Thanks, Vince for the sermon, oops, I mean, for sharing with us your insightful thoughts on criticism in general. Funny, but your admission that you learned a lot of things from the critique of others (New York Times, etc.) made me learn a lot about criticism itself from your post. And I thought I learned a lot of things already in Literary Criticism in graduate school.
As a teacher, I do seek, nay, crave some form of critique from students, colleagues and even from the University grapevine to improve myself. Its funny because I sometimes get reactions from students concerning what I do in class that I don't consciously think about. Whether positive or negative comments, I welcome all because it gives me a chance to assess myself. Its like the title of Horace Silver's song: "permit me to introduce you to yourself". Its nice to know what students find special and distracting about me. And student evaluation of teachers are taken seriously even if students' comments are (most of the time) directly proportional to their final grades (Those who don't do well in class, criticize quite bitingly while those who get high grades offer paeans as comments. Either comments bring me back to orbit but I always prefer the latter.). Like you, I rely on a few critics whose way of dissecting and deconstructing a piece I respect (not necessarily agree with). But I realize that one gravitates towards critics whose perspectives coincide with your own. Although I am not suggesting I am even remotely in the same universe as she is/was, I like the late Pauline Kael's take on movies and the one review of hers that I virtually agreed with (and that later on became the reason why I seek out her reviews in other films) was GONE WITH THE WIND. My late father who himself was a cineaste raved about it and so did my mother and virtually every living soul I encountered. While I was awed by the epic sweep of the movie, I was oddly not touched by it. Kael said in one of her books that GWTW wasn't much and I was almost afraid for her because she just said things contrary to popular opinions of this classic film, and although I was not sure I understood everything she said about GWTW but I thought (in my moment of Warholian self-importance) I had this connection with her, no matter how impossibly fleeting. There were things she said in subsequent films that I disagreed but still respect. I don't think she was kowtowing to some producer or actress or cinematographer or director because she always spoke her mind and not worry about being critiqued by other critics or by the public. I read one of her last interviews in Premiere Magazine where she confessed that actually she felt bad being in a room or restaurant where a person she critiqued harshly was also in. She said it was painful but that, too bad, she had to say things based on how she saw it. I wonder how Gene Siskel, Paul Tatara, Peter Travers, Owen Gleiberman, Jay Cocks and even Libby Gelman Waxner (who in reality is really Paul Rudnick???) are holding up in these situations. As for books, I had this love/hate relationship with Michiko Kakutani. I read really nasty things she said about fiction writers (especially one of Jay McInerney's novels). But although I am this close to being repelled by her vitriol-spewing pen, she completely (ironically) convinced me with some of the things she said and I found myself agreeing, sometimes reluctantly (that type of silent agreement where your conscious self even refuses to acknowledge). And when McInerney lashed back at his critics in one Esquire Magazine issue, I was ambivalently happy and sad for the things he said against Kakutani and that other curmudgeon Jonathan Yardley. While I qualify as a McInerney fan, Kakutani's biting comments about his novels quite accurately hit the mark. Much as I dislike admitting this, I had a problem with authors appraising the work of fellow authors. I have this feeling that when they evaluate other authors' oeuvre, they are subtly saluting themselves in the process. I know its a sweeping generalization but I can't quite shake off that feeling, knowing fully well that many critics are authors themselves. I am not that comfortable when Joyce Carol Oates assesses Cynthia Ozick's non-linear works, but I like the point-by-point dissection of the innate similarities of Suzanne Vega's lyrics with that of minimalist poet/short story writer Raymond Carver. Its even trickier when I apply the same way I regard critics in the context of the academe. If a Peter Haggett from the Bristol School of Thought in Geography critiques the pioneering work of influential French geographer Paul Vidal de La Blache on regionalist theories, I would have a sneaking suspicion that Haggett's pro-thematic stand may have something to do with his thrashing La Blache's anti-topical stance. But of course, I am just assuming that THAT was his motive. Bottom line: I would rather that a person do not come from the same field as the one whose work he/she is evaluating. I prefer someone with a more or less sound grounding on the same field but can see beyond the politics of academic turfing and analyze if indeed there are hidden agenda involved or there is only misreading and miscontruing. But are there that many people who can competently gauge a person's critique against another and not embroil himself/herself in the process? Even as I say this I have to realize that usually the best people to give a sound critique of another person's work are those who work in the same field, but ..... Anyway, thanks very much Vince for making me introspect in ways I wouldn't imagine doing. And just for the record, I always like versions of Joni's songs where artists take her song to new planes or levels. I quite can't stand straight readings, especially those who (consciously or not) copy Joni's inflections. I havent said so to Bob M. yet but I do like Lydia van Dam, Jacqui Fitzgerald and Counting Crow's versions of Joni's songs. They take them to places that makes the listeners renew their appreciation of these songs (By the way, thanks Bob! your CDs arrived today and the graphics and careful attention to small details are much appreciated. I see you as a meticulous producer someday. Really.). Joseph in Manila (unusually talkative lately ... must be due to the northeast monsoon)
