwise all books would be filled with tedious characters, and I think there should be room for writers to explore and even occasionally get those identities wrong/learn), but it does start to weird me out when all of their characters in every book are about that different identity. I agree that it comes off a little fetishistic (is that a word?). Sort of like when a straight person watches a bunch of Drag Race and suddenly tries to talk to you using slang they picked up from the show. If you end up picking up Paradise, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!
Hahah "torture spaghetti"! And yeah, I don't mind authors writing characters that do not match their own identity and life experiences - otherwise the literary world would be very boring! - but I think some writers take it too far. When there is little to no difference between characters or the author writes an overwhelming amount of work about a single character type/trait/identity (such as tortured gay men, to say an example) I start to think it's getting a little weird... Like "he lamented homosexually in his dead secret lovers arms" is the new "she walked breastly down the stairs with her huge feminine breasts" to me.
LMFAO
Great piece! Totally agree that the refusal to engage with "problematic" art is counterproductive to critique, and I think that good criticism works from the opposite impulse -- even eviscerating a pice of art like Chu does is a way of meaningfully engaging with it.
Love it! I’ve never been a professional reviewer but for a while Boardgames we’re my primary hobby and I met a theater critic. I loved his boardgame reviews because he always brought something else to the table.
It was more than here’s the rules, here’s the gameplay, thumbs up/down....which is especially unnecessary in the era of ubiquitous video reviews.
On my own blog, I try to write a little something about every book I read - the good reads level of criticism - but I really get excited when my brain spins off and uses the text as the basis of other related thoughts.
Totally! And I should clarify that when I say professional review, I don’t necessarily mean someone who is paid to write in a paper of record. I just mean any review that goes into more substance or detail than the average few sentences of a product review
Ahh! Makes sense. Bringing something new to the table is my goal every time I write my notes. Otherwise what’s the point? There back of the book and inside flap already covered all that!
But I’m not above blaming the book as mundane if I don’t get there - even if it’s more often the fault of the reader for not paying close attention as I read!
Loved this as someone who has been in and out and back in and on and on of the review game, this perspective is so important. I’ve stopped reviewing almost completely because I’m just not wanting to deal with the people mad that I didn’t love the thing they did or that I enjoyed something they deemed not ok to like. It’s frustrating and frankly frightening a bit since, as you said, some of the backlash can get pretty serious and nasty. Great read!
Thanks! And that's totally understandable. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed your thoughts on Annihilation even though we have opposite opinions on the movie
Aww! I appreciate you saying that. And that's exactly how I wish things WOULD be more often, people able to not only be ok with others having different opinions but also appreciating those opinions even though they aren't shared. I'm sure I'll post reviews of other stuff soon, but you are spot on with your thoughts about criticism and it makes me nervous to want to get back in that pool!
I think one parallel problem to Stan culture online is the general reluctance to be negative with regard to books. Every book has the same kind of blurbs with nearly identical praise and generally positive reviews (assuming it even has an institutional reviews). When I was a book reviewer, I was often the *only* reviewer of certain books and the thinking among the magazines that published these reviews was best summed up as: Its hard enough to get people to pay attention to book, so why be negative?
And so my negative reviews were often turned into interviews with the author where I became sort of a neutral interlocutor.
Then there is the serious issue that criticism has become, for many venues, recommendations more than a serious endeavor to analyze craft, style, theme, etc. And this is across media types, but you especially see it in websites like Polygon or AV Club and so on.
Which then dovetails with financial incentives. Polygon, for example, is a subsidiary of Vox Media, which is owned by Comcast, which owns a bunch of production companies. And even the Literary Hub, which is where a lot of people now get their book news, is owned by Grove Atlantic.
And maybe these chains of financial incentives don't impact the work (lol), but it should give readers pause on what this means for criticism to consumers and artists, let alone whether criticism in these environments even attempts to be anything but a way to generate ad revenue.