Here's an excerpt from a Richard Schickel piece for the LA Times:
Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.
Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing. Very often, in the best reviews, opinion is conveyed without a judgmental word being spoken, because the review's highest business is to initiate intelligent dialogue about the work in question, beginning a discussion that, in some cases, will persist down the years, even down the centuries.
You can find the complete piece here. (I had some trouble setting up a link before.)
I'll add some comments later.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
This is an interesting choice, considering Cuban's take on professional journalists and blogging. I haven't read the entire piece bu my reaction from this snippet is that Schickel is a pretentious nitwit who doesn't understand the nature and purpose of serious criticism.
I've been a fan of Schickel's work since the '60s and have talked to the man a few times. I also think he's making a very good point, both in the excerpt and in the complete piece, which I have now posted a link for. While there is a place for basic meat-and-potatoes reviewing, and a lot of mine would fall in that category, it's also important to aspire to something finer. Otherwise, you're just offering filler to go with a number of stars or a letter grade that says everything readers should bother with.
There's as much difference, if not more, between literary criticism and book reviews as there is between book reviews and blogging. With his use of terms like "disciplined taste," "elite enterprise," and "trash culture," I would have placed this guy in the 1950s, not '60s.
Of course print reviewers will blame bloggers for the demise of the industry but the truth of the matter is, if reviewers were actually entertaining and educating, the question wouldn't even be asked. I'm excepting your work, of course.